is not unique to credit reports. another one of my colleagues at virginia has a recent paper with them the box, and another that if you have access to criminal records, employment goes down, because people assume skin color is correlated with a crime. they are overestimating the correlation, that seems to be what is going on. can't remember the name off the top of my head, but the paper showed that laws that restricted the use of drug testing, minority employment goes down. if you encourage drug testing, minority employment goes up. there may some expressive purposes, although we should recognize that our expressive purposes have real costs, or at

least they could did is are all working papers, and empirical studies never prove things with certainty. we do the best we can. there are real benefits to help the people we want to help with the use of credit reports in implement -- employment. i'm working with 2 colleagues in the econ department. it seems to show that if you put these laws into place, people who have trouble making the payments in the past, people who missed payments, utility payments, their employment goes up. it is consistent with the study of some people in sweden. one of the studies that shows harm to minority employment shows employment in zip codes that census tract with -- track bad credit, that seems to go up. their distributional questions -- there are distributional

questions. >> this question is about the study -- breno? study ona did a this extensive on debt collection. it was phenomenally disproportionate to white residents in the regions across the country, and they did it do it -- didn't do it regionally. i like the regional focus. they weren't finding discrimination and they also weren't finding any variable they could pinpoint on the collector's part, but what struck me was the wealth differential. these were low-asset communities, meaning they had lower buffers on their homes, family-owned homes.

i wonder, if you study that correlation -- that seemed more intuitive and obvious that health care costs, because those are more bundled in. the other thing i wonder, if nevada is a different issue, because the prevalence of gambling and whatnot, and maybe just putting that aside, if you could match assets with the other regions. mr. braga: last question first. about nevada, that is probably true, but nevada during the greater the session -- great recession, one of the states where the housing market went badly, and if you remember our data from september 2013, the data collection could happen before that. part of it is the gambling industry, but part of it is it affected the housing market there. on your first question, i think it is very interesting. wealthould get data on

by census tract in this country, i would love to do that. racial wealth gap is tremendous. i'm sure that explains the racial patterns we see. i don't think we have data -- we states, thata by would be interesting, but not at the senses tra -- census track level. >> data on home equity. even have the mortgages. mr. braga: right. places where the home value is high, lower share of collection. for the assets, yes. >> majority of assets in the home. .ot invested in stock mr. braga: homeownership is also

lower in four places. have of poor people don't homes. they rent. ms. johnson: any other questions? yes? cre, and one for you, a couple of questions on michael's study. before i read your paper, i read press articles about the effects you reference. i'm wondering if you had seen anything about certain states trying to take action against this in anyway, after they see people with essentially criminal that going through the court system can showing up in t jail system. and michael, to your point about

, one bit of an maryland is one of the highest filing districts in the country. that higher rate has been linked with pastors telling their parishioners that it is ok to file, i will help you. acrossalks with pastors the country, they cover for their own church's bankruptcy by saying "i hope my own version -- i help my parishioners with isir own debt now," and it not a moral failing to file for bankruptcy. it is almost a business decision at some point. which is sort of goes my question about michael and his study. in the about it

beginning and now that you have data i was wondering, following up on the work in particular about people justifying their filings and bankruptcy stigma, it is -- is what you are fighting consistent with what she found in previous years about how people talk about their filings and what they file to get out from under the stigma and shame of filing for bankruptcy? also, how do they get to the legal aid office? what is the networking that gets people from "hey, i have a financial problem" to "i am going to file for bankruptcy"? thank you. ms. johnson: the interesting part about the church thing is i actually think there is a racial difference. person thatlar advised against bankruptcy was white. primarilyce were

white evangelicals. in thatually think that universe, when i am talking about my practice of law, i'm talking about convincing white people that it is ok for them to file bankruptcy. when it comes to african-americans, eventually just hit a wall. you just can't go on. i think it is a good thing that i'm hearing that some churches are telling folks this is ok, because that is what i have been saying all along, that this is a good thing, because now you are going to be able to shed some debt, manage going forward, and avoid getting to this problem in the future. and so what i wanted to ask also any people that -- that is part of what i am talking about.

i'm talking about collection taxes that include threatening people with being arrested. have you seen any of that? mr. sousa: let me take them in reverse order, i guess. people are being hounded by their creditors, but i have not heard a story about threats of criminalization or criminal mission. the tactics people use are in the literature already. i don't use my phone, i don't answer my mail, when there was a knock on the door i hide under the covers. but i've not heard a story of actually threatening me with criminalization to your findings are interesting to me because it is one step more aggregated to collecting the debt. aidthey get to the legal office is interesting good this legal aid office doesn't

advertise. they have a little sandwich board on the curb in front of the street on the main strip people drive through. like ais in chalk, sandwich board at a shop to get food or soup. they invariably tell me that i've driven past this place 10 or 12 times and i always thought about going in, but i was too scared or didn't think i was ready. and then another call comes, and the stress on the psychology of it, and the monkey on the back of not getting out of it compels them to say i feel better walking in. one thing i didn't have time to discuss is the legal aid office designs itself not to look fancy. the attorneys sometimes wear golfs, flip-flops, jeans, shirts, and they do it purposely to create a welcoming, nonjudgmental atmosphere. when people finally take that

step in, they feel glad about that, going back to my other finding about feeling judged. they either see the sandwich board, or it is watercooler talk. they note a friend who has filed or someone at the job was filed and that assuages the concern about filing in the first place. i thinks stigma goes, they are coherent and congruent in the sense that making moral boundaries between myself and someone else is a flip for making justifications or people filewhy for bankruptcy. the stigma is still there, the need for making accounts and saving face is still there. it is not a random sample. i can't generalize. but it seems at least to me that some people are getting more comfortable with filing because of the watercooler talk. it is not just a bad experience.

questions?: no more one last question? >> [indiscernible] [laughter] more of a suggestion than a question. i have in the back of my mind through all the talks, the stigma of filing for bankruptcy, so is there any way to use the big data to get a sense of michael's story of the watercooler effects in lowering the stigma of bankruptcy? is there some threshold for a population of people in their community or the number of people filing for bankruptcy that reduces the stigma?

mr. braga: you can see how, given the behavior of your community, condition on that what the likelihood to declare bankruptcy, something like that. yeah, i think that is interesting. arempirically pure effects almost impossible to discern because communities where lots of people are filing for bankruptcy have low incomes, high unemployment rates. it is hard to distinguish how much people are influenced by their peers rather than just general conditions. since you have such great data, and it sounds like michael's research is uncovering reasons people and up in the legal aid office -- mr. braga: if you think the peer effects happen where you live or where you work, different places. if it is where you live, cap neighborhoods -- track neighborhoods.

but if where you work -- mr. sousa: another component is family. generations of family members, or extended family, having people file bankruptcy in their immediate or not so extended family. >> i have a comment on that but i will stay here until -- i have a dale sent -- data set of legal aid in north carolina, last 20 years, and there are the delayed family -- legal aid families. it is common in a north carolina that many family members it is an aspect. but in terms of filing for bankruptcy, in communities and the work that i have done, they keep it a secret and they are not talking about it in the family and there is no watercooler talk. maybe it is an income level thing, but for very low income,

the work i have done, everybody is concerned about keeping it a secret. i would think that would make the networking, at least in that community, much less likely. mightbe more aware -- it be more where people are than just networks. there is a lot of sociology showing that people in public housing, that sort, are not talking to the neighbors. ms. johnson: ok. this will be our last question. yes. >> my question is for professor johnson. threats,on criminal incarceration, threats of incarceration by debt collectors and creditors as well. often the pattern that is come across my desk, various activities, especially in the past, more recent years, has

been more about the lender getting a judgment from the creditor -- sorry, the creditor suing the debtor, pursuing a judgment, and collection activities, trying to maneuver the borrower to appear in court, and then the borrower doesn't show up, as they often don't, and the judge shows that holds them in content, and that triggers incarceration. it is not that they are being incarcerated for the debt. they are being incarcerated for being held in contempt. if the creditor is manipulating the situation and trying to get the consumer in that spot for additional leverage on them, i guess my question to you is to what extent have you read onthing or have thoughts the judges out there who are maybe holding these borrowers in contempt, not really understanding that this was a

strategy, maybe a business strategy for some participants in the market place? thanks. ms. johnson: so that is a good question. so the technicality is you are being arrested because you failed to appear at an oral examination, right? i argue that based on case law and other studies, we are going to elevate substance over form. the substances that you know -- the substance is that you know once you arrest somebody and they day can cry and call mom and dad, uncle, relatives are going to try to help you because you are in jail. they may not be inclined to help you before. motive, and the money, when you pay it, goes over to the creditor, that is the real purpose for it. if it is about assets, why are we letting money go from the person who pays to the creditor?

more to the point of educating the bar, i actually -- there my mindsetat is punitive, because my mindset is to punish the bar. lawyers should be sanctioned -- and is back to my time, know i sound like a bleeding heart consumer advocate, and i am, but i actually represented the devil -- i mean, creditors -- [laughter] ms. johnson: when i pursued law. i don't understand why there aren't more people like me. for example, when i don't know what happened is what happens when her or her mother calls up to say "how can you get her out of jail." this is a common thing when i practice law and i think it is common among the bar -- if you

represent creditors and the consumer is unrepresented, they usually call you up. if you sit anything to that person other than you need to get your own attorney -- anything like you need to pay and you will get out of jail -- part of my argument is that is conspiracy to commit extortion. and we have cases where lawyers have been charged with criminal extortion. that should be a basis for you to be brought up on ethics charges because you are not acting in good faith. that is to say, you are not using the civil contempt process because you really believe the debtor has assets that are nonexempt that they are concealing and refusing to use to pay this debt. you are instead using it to coerce that person to find a way to pay the debt, and you should be sanctioned for that.

and so last night i was actually thinking about this. what is my minimum, my least restrictive way to try to deal with it? maybe that is part of it, educating the bar. one wemple, in ohio, found that 15 years ago that payday lenders were filing personal complaints and having consumers prosecuted, that was the approach that legal aid did, to go in educate the bar and tell attorneys, tell prosecutors , there is no crime being committed here because by the time that payday lender gets the check, the payday lender knows there is no money in the account. the postdated check is evidence of a loan, not evidence of intent to defraud. and i was happy with that, until i came across this 2007 case in dark county -- literally that is the county -- dark county, ohio, where one woman was prosecuted -- they didn't do bad check

prosecution. instead they prosecuted her with theft by deception. again, the argument is there is no deception here. you know there is no money in the account. the argument was -- the prosecutor said she stopped payment. yes, she stopped payment several days after she got the loan. action 5, 6, 10 days later as the basis for saying there's deception on the front end. i'm saying all that to say i'm not happy with just educating seenar, because we have inksecutors and judges who w wink, nod nod, want to help out these payday lenders, because if you follow the money, payday lenders are active in lobbying and supporting the campaigns of people who are elected to office. so you have judges and prosecutors more inclined to not do anything when people are charged with a crime that arises

from a payday loan. so i hope that answers your question. so our time is up. -- where are we supposed to go? >> [indiscernible] so thank you all for 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] >> tonight on c-span, the white house medal of freedom ceremony. president obama awarded 21 individuals with the nation's highest civilian honor, including bill and melinda gates, kareem abdul-jabbar, bruce springsteen, and vin scully. next up, a look at potential

picks for president-elect donald economicreasury and posts. table this morning, a washington columnist for .euters, gina chon posted adent-elect video last night laying out his first 100 days and it has a lot to do with his economic agenda. i want to have you react and let's pull out what he has to say about the u.s. economy and what he can do in his first few days. to trump: i would like provide the american people with an update on the white house transition and our policy plans for the first 100 days. the transition team is working smoothly and effectively, truly great and talented men and women , patriots indeed are being brought in and many will soon be a part of our government, helping us make america great again.

my agenda will be based on a simple core principle -- putting america first. whether it is producing steel, building cars, or curing disease i want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here on our great homeland, creating wealth and jobs for american workers. as part of this plan i have asked a team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. it is about time. these include the following. i'm going to issue a notification of intent to withdraw from the transpacific partnership, a potential disaster for our country. negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring job and industry back on to american shores. i will cancel job killing restrictions on the production of american energy including shale energy, creating many millions of high-paying jobs.

that is what we want. that is what we have been waiting for. on regulation, i will formulate a role that says for each one new regulation two old regulations must be eliminated. , i will asksecurity the department of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to develop a comprehensive vitalo protect america's infrastructure from cyber attacks and all other form of attacks. on immigration i will direct the department of labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the american worker. on ethics reform, as part of our plan to drain the swamp we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the administration, and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. these are just a few of the steps we will take to reform washington and rebuild our

middle class. i will provide more updates in the coming days as we work together to make america great again for everyone, and i mean everyone. chon, how is he going to impact jobs and the economy with that agenda? guest: you heard him talk about the transpacific partnership which has been a running theme of his campaign. he said he would pull out of that agreement. it is with 11 other countries including canada and mexico. it could also affect nafta as well. host: what does that mean for ringing back jobs? -- bringing back jobs? how could he do that by resending the tpp as well as making changes to nafta? how does that immediately give americans jobs? caller: that is going to be a question -- guest: that is going

to be a question for him as he is taking a lot of promises but some of the things he is talking about may never come back. some of the manufacturing jobs, the steel jobs, a lot of that has changed because of technology and automation, and those are things that trade deals will not fix. host: what do republicans and this president-elect say, what is their argument for illuminating regulations and the impact that could have on the economy -- eliminating regulations and the economy that could have on the economy? guest: they are complaining about everything obama has put in place in his administration whether it is energy and environmental restrictions. wall street has had to go through a host of reforms because of the financial crisis. these are all things he has talked about rolling back, saying banks are not providing credit because they are anti-because of all

these regulations. there's a question whether they will put money into the economy whether some of -- when some of these are rolled back if in fact a are, and this is part of their pitch to get the economy moving. host: what is it like to try to roll back a regulation? the epa chief gina mccarthy gave a speech yesterday and does not see his promises on the coal industry actually coming to fruition. guest: that is going to be a question. thee is a lot of things president could do under executive action just like president obama has done. a lot of those things we have seen go to court and possibly had stays put on them like some of his immigration policies, so that will be a question of whether the tables will be turned under a president trump

administration when you are seeing him being taken to court, whether it is the sierra club or other environmental act to best groups. and see where that plays out. host: where else do you expect him to take steps to increase economic growth? what do you expect to hear from this new administration? guest: the interesting thing he did not talk about in the video he put out last night is his coupleducture plan, and with that possibly his tax cut plan. infrastructure is one of the things he talked about in his victory speech. it is something that democrats would favor under certain conditions. his plan has some possibly private funding that i do not think democrats would be crazy about. bernie sanders came out yesterday criticizing that aspect, but that is also something he has talked about possibly spending up to $1

trillion. host: before we get to our yourrs, and we welcome questions and comments about the president elect's agenda and team, let's talk about what positions make up the economic team and who is he considering. guest: the most important post is the treasury secretary job. he has his campaign finance chairman who is a former goldman sachs banker, a hedge fund founder, possibly in the lead for that job. he has also met with congressman jeb hensarling, chairman of the house finance committee. he has his own rollback dodd frank plan he has pitched to the president elect. other interesting names that have come up have been jpmorgan's chief executive jamie dimon. there are some reports yesterday that perhaps that was not

actually on the table, but i think there is a lot of names being thrown out, and he is trying to make a point of meeting people he did not -- who did not necessarily support him. he met host: what about his inner circle economic advisers? guest: he had a host of wall street are's on his economic council. he has a billionaire with his own hedge fund. it he is in the running for commerce secretary. we are trying to see what happens with the federal reserve. it he has criticized janet yellen, saying she was artificially keeping interest lows to help democrats. she said she would stay on

through 2018. it's a pretty important post for how the economy runs. host: let's get to questions. this.: my comment is i think donald trump is doing a good job and that he has the rest of the world leaders scared about their economy. have come flying over here wanting meetings with him. our past presidents of gotten too much to the point that they got worried about everybody else overseas and how much money can we are wrote to give away. how many products from america gets shipped overseas that are manufactured here. maybe he accidentally

shook up the hornets nest to where he's making people think and get the world leaders around the rest of the world saying wait a second, our economy is in trouble. great point. a we have seen the japanese leader come. he has made the chinese very nervous in terms of what he could do with some of the tariffs he has threatened. it has shaken up the world order. i think the question is whether some like china could also see advantages to that as the u.s. recedes from the global stage. will countries like china and russia try to step in and take more of a leadership role? host: what about our neighbors to the south and north and the impact of his trade and

immigration talk on their economies? one of the gauges of how he is doing it through this campaign has been where the mexican peso was heading. market, of the currency we have seen it go up and down depending on where trump was moving in the polls. mexico is a country that is very worried about what could happen under a trumpet in a stray should and, not only with the wall and the immigration plans. he has threatened to hold remittances. people send money back home to help relatives there. that puts immigration in terms of mexicans coming to the u.s. at a standstill. there hasn't been an increase in mexicans coming within the last few years. policies, thats

could reverse that. host: hi there. caller: good morning. there are grave concerns about the kids and the problematic area of corruption and malfeasance with his family's personal business and his children. in the last couple of weeks we have seen a little preview of what it's going to be like unless somebody does something within the family. we have seen him on the phone while his water was like paris hilton glycinate in. we've seen indian businessmen talking about his hotels on the phone. we saw the prime minister visiting in the personal residence. we have seen the corruption in south korea and china. this is an american way of life. i would like to hear what she has to say about this. in thehere is a headline

washington post this morning. one project is under investigation in india. guest: that's a great point. it's something that has drawn more attention. you saw trump on twitter react to this. that i had these overseas businesses and now the immediate is reacting. this is an issue. he is talked about his children not being part of his administration, but they were on the campaign trail and they are on his transition team. been a parttry has of these meetings with foreign leaders. i was just looking at his campaign finance disclosure forms when he was a candidate. positions, ar so lot of them are overseas ventures in saudi arabia and

india and indonesia. hase are countries where he a massive amount of influence as the leader of the united states. how he handles that is still in question. how do the conflict of interest laws work? there is a clause in the constitution people talk about because of some of his dealings so far. prevent publico officials including the united states president to accept gifts from foreign agents. that includes leaders from foreign countries. there is a question of whether he could violate that once he takes office. that our federal statutes on conflicts of interest. they don't apply to the president, but historically presidents have followed them because optically you don't want

to look like you are flouting ethics laws that others have to follow. host: the leading contender to be the top lawyer would be charged with unraveling his business conflicts. peter in new york. caller: good morning. smithd like to dispel the of jobs not being here in the united states because of tech knowledge he. about carrieroint air-conditioning. they are not going to mexico because of automation. their labor costs are very low. the reason they are going to mexico and china is because of the low labor costs and the lack of environmental protection and taxes. can'tof these companies

continue to do their work over here because they are competing with foreign companies with cheap labor that is being sent to the united states. any company that is manufacturing products that is highly motivated, they stay here. the ones that have high labor-intensive jobs go to mexico. if he can create a level playing field, that's one of the reasons why nafta has to be renegotiated to make it fairer. that's what he is talking about. i want to dispel that myth. guest: thanks for pointing that out. the interesting thing about nafta is when president obama was campaigning, he criticized nafta and talked about needing to renegotiated. frome are not new points

president-elect trump. these are issues that democrats have been wrestling with. getpp and other trade deals reopened up, president obama has said it was meant to fix some of these problems with nafta. now that president trump may undo it, i think the proof will be in the putting. these changes do bring back jobs or cause more companies to stay here, that could be a possible winner. host: we have your questions and comments about donald trump's economic agenda. what do you want to see him do first? what do you think he could do to bring it jobs back to america?

charles is next in california. good morning. california has one of the largest economies in the world. it's greater than the economy of france. i wonder if california might in if -- iom the tpp and want to say one other thing. if hillary got 60% of the vote in california. that's all. the way the obama administration has tried to pitch it, it has fallen on deaf provide that it does 18,000 tariff cuts. those are tax cuts for u.s.

exports going overseas. that includes some of the products that come out of california but also other states. one of the biggest supporters of cattlemen'she ranchers association. a lot of the imports to japan and australia and other countries haven't been able to compete as well because of some of these taxes on their products. undo or rollback a lot of those taxes. asy have tried to pitch this something that would help the u.s. economy and create more jobs. it has not gained as much traction as some of the criticisms. host: we have charlotte, north carolina. go ahead with your question. i was commenting on the jobs.cturing

i jobs. i think collars and state things about how technology has impacted jobs. it's not that they are moving across, it's the jobs percentagewise that are affected here. that 40% of the jobs are going overseas. mostology has taken manufacturing jobs that we see on assembly lines. they are not moving overseas. the percentage going overseas. that is the statement. earlier, i mentioned technology has been a major driver of certain jobs being lost. 5 million manufacturing jobs of them lost over the last 10 years and a lot of that is because of automation and technology.

one of the latest concerns happening in washington is over self driving cars. who could be the losers because of that? there are taxi drivers, over drivers, but also businesses that rely on fixing cars. there will be less accidents and that means all of the auto repair shops and small businesses that might be affected by this new phenomenon could be impacted. are a lot of unintended consequences from tech knowledge he. we all benefit from some of those conveniences, but there is a downside. host: carol is in new york. caller: what i wanted to comment about is something that has nothing to do with tech knowledge he. -- technology.

companies that do all of these things for deutsche bank, they are not in this country. fedex,called to talk to i am not talking to someone in this country. i have had major problems call myi have to company which is deutsche bank. i can't get anyone in the united states. they refused to transfer me to the united states. i get to talk to someone from some other country. they really don't comprehend the language. back told be coming this country. that would give at least the lower social economic group jobs. any talk about outsourcing

of jobs like the ones she was mentioning? guest: that was also an issue on the campaign trail on something he emphasized. it hasn't been talked about as much from some of the other candidates. it's definitely a concern. there are lot of call centers and other types of jobs that have moved overseas, particularly to india. , peopleterpoint of that need additional training and things that haven't been provided as much. there is sort of a double edged sword to both. the lower skilled jobs and the higher skilled ones that are scarce. host: aaron is in minnesota. i was wondering if you

are thinking about auditing the federal reserve. that would do a lot for us. beennk donald trump has critical of the fed. we will ask our guest. guest: that has been an issue on the can pain trail -- campaign trail. beenof his allies have critical of the federal reserve. audit the fedn bills that have been proposed in congress, most notably by rand paul. he has brought it up continuously. democrats had been the firewall to that. you could see that change. host: where could there be some compromise on the economy?

what about his agenda appeals to the other side? there is an idea of a grand bargain with tax cuts and infrastructure. there has been this problem of u.s. companies moving their headquarters overseas because the u.s. has such high corporate tax rates. there is talk about ways to change that. chuck schumer is going to be the democratic leader in january in the senate has signed off on a tax plan to change the tax code to take away some of the incentives for companies to move overseas. that is something that republicans want to do. togethern put it all in a tax code overhaul that includes money for infrastructure in terms of some of the companies coming back to the u.s. and using those

proceeds on roads and bridges that democrats favor because they would see it as a job that is initiative, something where there could be a meeting of the minds. few democrats want to give the democrats -- republicans opening that could help them in the midterms. chris in louisiana. good morning. this.: my question is what will donald trump due to improve the security at school? will he be able to reestablish prayer in school? host: we are talking this morning about economic agenda. there is a piece in the paper this morning about his education views.

today's focus is economics. she is the washington columnist with reuters. donald is in pennsylvania. good morning. i think the policies of the past have prevented job creation. we need to stop taxing industries. taxes, it will eventually create new jobs. toot of the money is going entitlements and other programs. it's good to help people for two years and then there should be a lifetime ban. they could win the lottery or get married. too much money is going in the wrong direction and it's not developing. i am from central pennsylvania.

we have suffered from high unemployment. summer --mp said this there were 15,000 people at his rally. the voters have said they have had enough. lower taxes on industry and businesses and then they will create jobs. that's been one of the disappointing aspects of this recovery, businesses have not been investing in their expenses and other that usually to generate growth. that is part of the tax plan. he wants to slash the corporate tax rate to 15%. that would be a huge change. something that fits what is happening, the u.k. has talked about wanting to cut corporate

taxes. the worry is you don't want to have a race to the bottom. the u.s.a sense that isn't competitive on that front. possibly cutting taxes would help businesses grow more and hire more as well. have -- manyd people think education is the key to economic growth. if we have a better educated population, that means better jobs. nhe new york times has a article about education. has that not been something he is talked about? guest: it has not been a core focus of his campaign. you have seen him meeting with a woman who used to be a leader of the schools in the washington area.

she was a bit of a controversy all figure. he is trying to make a point of listening to various sides and keep an open mind. he wants to think outside of the box. virginia, we have an independent. caller: in regards to outsourcing as well as what you were just talking about with tax cuts, had we feel comfortable that some of this is not generated by unrealistic expectations for profit and growth and ceo salary compensation? they are relatively obscene compared to what the average person makes. guest: that's been a question of the economic plan, that it's based on a lot of assumptions

that economists don't believe are possible. he thinks that gdp growth will hit 4% under his plan, possibly higher. 3% duringn below obama's presidency. it is a bit of a question in terms of whether companies will reinvest in jobs and other things to produce growth. that's also a question. the last time there was a holiday, it didn't get invested in their own firms. they did buybacks and dividends. they padded their own compensation. ifre's a question of whether you give these tax breaks of they will be used in the way the administration hopes they would be. host: welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you very much.

statement toquick reiterate what an individual had called earlier and said. the jobs that were being lost were being lost due to automation. it as partcame into of it. it was a way to make the american worker safer. osha was involved in that. more regulations were put in so that the workers were not getting injured. wasof the number one things loss of time from these individuals at work due to injuries. things like that. that's where automation came in.

that's where automation came in. that is not the be all end all. the thing a lot of people are missing side of is and they missed site for the last 20 years, on these outsourcing of jobs, they are going places like the philippines. it might be the pharma going over there. they are sometimes using inferior fillers that are going into our medication. labor that is highly underpaid from what everyone else gets. when you look at things like clothing, that's always been an issue. 20 years ago with kathie lee child labor. a lot of these things have found that these individuals that are in pakistan, they are making one dollar a day. to them, that's money. that's good money. if we bring the products back to

the u.s., you will see the quality,. you will see our economy,. the only way to do that is to give the business. host: what about the price of that product? caller: there are certain things that i wouldn't mind paying an dollarnal $.50 or one for certain items. problem paying additional for that knowing it's going to be made with quality. is it an additional $.50? guest: it could be much more. if you take a shopper at walmart who is looking for a bargain and whether they turn away from those products because they are more expensive, that's a question.

walmart is an interesting example. recently.raised wages we saw in the election for states raised minimum wage. walmart has found that there employees are happier and more to -- productive. they are working harder. if that works for the long-term remains to be seen. in terms of the morale in their store and their productivity, it has helped. that could be an example for others. i voted for donald trump. i don't understand why people are not giving him a chance. i've been hearing all morning everybody complaining.

everybody complaining. we are the people of america. we need to give him a chance at this point. he does -- is outspoken. who isn't nowadays. my question for him is what is he going to do for the them wage person? i have a daughter who lives off the government. i struggle. i don't live off the government did i find it more difficult for her because she has one child. she is making minimum wage. i kind of had to write it all down. giveinimum wage will only you $15,000 a year. she has childcare because she does not qualify for assistance. it's $115 per week. then you have to consider rent.

she pays $700. then you have your utilities, water. then you deduct your light bill. caller: that leaves you with $1000 to buy food, clothing, anything that you need to live. i am talking about the year. how is somebody supposed to live off of that? what is he going to do for those people that are trying to work? as part of his tax-cut plan, he does also cut taxes for lower income families. the problem is, because of the way our tax code works, even with these overhauls, it really does benefit the wealthy are individuals more than lower income. he also has, the color was

talking about, her daughter that has a child. those a plan to help people with childcare, but if based on eight tax-deduction -- tax-deduction, lower income families, it does not help them that much because they don't make enough to qualify for that deduction. there are questions about what his tax plan will really do for lower income families. it has to do with his plan to repeal obama care. that has helped actually a lot of people who qualify for medicaid and extending coverage for those families. plan has some tax credits, but it seems like a lot of people could be without insurance under that plan. that have come

to exist under the obama that is a worry for lower income families. phone call here, a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: listen, you heard the last caller. don't even plans have halfway consideration. definitely, you cannot live off of minimum wage. the jobs he is talking about bringing back, that is what you are talking about. about coreking are --ns that corporations that are constantly making money. they don't care about the person that just spoke about bringing jobs back. they are not going to pay $20 an hour for you to live.

been the reaction to corporate america to the election of donald trump winning? aest: he does have actually lot of business executives, former bankers, hedge fund managers on his economic team or advisory team. interestingly, during the campaign, he was in conflict with the chamber of commerce, ceo's of major corporations, because they were very worried about his immigration plan, his stance on trade, so he actually was not with some of the traditional republican allies on the business side. takenk they are trying to sort of a wait and see period. they are more in favor of some of the things house speaker paul ryan has proposed and are hoping that can be somewhat of a moderation on some of president trump's more extreme

policies. host: how have bit markets been reacting? that's how have the markets been reacting? guest: you saw them get nervous, but since then, s&p, at nasdaq, all of them have been up. bank stocks in particular have been up because they think not only will they benefit from the rollback of regulations, but this volatility is helping in terms of their trading revenue. so, so far, we have seen a bump, thathat is not to say that could change because some of president trump's plans could affect the markets in a negative way, especially if he starts a trade war. that would get investors pretty nervous. so far, they had been ready happy, it means. definitely, they are going higher and some of these stimulus aspect of infrastructure spending, we have

seen a lot of construction company, cement makers, that sort of thing, those sectors, go up in the market has they feel like they will be able to benefit from some of these policies. , thank you for your time. i appreciate it. tonight, the white house medal of freedom ceremony. president obama today awarded 21 individuals with the nation's highest civilian honor including bill and melinda gates, bruce springsteen, and since kelly. that is that it :00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's washington journal, news andy day with policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, an analysis of president-elect donald trump watch infrastructure proposals. it challenges on the current state of u.s. infrastructure.

and the brookings institution's erin climbed. examiner national security and defense reporter jamie mcintyre. trump'sdent-elect national security agenda and his decision to choose michael glenn as national security advisor. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. some of our featured programs thursday, thanks given day, on c-span. eastern,r 11:00 a.m. the senator speaks. it is not compelled by the government. >> followed at noon by former riseor ted harkin on the of childhood obesity in the u.s.. >> everything from monster

burgers with 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20 ounce pepsi's, 12 to 15 teaspoons of sugar, feeding an epidemic of child obesity. wikipedia founder jimmy wales talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia, challenge of providing global artist information. >> i know there is a small community, there is five this and really active users, another 20 to 30. inside look at the years on effort to repair and restore the o the home. at 8:00, justice kagan reflect on her life and career. >> i did my senior thesis, and atomic an incredible amount, but it also taught me what it was serious historian

and a sit in archives all day, and i realize it was not for me. >> followed by justice thomas a 9:00. >> genius is not putting a two dollar idea in a $20 sentence. idea in aing a $20 two dollars sentence without any loss of meaning. 10:00, president obama will present the medal of freedom, our nation's highest civilian award to 21 recipients including nba star michael jordan, singer bruce springsteen and philanthropist bill and melinda gates. c-span.orgspan and or listen on the free c-span radio app. now, a conversation with gene sperling, former director of the andonal economic council chief economic advisor for the hillary clinton campaign. he spoke at the annual wall street journal ceo council.

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, jeanne. >> thank you. >> playing cleanup. given the events of a week ago, a particularly apt meaning for you tonight. let us talk first if we could about this election. you were an advisor to the clinton campaign. you worked, as john said, both in the bill clinton administration and in the barack obama administration. you have been a key advisor and policymaker in economics. you were an advisor on the clinton campaign. you heard elizabeth warren no doubt today talking about some of the issues.

i don't want to proceed for a postmortem but what went wrong? , why am i not talking to you now is the next treasury secretary? mr. sperling: i think there will be a lot of conversations about campaigns and strategy. i think we had an excellent person in hillary clinton. his fortune is our misfortune is we had , somebody who was perhaps extremely qualified, vast experience, at a moment and time where that was not wings to fly but instead a deep weight. my first campaign was the dukakis campaign in 1988 and george herbert walker's experience was tough for us. it was like a positive thing hard to overcome. was here, i think it did make it harder for her to capture some of that anger and outrage that

perhaps trump and bernie sanders were able to capture. look, -- >> because she had been part of the incumbent administration? mr. sperling: she was she was first lady, senator from new york, she was secretary of state, and she had to have a delicate message in the sense that to those of us who really believed barack obama help save that helped -- barack obama helped save our country from a great depression and deserves a lot of credit for how well things have gotten and yet we are a little bit like the football team that was 0-16 and now we are 10-6. it is a lot of improvement, but people want to go to the super bowl and it is not there so she had to both be a change candidate and yet somewhat build up the support of the legacy of this, you know, past president. so it was difficult but you know, i will say that you know, having been involved in all of

this i believe one should be very passionate about their values. you know, to me, i am in policy because, you know, i believe we should have a country where every child, you know, the accident of your birth should not overwhelmingly determine the outcome of your life. where there is room for poor americans, immigrants, and for people to rise and that working families can work with dignity, raise their families and many, -- and with dignity retire with , dignity. and those are things i hold dear and i think you have a lot of humility. host: one thing on the line was how disastrous the last eight years have been for the democratic party across the country. you can measure it. they lost half a dozen senate seats sinceuse 2008. republicans have astonishing control across the country of governorships. extraordinarily strong position and now have the presidency,

too. what has gone wrong from 2008 where you took everything and you seemed to be advancing across the country and now you are in a worse position than you have been in freight generation? -- been for a generation? mr. sperling: that goes to the humility that we won twice but there were problems. as elizabeth warren said earlier, yes, they won the electoral college and that is how you win the presidency and they get to govern but you know, they are going to have a respectable public laws and they lost spots in the house and senate so i guess what i feel in my heart is with barack obama coming into a terrible financial crisis was no doubt a mixed blessing. it absolutely made it easier for a democrat to win the presidency in 2008. the terrible financial crisis, as i think others have said, they are terrible and at least three ways that are difficult.

number one, the degree of pain and suffering in people who lost their dreams, houses, savings, was terrible. secondly, when you have recoveries after great financial crisis, you do not get the pent-up demand to 1984 morning in america. you get people deleveraging and you get people deleveraging at the time when you need that robust growth so you do not get legions of long-term unemployed people who never get back in. and then third, the remedies are , almost inherently unpopular. you have to stabilize the 75% of the system which is larger financial institutions. you stabilize them to help the average person, help their savings but that person still , sees you stabilizing the people who look like they are the culprits. and so, you get yourself in a situation where you have to do what you have to do to save the economy but it is not out of

anybody's agenda for what is popular. host: save the economy but destroy the democratic party? mr. sperling: no but i think , when you inherit a financial crisis like that, it helps you get reelected but it makes it harder to completely meet the expectations of people when you are overcoming the type of -- i mean look, this was not an average of recession. this was the worst recession and crisis since the great depression. you did not bounce back as quick. and i think, look we could talk , about other things. i think people got kind of stimulus fatigue. you know, if you want to know what was the chart we used to , show barack obama that would drive him absolutely crazy, we would say, what would growth be in the economy and unemployment if state and local spending had been the same under your

presidency as it had been in the bush and reagan recoveries? it was devastating. private sector gdp has been 2%. the reason why it has been over 2% is the contraction at state and local level. that showed the public tolerance for kind of keynesian when they see you do a bit and there are two ways to look at it. for us, it was like, no you need , to keep increasing demand, do more infrastructure, get people to work. host: productivity has been poor, one of the weakest we have had. private sector productivity is now back to the 1970's, that is a reflection not an economic , achievement of this administration. mr. sperling: no, but i think there is a lot of mystery about productivity right now. whether it is accounted for right.

the fact that, you know whether , gps clearly makes us more productive does not come into the gdp factor so it cannot be part of productivity. but i do think, and i think they lot of us feel there were still demand issues at a time when you needed to get things back and to be fair, barack obama did try those things. you can think they are bad policies but you cannot say he got to implement all of them. and i think right now many , progressives are united in that we need more full employment economy. you see a lot of us being more dovish than janet yellen and would like to see more demand. and quite honestly, i think that is more pervasive even in the business community now who are hoping that donald trump actually succeeds in what has been the democratic agenda of a stronger, more significant infrastructure boost into the economy. host: why don't we ask audience questions? right here. am nick from- i

snap on tools. what you said about president clinton and his focus on the middle class and promoting it, i would suggest that i just spent last week, election week, in a factory in iowa. from their perspective, it is like this. if you look at the campaigns as the balance between priority among social issues versus economic issues, they clearly saw the them a chronic campaign -- they clearly saw the democratic campaign as prioritizing the social issues before their own economically-based issues, whereas they saw donald trump on the other side, whatever they thought of him, prioritizing jobs and economic issues. despite the fact that karl rove said it, is the middle class stupid and stuff like that. it was almost like the democratic agenda departed from bill clinton. going forward, how do you see that playing out?

do you see the democratic agenda going back to emphasize economic issues of the social issues or do you see them trying to double down on the social issues? mr. sperling: this whole week has obviously been very painful. it is painful to hear you say that because from our point of view, from her point of view the , economy was first. i do not think that is a n aspiration of the campaign. but we will have to look at why that did not break through. maybe it is just the idiosyncratic nature of donald trump, a once-in-a-lifetime personality who, you know, we worked forever on a really ambitious college plan and it came out the day he was fighting with megyn kelly. we could just not get any coverage. that was what it was like. you know, was that just kind of bad luck? was that our failure?

i guess i will tell you, policy was still "the economy, stupid." the focus was, and this is different than what david comey was saying, think we were trying to focus on an economic plan. a plan that aligned it tax -- aligned tax incentives and investments in what would create jobs on our shores. it would be good for middle-class and infrastructure plan. people responded quite well. even exit polls are very mixed on who they thought had the better economic policy but as i said, you have to have humility and you cannot sit there and , say, we meant to do a, b, and c. if we failed, then we have to look at that going forward. i do not think it reflects there was a conscious desire to not have it be an "economy, stupid," campaign.

that was her aim, and if it did not come through, that was more of a failure of execution none an intent. >> mark from hyatt hotels. the first two major economic initiatives put on the table are infrastructure and tax relief for tax reform. first, what is your take on what has been indicated so far and secondly what level of , congressional support amongst democrats do you think there will be for those two initiatives? mr. sperling: well, i think that is to be seen. because they will try to do this as a reconciliation measure, which not to bore everybody, is a process by which you use a budget resolution to essentially only need 50 votes in the senate. obviously, vice president pence can do the tie-breaking vote. that creates the opportunity for

donald trump and the republicans to pass a tax reform and perhaps infrastructure bell without any democrats. now, you know, reconciliation is a complicated term and you know, that is a possibility. now, part of the question for them will be, if you can do it, that? want to do and i think that if they want to pick up democrats, they are going to have to move off division. there is going to have to be more focus on the progressive video of that tax package on whether it is draining our fiscal situation for tax relief that is going mostly to upper income americans. they have this challenge even in the campaign which is on the

republican side, there is a lot of pressure when they cut the corporate rate to cut the other rate to the same level. we all know that probably everybody would be kind of for that if every pass-through was the owner of a hardware store but pass-through is every , corporate law fund manager, every hedge fund manager, every consultant and for a lot of people, that is going to be just a backdoorway of lowering taxes for the most well-off. when people have both white house and the house and senate, they tend to look at it as their moment and sometimes overreach a bit. they have to be careful and i would say to people in terms of corporate tax reform, obviously, as part of president obama's team, we were engaged in that process. we do believe that our current process is irrational and you

want something that is more simple, fair, and encourages more job creation. here it has your brilliant cfo spending more time helping you create new products as opposed to doing international tax arbitration. so we kind of agree with that. but i think that people will judge this a lot in the end as alined those benefits are with the kind of job creation and investment impact and in 2004, when there was a repatriation holiday which lots of democrats voted for in -- and george bush signed, the analysis was fairly clear, almost unambiguous that almost 90%+ of the money brought back was used for dividends, stock buybacks, stock buybacks that will raise the compensation of executives, etc. and if people look at the end and say they did tax reform and it led to this rising tide and

it really helped workers but if it looks like, boy this was just , something where they were able to do whatever they want it has democrats did not control anything, and this was just a i guess what elizabeth ward would call it, two elites, i think it will backfire. i think when you have the prevention of having the whole government again it will be , interesting to see whether you can run the table or if it will be in your long-term benefit to try to buy more support from progressives. host: jeanne, thank you for -- gene, thank you for coming all the way from california to join us. some quick housekeeping notes. anybody who has decided to go to the sponsor dinner tonight, the shuttles are leaving at six 6:15.

i will see you may 16 at the tokyo palace hotel for the ceo council asia. back to jerry. mr. sperling: thank you very much. >> the toughest job in the world is to be the quarterback of the losing team and the super bowl and have to go right out for a press conference afterwards. newton. gene as the cam that includes this council. i want to thank you all for coming. thank you to those on our team who worked so hard to make this a great event and make it go so smoothly. we had to scramble pretty hard over the course of the last week to make sure that we had an appropriate, relevant topical agenda for you to enjoy and i hope you have enjoyed it. thank you all indeed very much for coming. just a reminder these sessions , and discussions will be published in a special report in

"the wall street journal" next tuesday, november 22. i want to thank our sponsors, 80 carney, nasdaq, and workday. thank you very much again to you. it would not be possible without your support. please do share your thoughts. we will be sending you a short survey tomorrow morning and just to elaborate a little bit more on what john said, as ceo councilmembers, you are all invited to a number of events. all the events in the next year. the ceo council lunch in davos, tuesday, january 17. dinner with the wall street journal editors. one in menlo park, california, on march 28. one in chicago on may 16. we will be holding our first annual ceo council meeting outside the u.s. on may 16 at the palace hotel in tokyo with very senior asian officials, ceo's, experts and others.

and next year's annual will be right here next november. it won't be after such a momentous election but it will be just as interesting and we will have had a year to digest these extraordinary events and see what is going on. for again, thank you joining us. please join us outside now for cocktails. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> tonight, the white house medal of freedom ceremony. awardedt obama today 21 individuals with the nation's highest civilian honor including bill and melinda date, bruce springsteen -- bill and melinda gates, and bruce springsteen. weekend, on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 7:00 eastern from president lincoln's cottage in washington, d.c., we'll have a conversation with candace shy

uber about her book, four women who influenced america for better or worse. a means ofve reinforcing either the best in their husbands or the worst. that is what this study is. >> the 1950's refill my american frontier. to the production office and from there to the central office in oklahoma. day and night our television board was lit up like a christmas tree, calls from new york, california, houston, bit by bit, we began to realize how big a thing this was. >> this promoted financial benefits for farmers. it was funded by the american petroleum institute. sunday morning at 11:00,

panelists discuss jack london and how his novel influenced generations of western novelists and writers. thee always looked back to natural land, to his ranch, the beautiful scenery in california and elsewhere in the south pacific. to center himself and find release and relief from the rigors and the depredations of the city. we visit the military aviation museum in virginia beach. >> basically taught all of the airtary aviators, army corps and navy, how to fly. many customer saw an airplane coming from farms and anywhere you can think of. the first airplane as i was the boeing stearman. >> for our schedule, go to

c-span.org. >> if james madison is the architect of the institution, then george washington as the general contractor. if you have ever built a house or put an addition on, for some it looks like more what the general contractor has in mind than what the architect has in mind. >> edward larson talks about president washington's role in his new book "george washington, nationalist." they wanted to recruit washington in the coup d'etat. hamilton had talked to washington about how this democracy stuff is not going to work. washington believed in republican government. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." at it is white house briefing, spokesman josh earnest

talked about the transition to the trump administration. this is just over one hour. [indistinct conversation]

sec. earnest: good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. thank you for joining us. welcome back. hopefully got lots of sleep, maybe a little. [laughter] sec. earnest: i do have any announcements this afternoon. i will just take your questions. has the president spoke into the president-elect since their meeting in the oval office shortly after the election? sec. earnest: there has been some reporting about off the record meeting with the president elect that he reportedly held with media executives. those of you who covered the president-elect's at to the oval office a couple of weeks ago, you took note of the fact that the president-elect indicated -- presidentlso heard obama it indicate the highest priority he has placed.

talkss the two have made is not surprising. ability ofhe president obama to consult confidentially with other senior officials including the former president, i am not going to read out or confirm every reported meeting or phone call youersation, but i can tell has had aent conversation with the president elect since the oval office. reporter: when the president speaks to other important world leaders, they are able to have private discussions where they can from things at the white house is able to confirm when they spoke and usually give us some general readout of what they discussed. is there a reason that cannot take place?

sec. earnest: that has not been true when president obama has consulted with other presidents. that is the president's prerogative we are tied to protect. as trump indicated, he was hoping to have the opportunity to consult with president obama during the course of this transition. president obama has committed to a smooth transition. as a result, the have spoken at least once. reporter: is the white house hoping trump and his team will be similarly coy it not releasing a lot of details about what the two presidents discussed? sec. earnest: he can discuss whatever he chooses to about his consultations with president obama. you made it came up the president-elect's team is and trye won't go ahead to prosecute hillary clinton is elected, once he takes office.

is the white house relieved to hear that seems to be off the table or are you concerned that the independence between the white house and justice department that he worked so dutifully over the last eight years to maintain now seems to be going out the window? sec. earnest: i think the end of your question is where i would begin, which is that we have gone to great lengths in the context of the obama administration to uphold a core foundational principle of our democracy, which is preventing politics from influencing independent criminal investigations. that is a basic principle of our democracy because we don't want to leave anybody with the idea that there is a potential for someone to be treated differently because of their political affiliation. this is the principle of every american being subject to the rule of law and every american being equal under the law. lengthsgone to great

not just to uphold the principle, but also to even avoid the appearance of that principle being called into question. worse, in the context of the 2.5 years i have been doing this job, i have been asked repeatedly, even before secretary clinton had announced aboutmpaign, i was asked her enough system. eight days before an election, i stood before all of you, answering questions about a letter from the fbi director, that he had sent to congress, saying that the investigation have been the opened -- reopened. i made clear that those kind of investigative decisions and investigative conclusions should be conducted free of any sort of political interference and certainly should be conducted

independent of any white house interference, and that is the principle that we have protected , that previous presidents have protected, and we certainly believe that is a principal principlesident -- future presenc president should protect. reporter: want to ask you about the president-elect for the and lobbying u.k. ambassador to the u.s. nigel farage. is the white house concerned by that pretty significant breach of protocol given that his status is in political opposition to the current leadership in the u.k.? as some of you has cover the president closely in the last few years, you know the president has been very not wentious about

ading too deeply into another country politics. there have been occasions where the president has taken a position on a particular issue, or at least spoken publicly about a particular issue. the breakfast question -- the brexit question comes to mind. a lot of people made notes about the resident public statements about the brexit vote when he visited the u.k. earlier this year, buhe was quite direct in laying out his view. this was a decision for the british people to make, but he offered his opinion for a couple of reasons. first of all, we saw some of the rexit say that the united states would be favorable. that was not true so the

president wanted to set the record straight. it was important for people to understand the true feelings of the u.k.'s closest ally as they decision that was before them. and so, the president made the argument accordingly. in making thatn argument, he went to great lengths to make clear he respects the sovereignty of the british people and certainly respects the responsibility the british people and government have to make decisions that are consistent with their own countries and citizens' self-interest. that is another principle we thought to uphold. whether or not they were concerned that tweet may have violated that principle is not something i will wait in on here. in on here.

reporter: yesterday, in a youtube video outlining he said if heons, was going to call on the department of labor to do investigate the visa programs, undercut american workers. does the president have a response to this? does he think he said use an american companies is on the -- did he think visa use in american companies is on the rise? sec. earnest: over the course of the election, i think the president made very clear, even to people only sort of paying attention, that the president-elect's vision for the domestic and foreign policy, he hoped to pursue is quite different than the priorities and agenda that president obama has had over his

last eight years in office. it should not be surprising that a number of the priorities the president-elect has discussed are not the same priorities we have been discussing. in on, react weigh to, or criticize those well-known differences would undermine the president's priority of ensuring a smooth and effective transition, so it certainly is a responsibility of the president-elect to communicate with the american public about what sort of priorities he will pursue when he takes office. he has that right and ability because he won the election. an election is over. the debate about the confidences of the election has been resolved. the president is following the will of the american people in fulfilling his institutional responsibility to give the incoming team the best prospects

for success when it comes to uniting the country and moving us forward. reporter: an area where there may be some overlap and you may be able to comment would be on 's goal toelect workntle the dream act, authorization. it was a big push of his administration to get those people to give your information to the government to come forward. that information will be put in the hands of administration who could use that for enforcement, things like -- president say now to reassure or try to provide some comfort to people who felt, who he convinced to trust the government and up to come forward and share that information? presidentst: the

had a chance to talk about this a little but already. this does underscore the need for congress to act on the clear bipartisan agreement that exists about some of the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. the instruction by house republicans presented the realization of that goal. continueublicans who to retain responsibility for governing the country with their majorities in congress will have to evaluate whether or not they want this country to enjoy the significant economic benefits of common sense comprehensive immigration reform. the second thing i would note is that the president-elect, since the election, has given voice to the same kind of rarities and criteria -- priorities and

criteria that this admonition has pursued. the emphasis what comes to deportation should be on criminals. that is the policy that this administration has been pursuing for quite some time. that is the policy we turbocharged in the context of the president's executive announcements that were announced a little over two years ago now. so, you know, ultimately, it will be the possibility of the president-elect to determine what sort of priorities his administration will pursue, the kind of enforcement priorities that are laid out in the context dreamers, executive action taken by the administration, is something that largely rested with the department of homeland security. the president-elect's choice for director of home and security will be confidential -- consequential. the president has made clear

that those individuals who aka, thed for d individuals in the united states through no fault of their own. they are americans in every way but their papers. these are individual to attend the same church, the same school, shop at the same stores, lives in the same communities, as americans all across the country. makingntry benefits from an investment in those young people because those young people made an investment in t us, and have demonstrated the object and aerial spirit that is good for our economy. entrepreneurial spirit that is good for our economy. many have joined the military. there is a strong case made about how unraveling them and

dividing families in the way some suggest would be that for our economy and entirely inconsistent with the kind of values that have long been ered by american policymakers for generations. what about merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court? sec. earnest: the president believes strongly that chief judge garland could fill the vacancy. there are some republicans who agree for a variety of reasons, in part because chief judge garland is the most it. supreme court nominee in american history. he spent 19 years on the federal judiciary and no one can call in to question his qualifications. certainly the nonpartisan american bar association did not call and question his

qualifications. they rated him unanimously well-qualified for the job. people in the past described him as a consensus nominee, somebody who is going to set aside his own political leanings and focus on the judge's response ability to interpret the law. merrick garland is somebody who has served this country. he led the investigations of the bombing in oklahoma city and played a key role in bringing to justice those who killed one and 100 americans in oklahoma city more than 20 years ago now. chief judge garland is somebody who is qualified, a man of impeccable character, and a man who served his country, and it is disgraceful way that republicans in the united states senate treated him. even setting aside their absolute failure to fill their basic response ability as elected officials -- response ability as elected officials

in the united states senate. the way this situation is likely on theis a scar institution of the united states senate and a scar that i do not anticipate will go away quickly, and that is rather unfortunate, but you can certainly be sure that president obama will continue to have chief judge garland's back until the end of this session. abouter: i wanted to talk his transition and helping the president-elect and in his video yesterday, he set on day one, he would signal his intention to withdraw from tpp. do you plan to submit a final tppement of your support at with the realization there is no interest on capitol hill or with

the president-elect? sec. earnest: we are well aware of the public statement of the president-elect and this is true of both candidates that neither of them was supportive of the transpacific partnership. have any future steps to preview for you, but i would knowledge that the prospect of tpp being ratified by this congress or before president obama leaves are not very good, and that is unfortunate -- reporter: [indiscernible] sec. earnest: i don't have any such truth -- any steps to preview. if congress does not move forward with ratifying the trans-pacific partnership, it is a significant missed opportunity for the american people in part because there was some pretty clear signals from other tpp countries that they actually intend to move forward even if the united states does not and

that is going to put u.s. businesses and workers at a disadvantage. other countries with significant and growing economies where the united states already does business, but u.s. workers are going to be put at a disadvantage because we don't benefit from the kind of opportunities created by the tpp. you will see other countries part of tpp move in and capitalize on the market share that u.s. companies have lost in the asia-pacific and that is a real shame because so much of , according that was expressed insts, the context of the election, was rooted in the idea that the forces of globalization had a negative impact on too many american workers and those workers were frustrated that their government had not done more to help them and their companies counter those forces

of globalization. that is exactly the strategy we have laid out and it is tragic to see that be rolled back, to see that that policy that could address some of those concerns be rolled back by the person who claims that they share those concerns, so that is deeply disappointing. this is also concerning when you consider our broader relationship with china because we know that right now, as we speak, china is seeking to advance their own trade agreement with countries in this is going towe know further disadvantage u.s. businesses and workers, so it is not a situation, justin, where congress refusing to advance the tpp, that the status quo is maintained and we are just going to try to find a different solution. the fact is, the u.s. will be consequentially negatively by the refusal of the congress to ratify the tpp, in terms of lost opportunities and market share, but also in terms

of lower standards being implemented by china. the last thing i will say about this is there was a discussion in the most recent campaign about nafta. would havet the tpp done. it would have included some environmental and labor standards that would have been increased and made enforceable. that was not true in nafta. that potential improvement is also on the verge of being cap. kicked to the curb, if you will. there is significant lost opportunities and it will be for frankly think, democrats and republicans in congress who oppose the tpp, moving forward, to justify this inaction, and to lay out some sort of coherent strategy for addressing these

concerns. this administration pursued a coherent strategy. we worked for years to negotiate the kind of agreement that would advantage u.s. workers in our broader economy, but it looks like that may -- that responsibility may fault of someone else. they will have a hard time putting together the kind of coherent energy with as much promise as the one visit ministership of forward. reporter: [indiscernible] the president and it was brought. -- president's answer was brought. broad. [laughter] director, would you like to come appeared handle this one? [laughter] sec. earnest: i can do to break for a minute. reporter: did the president receive a recommendation from

secretary carter to remove director rep. rogers: and have the president name his termination -- [indiscernible] -- -- the technology and i say this acknowledging that -- sec. earnest: when it comes to some because critical to our national security as cyber security. this is something i think was evident in the president's answer, something the president has been thinking about a lot about what we can do to enhance and further fortify the kinds of cyber protection at the american people and u.s. government rely upon to ensure the protection of our national security. if the president was unwilling to describe the kind of advice and recommendations he is getting from his secretary of defense, it would be out of line for me to do so so so i am not going to talk about the kind of advice or recommendations of the

president has received from the chairman joint chief of staff for the secretary of defense. this is a question more generally about how to structure our national security apparatus, the president has been talking about it with his team. as it relates to admiral rodgers, you heard directly from the president in unambiguous president viewsesen admiral rodgers as a patriot. he devoted a significant portion of his life to protecting our country. all of us can and should be grateful for his service bus far. if the president were to make a thesion about changing organization of this structure by dividing the responsibilities of the nsa director and the commander of cyber command into two different jobs, that is an announcement outlet mid -- i would let the commander-in-chief make. don'ter: i know that you

comment on day-to-day so i am wondering if you could maybe reflect on why investors might seem encouraged by the prospect of transitioning from an obama economy to a trump economy? sec. earnest: i am quite reluctant to talk about individual market movement. i suspect there are plenty of analysts out there who have their own theories about market movements over the last couple of weeks. those people do that work. indexes have stock more than doubled under president obama's leadership and i do think that that is well of the kind of economic strategy president obama has a limited it will certainly be a high bar for future presidents to live up to. hopefully, they will give it a

good shot. reporter: mark. reporter:reporter: your answer on merrick garland, does that mean that president obama will resubmit the nomination in january during those days whe n the new congress overlaps? sec. earnest: i don't know, but obviously, the president i think shares my view that the senate's treatment of chief judge garland is deplorable. speaker ryan is urging president obama not to afford any steps that would bolster iran's economy. he's worried there may be new concessions in the pipeline. sec. earnest: i don't have anything to pretty up this point. this administration through january 20 will fill our obligations around the iran deal fromhave prevented iran

advancing their nuclear weapon thatility and in fact, capability has been substantially rolled back because of this international agreement that the united states brokered with some of our closest allies and the results of the deal meant that ron had to ship out 90% of its enriched uranium and dismantle -- iran had to ship out 90% of its enriched uranium. they have adopted and complied intrusive set of interactions that have ever been imposed. the steps that have been taken thus far have enhanced the national security of the united states significantly and enhanced the national security of our closest ally in the middle east, israel, and i can tell you our other european allies in particular field very good about the progress -- feel very good about the progress this has yielded.

not just the us occasions of those of us who believe the iran deal was the right approach, but it has refuted every sec. earnest: there was a suggesting iran would never sit down and negotiate this deal in good faith. was puts the sense that forward by opponents of the deal that iran was not actually negotiating an agreement. they were negotiating for time. they were wrong on that. critics said they would never live up to the terms. they were wrong about that. even the israeli military intelligence community that had significant doubts about the deal has confirmed that we have seen. iran has lived up to the terms of the deal. while iran lives up to the terms of the deal the united states is going