believe we will get there. thank you for all you have done. we owe you a debt of gratitude, henry. thank you for your question. mr. buckley: first off, henry, i would ask you to return as finance chair. [applause] mr. buckley: but seriously, when the donors out there, when there is a little old lady that wants to send in $5 or $10 a month, which he trust is that we are spending it correctly and not wasting it, would our staff understand that that is not wasted away? that might have been a meal for that woman. people need to take that seriously. when our big donors see an action plan, with proof positive of getting into the communities, it is a hell of a better investment than a tv ad. we have all the money in the world to give to the corporate

media. we have all of the consultants in washington. $60 million in new hampshire was spent by the various groups in the u.s. senate race. $250,000 for field. that is wrong. >> my name's ron harris, i am elected for minnesota. there has been a lot of conversation about gerrymandering. there has been a conversation -- there has not been a conversation about candidate development. what is your plan for candidate training at the national committee level? >> listen, one of the greatest challenges -- i thought that

fundraising was the hardest thing. you do people will say yes or no, and you just keep on, keep calling and keep on. the greatest challenge was finding candidates, so we launched a fellowship, and i went through congressman clyburn and said, i want you to do this scholarship. 250 trained to be the next generation candidate in county chairs. we created a curriculum of not just the nuts and bolts of campaigns, but what it meant to be a leader, and we have done this six weekends, three days, intensive workshops and which we go over everything from a to z. we just graduated our first class of clyburn fellows, 32.

and we are graduating the next class in they represent every county in our state and that is what i am doing in order to build. that is what i want to replicate. >> thank you. don't fall off your chair if you don't all know this. i have been one of the lead recruiters for the house for nearly 40 years. i started working for congress when i was 19 years old. recruiting, training, electing people. we have 4000 municipal offices up every year in new hampshire. our governor's race is up every two years. newe is one thing in if there is one thing

we have it is plenty of elections and plenty of opportunity to run for office. it is critically important to show support and that is what we have been doing in new hampshire for decades. >> i agree we have to set up programs to train young people. i am pleased to be part of one called wellstone action. we help campaign and recruit. one thing i think the dnc can do for value-added with communities as every time they get in front of a group of people is to talk well about public service. i find, and you know this being from my state when we get up , there and say government does not work, that does not help recruit people to run for public office. we have got to tell young people that running for office is noble and good. it is the way good things happen. then we will put them in programs in south carolina and

new hampshire, wellstone action. i have recruited many kids for state legislature, city council. one thing we must do as a group is agreed that we are going to all pump up the necessity of running for office and having good people in office. there is no dishonor in losing. the dishonor is not trying. >> thank you. this is the last audience question. >> thank you. if i have learned anything today, we are very lucky. we have three great gentleman running for the chair of this party. thank you very much. our party will be in good hands no matter who it is. one question, based on what has happened in the past with people not really doing this on a full-time basis and having other agendas, as you all put forward very aggressive proposals on where the party should go, are you all willing to make this

your number one priority and the priority of what needs to be done to rebuild and take the party into the future. are you willing to make that commitment and nothing to stand in your way moving forward? mr. ellison: i absolutely will make the dnc my number one commitment. i've been having conversations with many of you and formulating an idea about whether or not i have to give up my seat or i can be in congress and service dnc chair. when i started this conversation, i assume that

other people had done it, i did not think it was a problem. but i think we are really in a new age. i am in the process of deciding this issue of whether i can perform both roles. usb my first priority? this, absolutely. you should know when you are in the minority and there is no democratic resident, all their is to do is vote no on the repeals of the affordable care act which takes about 20 minutes and eight given day. every other moment i will be at the dnc working very hard. the day after announced, i went straight to talk to the dmo. then went to california to talk to delegates. then went to the district next to mine in minnesota. went to michigan, then new york. i went to 30 states in the last year. i have raised millions of dollars. i appeared in the media regularly. i absolutely will be fighting to advance the dnc and make it my first priority. but the truth is, that is -- the

job number one that the -- is to be defeating trump and getting back into the majority. but i am hearing from you and listening carefully. [applause] >> this is it. this will be my only job, my only focus outside of my family. each day, every day, 24/7. i have known key for a long time and when he first said he was going to run i said, i love you and know you have passion and energy, but i am telling you that the members of the committee want someone who can do this twice 24/7. fighting donald trump on the house of the representative when it he is appointing jeff sessions to be over the justice department, when every single right that we have is that will be a full-time job.

i can't see it. i have been on the floor of house and i think it will be a full-time job. the question, debbie did it? will leave that up to you to make that determination. my big thing is this -- we had the president. we had the vice president. we do not have that now. all we have is the dnc and we need someone who can dedicate all of their time to it. >> thanks. i think all of you have seen my work as head of the acc to know it is my only thing that my life is about electing democrats because i believe there is nothing more important than making america and the world a better place. that is how

i have dedicated my life. i think this is a big, important job. if the dnc wants to bifurcate the position, i would be willing to serve as the nuts and bolts and let keith or jamie put on the pancake makeup and me the press and do the rallies and things like that and let me get to work on the grassroots. that is your decision. it will be the decision of that dnc to do that. i can do the whole job or have a job. either way, i want to be there to make sure we are ready for the elections in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and for generations to come. quite one quick comment. do you want to introduce yourself? lottie shackleford from

arkansas. the question that was just asked, i am from arkansas and i chair the women's conference for the dnc. the question i was just asked, i just wanted to point out that our rules state that the chair of the party is a full-time position. i guess were some of the confusion has come when we have had the bifurcated system and this kind of thing has been when our titular head of the party was the president, and whatever the president at that time wants, waivers or rules bent, whatever, that came into play. we will not have that going forth. when we do the elections in 2017 it is not really a choice. the rules state that the chair of the party will be a full-time position, and i just wanted to say that. >> can i respond to that?

>> sure. >> i appreciate you making that point and i appreciated hearing from a lot of our board members as i said before. i started with one kind of understanding, ok? and as i have talked to all of you it has become very apparent that many of you feel strongly about this and i just want to tell you this -- though i would love to be in congress because it allows me to serve my neighbors, i do think that it is more important to build, strengthen the dnc and the democratic party. so, look, the election is february 24. there are still many of you i have to talk to. i am hoping you will allow me, keep your mind open for my candidacy as we continue to talk because i think i have an excellent work record, great

work ethic, a planned into demonstrated background of increasing turnout, and i know i could be an excellent dnc chair, but we have a few weeks before we have any kind of an election. i hope you will all allow me to continue to talk to you, hear from you, get your take on the him and best way forward because i am going to do the right thing for the dnc, right? that is what i'm going to do. and so i would just want you to know that. i think you may understand based on past history how i started out looking at this, but as time goes forward, it is certain, you know, many of your are raising points i have to consider, so with your indulgence i will continue this conversation. is that ok with everybody? but i assure you i will do the right thing for the dnc. >> thank you.

>> a burning question from the audience. or bernie? >> christine, go ahead. microphone right here. >> hello. i'm from california. my godmother is burning to ask a question. you talked about more diversity, we need it. my first resolution as a young democrat, was to get rid of the at-large appointments to the national chair. they said keep them because we need them. i encourage you to increase the diversity. one way you could make speeches to take off the corporate lobbyists. >> i am the black caucus chair, right? we worked very hard to get a diversity caucus chair.

in this election, we talk in every election about money coming into our community. i did not hear anything today about the african-american vote. the base of this party. can you talk about it? >> if we can keep our comments to one minute, i know we have other things we have to do as well. >> as you know, african-american women were loyalist vote-getters in this election. >> we all know of the importance of the african-american vote to the democratic party particularly african-american women. when bernie sanders and hillary clinton and martin o'malley came to south carolina and asked me how do i win south carolina, i said you need to talk to women my mom's age. middle-aged african-american

women because the person who is going to win the primary is the in person who can galvanize them and win their hearts and minds. so african-american women are very important, but we also have other groups that are very important in terms of our coalition. the people of color in our parting and we have to do a -- party, and we have to do a better job. again, from staffing to people we use as vendors. i tweeted this the other day. you cannot have vendors create ads for african-american communities and none of the people are actually writing or drafting the ads are actually african-american. and so -- and that is for people of color across the board. you know where i am on that. >> thank you for raising the issue about african-americans as a critical vote for all of our country and party. let me just tell you i remember years ago when you had your african-american caucus in detroit. it was a wonderful event.

i am sure from that event, where you drew people from all over the country really had a pragmatic effect of turning out the african-american vote. we have invest in it. cannot take it for granted. cannot assume we will have the african-american vote. just like we can't ignore the hispanic vote or the women's phone. any one of our core constituencies. we have to be talking about investment. it is a racial justice issue. we have to talk about voting rights not just in the south but all over the country. and police violence and massive incarceration or subjects we have to be talking about all the time. thank you for talking about that. >> raymond? >> i think it is important that we focus on all.

that is why i said in the beginning i did not start listing off because if you include into engage every single group and i ask you to look at who the leadership of the afcc is in my hiring practices and you will see when i said as a 7-year-old kid, it was because of racial inequality. we must live it. i was completely furious when i read that story the other day about the lack of african-american staffers in the u.s. senate. on the plane out here, i texted u.s. senate. to donna, and i said, if you're going to war i am with you. i will join you. we all have a responsibility to all communities of color, of all the people that felt left out or left behind. everybody, everybody deserves a seat at the table.

him [indiscernible] >> and not only that, i pay my own way. i pay my own way to every dnc meeting. i want to talk about those issues. as a former staffer of the dnc, happened and you said about not giving over the checkbook, it is beyond the checkbook. it is the fact that there is no continuity of the staffers in the building, and not only that, there are elected officials. my day job is to let democrats,

there areticket, and not many of them in nevada. come -- win,n win electnd that we democrats, that they do not 's party,heir own states it is not a problem in nevada, but it may be a problem in other states. and i apologize -- and thank you for acknowledging the checkbook and the president. you're correct. i love my president. but when they come in the building, everything changes, and that's not anything to keep the party going. just thank you. >> thank you.

thank you toto say all three of our candidates who are running for the chair. and excuse them from the stage now. at waikiki beach in hawaii. president obama and his family are vacationing in the aloha state. 75thyear is the anniversary of the japanese bombing of pearl harbor that led entryunited states' into world war ii. shinzo abe is visiting hawaii. leave at obama will

wreath at the pearl harbor memorial. then obama and abe deliver remarks. anniversary of the 75th anniversary of the attack our live on c-span. >> sunday, a live discussion on the presidency on barack obama. we are taking your phone calls and questions during the program. our panel includes a white house and author.t a princeton university professor, and a pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author. on sunday onth" book tv on c-span2.

the federal appeals court in richmond recently heard a case challenging the national security agency searches of americans' internet communications with people overseas. the american civil liberties union brought the case on behalf of the wikimedia foundation, the "nation" magazine, and amnesty international. >> good morning, your honors, the plaintiffs in this case are challenging what is known as upstream surveillance of the government's unwarrented searching of their communication. it is unprecedented ground, one that involves systematically searching the full contents of messages in real-time. plaintiffs have challenges on statutory and constitutional ground. the only question before the court today is whether the plaintiff plausibly stands. the government asked the court

not to credit the plaintiff's extensive allegation and their many complaints. there's no question that applying the same rules that apply to any other case the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged standing. the precise of election of the third circuit permitted a similar challenge to section 702 surveillance two surveillance to go forward. we have alleged the government is searching plaintiff international communication as they travel over the internet backbone. we've expanded in detail how that is taking place. we have alleged facts showing the nsa is copying and reviewing at least some of wikimedia's trillion or more international communication. >> do i correctly understand, and this is of course probably a question -- do i understand the government contends that if a robot searches and it's not subject to the fourth amendment,

as opposed to human being? >> our understanding is that is one of the government's arguments. our response is there's multiple parts to our response. one is even if that were true it be a question for the mayor not a question of standing. the government is intercepting the plaintiffs communication as they travel across the wire and there's no question the interception of wikimedia's communications versus suspicion to establish their standing to those searches. the supreme supreme court has said the questions about the legitimate scope of the definition and scope of fourth amendment moment rights are question for merit and not for the standing. but we also of course disagree with the government's contention that when the government uses a computer or uses a robot that

does not implicate a party's rights. if a government sent sent a robot into your house to look around to find evidence there's no question that search would violate the fourth amendment and would require a warrant in a search by a human does. so we disagree both on the merits, but also we don't think the court needs to reach that issue at all because wikimedia's communications are being intercepted. i want to say second, another theory of sin is government is copying and interviewing substantially all tech -based communication and leaving the country including those of the plaintiffs. we have supported these claims with official government disclosures, a detailed explanation of how the internet works, print -- credible press reports, and published government documents. because our factual allegations are detailed on conclusions of this court, must accept as true in the purpose of this motion.

it must take all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. they have alleged concrete injury in the interception of the communication that is all they need to do to establish standing at this stage. i want to emphasize one important thing. one aspect about the nature of upstream surveillance. because it is something that is different in this case, and it is new to this program. the government is not looking for communications to and from its target. instead, it is searching the full content of communications in order to determine whether they even mention the government's target. and that is important because the government is systematically examining the emails and web browsing of essentially everyone in the first instance. >> do i correctly understand, -- and this is of course -- those are examples of them. and so it is looking through

full content of communications in order to determine which communication to want to retain for the long term, and our claim and the standing issue in this case turned on the breadth of that initial search. we do not think it is relevant for stand purposes that the government may discard some of these communications after looking through them, just as if if the government searched everyone's home in richmond for a particular letter or piece of evidence, they only found that piece of evidence in a handful of homes, one would never describe that search as targeted in a way that government tries to describe that surveillance is targeted here. because the government retains only some of the communications at the end of this process does not meet the initial search and the one that standing turns on is far broader. upstream dimension of surveillance, and that is

different from other courts considering previous challenges before the. >> what are the allegations that you save possibly be to this dragnet theory of upstream surveillance you're talking about? >> there are a number of allegations they get to that point. many of them are drawn from the government's own official disclosures. some of them are contained in the privacy and civil liberties oversight court report, which describes surveillance under section 702 under fisa and has a the scope ofion of upstream surveillance and how upstream surveillance is different from other forms of surveillance. i can refer to other pages of that report. that report is quoted in sections of our complaint. >> as i understand it you have

to show that the government is surveilling substantially in all of the relevant communications in this case. at least the allegations that i think are entitled to some truth is that the government is surveilling around approximately seven chokepoints and there are others so how do you get around the fact that except for wikimedia and the exception of this case. how do the other plaintiffs show as a plausible matter that there communications are being substantially reviewed? >> i want to emphasize that plaintiff wikimedia is in a different position and has a different set of claims. it is setting aside that first theory and addressing the second theory which i understand your honors focused on. there are a number of supporting allegations in our complaint. the first has to do with the government's own description of

its surveillance. the government stated goals for this is to comprehensively and reliably acquire communications to, from, and about his target. -- its targets and hasn't knowledge that it has nearly 100,000 targets around the world which it is surveilling. those targets are spread out across the globe and presumably the targets are moving themselves. the way in which internet communications travel over the internet backbone is unpredictable. if the government is in fact comprehensively and reliably acquiring the communications of these tens of thousands of targets, it has to be doing so in a way that allows it to capture communication entering and leaving the country in many different places. the structure of the internet back -- backbone, the fact that the backbone is structured in a way that channels communications entering and leaving the country

through a limited number of chokepoints facilitates the kind of comprehensive surveillance for describing. >> you say the government has an interest in doing this. this kind of motivation-based interest. is that a plausible allegation or simply a conclusion? >> we think this goes beyond a general interest or to gather intelligence. because of the way internet mutations are broken up as they travel on the internet background even a single email may be split into multiple packets and those packets may take different routes across the internet backbone. if the government was to creek -- acquire all the relevant packets to the communication forgiven targeted needs to be conducting surveillance in many different points. the same is true for communications to and from different people. the communication to me to a friend in london may follow one route across the internet that person's response to meet even in a text message or internet message may take an entirely different route.

if you want to have a full picture of the communication of your targets you need to be , conducting surveillance at many different points. >> wikimedia has -- you're home free, right? >> this court of the supreme court has said that in order for state to proceed only one of the plaintiffs must have standing. we also emphasize. >> like i said, home free. >> yes, your honor. i do want to return to the plausibility standard and to and for size -- emphasize the question that is before the court. it is black letter law that with the plausibility of a complaint if is challenged or the court must accept all the allegations as true, must take all reasonable inferences in the favor. >> >> all well pled. >> >> that's correct. it has to confine its analysis to the four corners of the complaint and the documents incorporated by records. >> we have the supreme court decision in clapper, so we lay

down the complaint here against the complaint in clapper and their they talked about the five problems and i would have thought you might be addressing those in your argument. >> of course, so first i want to emphasize that what the supreme court was analyzing and clapper was not a complaint on a motion to dismiss. it was summary judgment. what the court found was that the plaintiff had not before sufficient evidence. it found that there is a lack of evidence as to the interception of the plaintiffs can -- communications. the court emphasizing its decision, the difference between and proof. i want to emphasize three other key differences between this case and clapper. before you do that very briefly, was their discovery and clapper?

-- discovery in clapper. >> there was no discovery. >> so there was a pre-discovery judgment motion which comes in the door in the 12 be six or 21 motion. >> it was litigated in summary judgment and the plaintiffs did not engage in discovery. >> go ahead. i just wanted to make sure we understood. the other important difference between clapper in this case are least -- are at least threefold. one of them is that the surveillance here is very different from the surveillance and clapper. i've touched on that already. the surveillance challenged in clapper was targeted surveillance. the court found that plaintiffs could only speculate about whether their contacts were being targeted. here the government is engaging , in dragnet form of surveillance that involves systematically searching through the content of even nontarget communication. that goes to the breath of the surveillance that is at issue

here. second, there is far more that is publicly known about the surveillance in this case. the plaintiffs in clapper could only speculate about certain key on thehat border question of whether surveillance was occurring at all. here, the government has come -- officially confirmed many of those facts. the court found that the government could not even use the government -- use the authority those established under section the plaintiffs 702. cannot even approve the surveillance and both of those facts the government has confirmed in this case. the plaintiffs are challenging a program -- a particular program that the government has acknowledged is occurring and that has been undoubtedly approved. third, i want to and for size the plaintiff -- emphasize, the plaintiff wikimedia is in a far

, different position factually than any of it plaintiffs and clapper because of the breath of its communication. it engages in more than one trillion communications every year with individuals with hundreds of millions of individual spread across the globe. i want to emphasize that putting together the government's official disclosure about the communications -- the nsa has acknowledged engaging in a of surveillance. it has acknowledged that it conducts that surveillance on multiple internet circuits in -- and the surveillance it described requires that it look at a minimum at all the textbased communication. wikimedia engages in some of the -- so many communications with so many different people around the world that it is virtually unthinkable that the government could be conducting the surveillance it says it is conducting without intercepting at least some of wikimedia's communication. those differences we think make this case very different from

clapper. the third circuit recently analyzed a similar question, in the shoe shard -- that case involved prison surveillance it was analyzing the same -- differences in terms of what is now publicly available on the difference between the pleading standard and the summary judgment roles. i think that decision is interactive in this case. size --o also and for emphasize how we believe this court should proceed. we believe they should analyze the government's motion to the plausibility of the plaintiff it -- plaintiff alleges of their communications have been intercepted in the course of the surveillance, and it should reman the case for summary

judgment proceedings just as occurs in amnesty itself. we may seek limited discovery in this case. we do not believe that we need this every -- discovery in order to prevail. we believe a well understood principles of how the internet works and the fact that our plaintiffs on our own experts will put for that we can establish all the facts we need to prevail on the merits. however, we may seek limited discovery in order to reinforce our claims in this case. i would like to maybe just survey some of the ways in which the district court disregarded the pleading standards. the district court failed to credit plaintiff's allegations and it also failed to make reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.

instead, privileged or favored its own theory of events that were not reflected in the complaint, its own hypotheses about what might be occurring over plaintiffs version of events. the district court's failure to credit plaintiff's allegations runs against the pleading roles that this court has emphasized that a complaint not be particularly detailed the chances of success may not be particularly likely to prevail on plausibility, but we think the district court disregarded those basic rules. i see my time has expired. >> the rebuttal. >> may it please the court catherine dorsey on behalf of , the defendants. the first thing i want to address your honors is that this

is not a dragnet program. upstream is not a dragnet program even according to the allegations obtained in the plaintiffs complaints which is incorporated in their complaint. the upstream program is a targeted program that is designed to collect foreign intelligence information from non-u.s. persons located abroad and to collect those textbased communications transiting the internet backbone. >> i take the government at its word but in order to get that , information you have to look at a lot of other things that you can conclude ultimately are not your target. >> your honor, what the plaintiff's assume in order to accomplish is that what your honor is insinuating as well. that the nsa must be collecting absolutely everything. the allegations assume that the

only way that nsa can successfully accomplish the program and to collect that is to collect everything and sift through. that is just your -- your speculation.- pure there is nothing in the allegations that support the program must operate that way. in fact, the report recognizes it is a targeted program, the " not collecting wide swaths of communication." it does say that it may require access to a larger body of communication than the ones with about selectors, but it does not give any indication as to the precise scope or what that sphere of communications may be collected or any details as to how that's

done. those details are classified. >> but it is common ground that you need more than the to and from. >> well to, from, and about is what the nsa is collecting to -- through the upstream program. and again the report says the , government may require access to larger body to determine messages -- that is page 111 of the report. there is nothing to show what sphere of communications is even implicated here. >> what is the limitation on "about"? how do you search for something about something without searching nearly everything else? how do you do that? >> your honor, again this is not clear from the details of how this program operates.

we know it has been disclosed they search for communications that contain task selectors, even -- either in the to, from, or about. how that is done is not public information. plaintiffs only speculate about how it must be done. they speculate that that must mean everything is being collected and there is no support for that allegation. >> but if you want to know about 3 judge,eral article the law school from which he or she graduated, wouldn't you search a database of every federal article 3 judge to get that information? >> that would be one way to do it, your honor. >> how else? all other things held steady, discover the alma

mater of every article 3 judge? >> you could go visit, there there are lots of ways you could engage in that. >> who, the judge? no, the alma maters. >> that reminds me, i was in a meeting the other day and i said everybody not present, raise your hand. how do you go visit the alma mater of a person when you don't know the identity of that person's alma mater? >> i would like to answer your question tying it to specific facts and allegations if i one may. of their points -- one of their theories of standing is the nsa is collecting substantially all communications. i would like to drill that down. that's based on the assumption that the government is monitoring most of all of these 49 chokepoint of the submarine cables but they only allege that , the government is monitoring

only seven or 17 of those, that is seven or 17 out of 49 points is not substantially all by any means. then they also allege further to make this substantial allegation that the government must be intercepting every communication at every chokepoint that it does monitor. the problem with that is with how the internet works is each of these chokepoint's the submarine cables come through, each suffering cable has sub subes and each of those cables has 1000 fiber optic fibers on which the communications transit. -- our lead declaration we submitted to the district court explains that there is as a technological matter, the government would not have to collect the communication on the whole sub

cable, it could just collect on the sub cable. plaintiffs have offered no allegations that show that the government must be collecting everything that passes through on even sub cables. they have not met that. >> i don't understand how the government would do a very good job if it proceeded as you suggest. if they want information more to and two and from -- from -- and they might have good reasons for doing that. i'm not prejudging at all. i am heavily for national security, but if they want something more than to and from, they're going to have to look at everything. >> again, that speculates that is the only way or the best way to do this program and obviously the government cannot disclose the details of how it does this, but they're speculating that is the way it is done. in klapper, obviously they

indicated -- even the dissent nsa has thecause capability to do this it seems possible they could be collecting everything and the supreme court ruled that is not enough for standing, that is speculation and that is the same situation we have here. >> if you go down, you remember justice alito had sort of five thatns and you concede five of those things -- not all 5 are still present for things that made it speculative? >> that is correct. >> maybe you can go down that list for me. >> the first one the government will target the communication of non-u.s. that is still -- persons with whom they communicate, that is still speculation. >> and that's what mostly been talking about. >> and that the government will succeed in targeted

communication. that is also still speculation. and plaintiffs also speculate on the last on the plaintiffs will be parties to intercept of communication. >> the second and third -- >> the second, it depends. it is also not clear that there's communications have necessarily that they can show that there communications would necessarily be collected through upstream as opposed to other program. so there is traceability to upstream that i think pertains here. wikimedia? t at least the plaintiff stands at a different posture that the government does not necessarily need to engage in the dragnet surveillance program in order to gather wikimedia's communications given the way they operate. what about that? >> again, wikimedia's allegation to their standing specifically are speculative. i want to drill down again on each of those what their allegations are to say that they

generally allege that their communications are so numerous there it think the government must be collecting them. this goes to the 49 submarine cables. they say there are limited chokepoint and limited pathways -- they say one trillion communications and they assume they have to transit all of those. that is not necessarily true because each chokepoint has one cable and then multiple sub cables and then up to 1000 fibers on each sub cable. that is not a limited number of pathways, that is a lot of pathways. the next part is they say their communications, one trillion, are so numerous and geographically widespread that they must transit all of those paths. they say one trillion, but they do not provide a denominator for .hose -- for that number one trillion out of how many

communications on the internet? and we explained in the lead declaration to the district court that the one frilly and come if you look at those even if you are just considering --il, it is less than 1% less than a third of a percent that their emails makeup within all email traffic and if you look at webpage views, even less than that. there communications, when you look at them in terms of everything happening on the internet, are not so numerous that you can assume they are traveling everywhere. the third assumption to show the standing for wikimedia is that even if they are only monitoring one chokepoint, they say the government must be collecting some of their communications on that chokepoint. again, that assumes that the government is collecting everything on every fiber and every sub cable on that chokepoint, which is not the surly true. that is not the way it has to be and that is speculation. >> so they allege things that

they sometimes prove not to be true. that's why we have trial. >> you're right. but they have to make a plausible claim. >> you call it speculation and they claw -- call it possible. >> i think you can safely say they have alleged a possible way of how things operate but they have not given this court enough to show it is a plausible claim of how the program works and plausible that it's operating as dragnet or plausible that wikimedia's communication are so numerous in the context of everything that goes on in the internet, that their their communication must be being collected. they have simply not nudged their claim with their allegations from possible to plausible. >> you agree, of course, that it is well-settled that often you will have issues of standing intertwined with the merits such that a court cannot really

separately determine standing without proceeding into the merits. you don't believe this is that kind of case? >> that's right. we do not believe that it's this kind kind of case. >> and yet, both at the district court and as i read your brief, although the district court disagreed with you, at least in part, you did not make a factual challenge to standing, you made a spatial challenge. >> that's incorrect, we made both. the district court only ruled on our facial challenge. that's why we submitted the declaration to challenge. >> the district court said that your motion, those declarations came later. those declarations did not accompany her motion. they came later. i read the district court orders . they says i don't need to look at the declarations but they're not properly before me anyway. >> he chose not to look at them because i think he was worried

about that inner -- inexpensively -- inexplicably intertwined between the merit. >> and probably so. >> i would like to say why not. plaintiffs need to say it's a minimum here that their communications are being intercepted or implicated in upstream collection in order to show standing. the is mainly separate from merit question on whether such intersection or retention, whether those are unreasonable searches and seizures.

>> our argument is the allegations -- they have not --en specific support specifically alleged enough to make a plausible claim that their communications are intercepted. >> they would need to embed a something in their data transmissions that would alert their communication --

>> surreptitiously searched. >> they would need to get a paying back every time the government happened to look at their communications? >> that would be one possible way. if technically, that were possible. ways toing there are allege standing. here they did not even allege that they had a substantial portion of internet communications or something that would get them closer to the mark. >> that is your denominator argument but they do say that nature of their traffic is that it is diverse all around the world, such that it is inevitable that some portion of that traffic is traversed one or more of the government's chokepoints. what's implausible about that? >> even if you are looking -- you've got the cables that they have not shown that at those

chokepoints, that the government is collecting everything at those chokepoints. what they are saying is the nature of their traffic is such that they are traversing against bash along all of the chokepoints, so inevitably the government has got to be collecting some of that traffic. say, do the best -- they to do the best job of collecting that, it must be taking everything. again, there is no allegation to support that is the way this program works. allege is they governments capturing 90%? you see were i am going. >> i can see where you are going, but -- >> would 90% do it. >> i am not going to concede. i am not going to concede to a number, but they also cannot just allege 90% and that's into

their job. they have to have to have well pleaded allegations supported with facts. sufficient factual matter to make their claim plausible. they haven't done that here. dragnetdon't need the allegation with respect to wikimedia if you accept the allegation that because of the nature of their traffic it traverses across all the chokepoints. if the government is surveilling some of them, inevitably it will sweep up some of that traffic. >> this court gets a look at how the world works too. when evaluate staining and a motion to dismiss. the fact is the internet doesn't necessarily weigh the way -- work the way they are alleging, that the government has to collect. >> how do we know that? >> we have that in the lead declarations. >> it is not before the district

court's record. the district court specifically excluded your declaration. >> it chose not to rely on it, that does not mean this court is precluded from relying on those factual declarations to understand how the world works. >> how would appellate review work if we we were to free every -- whatever party put in the joint appendix we were free to look at it when the district court specifically said this is not part of the decision. >> it's an alternative basis at which this court could affirm the dismissal. these are in the record and that's part of the appellate record in this court could affirm the dismissal below on the factual challenge ground on the basis of those declaration. >> we would have to convert this for a motion to summary judgment. >> idle think you would have to. it would be a factual challenge and we are not in the inexplicable he intertwined, so it would have to be converted to

a rule 56. certainly at a minimum, if the court disagrees that it doesn't think the factual challenges before it, we would urge this court -- and if he do not think you could affirm on the facial challenge, we would ask the court to reman a factual challenge proceeding rather than request for it to go forward with summary judgment. the district court should have a chance to rule on the actual challenge, but we think this court can do that on its own. i see that i'm almost out of time. if the court has number questions. is 6 that last point, it of one and half dozen of another because if we think there is a theual challenge to me made standing, that really does collapse on the merit does it , not? >> i don't think so. i think this court can rule we -- we have presented factual -- >> i understand. if we disagree with you on that and we reman the case to the

district court, the district further standing analysis will take place in the context of a rule 56 summary and the proceeding declaration will be before the court and the plaintiff can put in declarations and perhaps the district would permit some minimal discovery. >> we think the plaintiff have already -- has already waived their challenge since we raised that before. they never put in anything in opposition to the factual challenge we raise before the district court. we would ask this court to affirm the judgment below. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to just pick up where the court left off. we do not believe the declarations are properly before this court since --

>> i have read and reread the district court's footnote about this. it seems to me that they are here. >> in a matter of our prudential concerns, we should not decided here. you said before that we would not have discovery or have limited discovery. you did not mention that we had a bunch of declarations to -- bunch of depositions. >> we expressly asked the court that if it found that we are putting forwarded factual challenge we wanted the opportunity to put in our own declarations. >> if we were on television we could have the court reporter rebeck the record, but i thought you had said first time around in response to what my colleagues that you did not foresee any discovery or any other evidence that you put in. that you would be happy to stand on the standing argument that

were set forth in your complaint. the allegations in your complaint. >> that is not what i intended to say, your honor. >> maybe i misheard you. >> we fully intend to put in our own facts, including those of our own technical experts. we would seek also to conduct limited discovery on these issues. we believe those factual submissions and that discovery is appropriate at summary judgment because the issue before the court -- the issue of whether the plaintiff's communications are being intercepted is inextricably intertwined with the merit. >> let me ask you a follow-up question. when they have put their evidentiary information before the district court and you did not put anything contrary, so the record as it stands. how does that end without any contrary evidence from you? >> we argue that a factual challenge was impermissible and we said if the court concluded otherwise we asked for the

opportunity to perform -- to put forward our own factual record. we said that a factual challenge was inappropriate precisely because the factual issue in inextricably intertwined with the merits. the question of whether a person's phone is wiretapped or the houses search whether the government agents entered the house or not is one of the factual elements of showing an unlawful search. is clearly intertwined with the merits. the court found in a much harder case, that the standing facts were intertwined with the merits and the same is true here. these are issues that under the fourth circuit law under adams and kearns should only be resolved under summary judgment. i also want to say that, my time is up. >> when you said that it wasn't, but now it is. >> apologies. i also do want to say that the government's declaration is

misleading and inaccurate on a number of points including points about the cables and fibers. we plan to rebut those facts with our own technical expert. again, we believe it is inappropriate to do so at summary judgment. some of the claims made by the government's witness are actually contradicted by materials in the record including in the p club report and other materials we have cited about the comprehensive nature of the surveillance. the opinion itself indicates the government is retaining any information on it analyzes surveillance based on the fact that the government is conducting comprehensive surveillance across internet backbone circuits. >> thank you. >> my curiosity is just tearing me apart. how did senior judge ellis manage to get this case and the -- in the district of maryland?

>> our understanding is the district of maryland did recuse itself. it did not issue an official explanation. >> thank you. >> i was injured in that too. i inquired in my sources. >> thank you, your honor. >> thank you very much. at mar-a-lago, donald trump's estate where the president-elect is spending holidays and continuing his transition planning. today, the trump transition announced the appointment of jason greenblatt avenue special representative for international to go sheesh and's. he has been a lawyer for 20 years and is currently the executive vice president and chief legal officer of the trump organization. according to a statement, mr. greenblatt has served as one of the president-elect's principal advisers on u.s.-israeli relations. president obama and japanese prime minister shinzo abe are

meeting in hawaii today at 4:10 p.m. eastern time. they laid a wreath at the uss arizona memorial, the resting place of sailors and marines killed in the bombing of pearl harbor. at 5:05 eastern time, president obama and prime minister shinzo abe deliver remarks at pearl harbor. the ceremonies today marks the 75th anniversary of the attack and they are live on c-span. announcer: this week, "washington journal" will dedicate -- the topic is energy and environmental policy. discuss how climate issues may be impacted by congress and the incoming trump administration. thursday we will talk about immigration and how president-elect trump may change the immigration policy and on friday morning we take a look at

the future of the affordable care act and had the republican congress and the trump administration will repeal and act.ce the affordable care be sure to watch "washington journal" at 7:00 eastern. host: michelle jamrisko joins us and we continue discussing trade policy in the incoming trump administration. i want to start by reminding our players who the key players are -- our viewers who the key players are starting with president-elect trump's nominee for commerce secretary. guest: wilbur ross has been -- has been called a character. he is the top trade guy in the administration, someone the transition team has said will lead trade policy. commerce department, the u.s. trade representative office within the commerce department, is typically given power but there has been some talk about -- of how that would be less

emphasized, whereas wilbur ross will take the reins. host: what is his background? guest: he is a businessman. he has a lot of history with trade, so he really does know the manufacturing base well and people trust him to kind of make decisions that are lot -- are in line with the trump campaign message. host: how did he come into the trump spear here? when did he join this team or become a supporter of donald trump? guest: he has been a member of the campaign for quite a while. he has been an economic advisor for some time and lead a lot of the economic analyses throughout the campaign in terms of how these proposals would come about and how they would affect the economy, and really benefit the american economy and jobs. host: explain the job that wilbur ross is going to be doing and the job that peter navarro will be doing and what they will -- what their roles will be in

the trump administration. guest: there are a lot of questions because peter navarro's job is a new job in a new office, so president-elect trump has created a trade council within the white house, led by peter navarro. still a little unclear how that will be shaped -- how much personnel will be dedicated to that, but this has been a task ed this council has been task with the initiative of bringing back american manufacturing, renegotiating trade deals, and being an advisor to the president on how to do that. he will fill a different role than wilbur ross at commerce, which is more traditional as a cabinet position. host: did those tasks used to be under the commerce department? is this something where we are seeing some transfer of power or responsibilities? guest: i would say some of the things we talk about around the new trade council, yes, usually would fall under commerce and within commerce, but it remains to be seen how much this will be expanded.

trade was a big message for the trump campaign, so to form a new office is quite unclear what that will mean logistically and practically, but symbolically, we know it means a lot in terms of showing that he wants to dedicate -- president-elect trump wants to dedicate more bodies and resources toward the issue. host: let's talk about what president-elect trump has promised to do on trade. he suggested pulling out of the world trade organization, that global body designed to help dissolve trade disputes, talked about leaving nafta's if mexico does not agree to renegotiate the pact, not signing the transpacific partnership, the 12 nation deal, imposing tariffs on chinese imports, on mexican imports, on perhaps all other imports as well and declared china a currency manipulator if it does not change trade practices. a lot on his plate and a lot that he talked about doing. what does he plan on making

number one? what will happen in the first 100 days? guest: he has said at various times that he would like to scrap certain deals on day one. it is unclear if he will pull through with that. some advisors when they speak on his behalf, it has been different on how they approach things. d'amico, chief executive officer of nucor industry company. he would say a few months ago that talking about terrorists -- ifs being the tarr first step to put trading pressure on china and mexico. now we hear the top advisor talk about how president-elect wants to start with carrots rather than sticks. it remains to be seen what order what -- those types of things will go in and how they will play out. we are in uncharted waters. host: we talked about nafta this morning. a lot of our viewers brought up

nafta. can donald trump leave nafta and how does that process work? guest: when we talk about things that have not been done before, this is the subject of many scholar's debates right now. there is a general consensus the president has wide latitude to do that. the president has been given trade promotion authority over the past several years, so he has the ability to negotiate agreements and then have them the house ore to senate for an up or down vote. and when he wants to leave the agreements, people are in agreement that he could do that and not have any need for congressional approval in that area. host: michelle jamrisko is our guest for the next 45 minutes. if you want to join the conversation, if you have questions republicans, , (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents (202)-748-8002. michelle jamrisko covers trade policy.

how long have you been covering this issue? guest: it is within the u.s. economic portfolio and trade is becoming much more a part of it. so a few years and under a range of u.s. economy issues. host: and covers them for bloomberg news. check out her work at bloomberg.com and at twitter. first question from bobby in spanish fork, alabama, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. great guest. i would like to call people's attention to and hear your guest's thoughts and opinions and insights on the following topic, which i think is one of the most positive things that donald trump has done so far, and that is to appoint dr. peter navarro, professor at harvard, phd, as the trades are -- trade czar with china. when i lived in asia, it was a laughingstock among the asian people up how badly the united

states has been beaten in a huge variety of trade deals for the last several decades. i have read navarro's books. i encourage everyone to read them. the guy is phenomenal. with a balanced way as a professional economist, he goes case-by-case with listing the specifics on the real dangers to america's national security because of china getting the upper hand on us. i would love to hear her thoughts. guest: by conversations with peter navarro, you have reflected some of what he has talked about. he essentially made a career out of trying to show how china has eaten the u.s.'s lunch with trade. he essentially, we should back up and talk about his background, phd economist at uc irvine, a rarity in trumps circle, where a lot of businessmen and other folks are taking the reins. he comes from an academic background. his main gripes about china, he

says "i believe in the ricardian theory, the early 19th century free-trade idea that trade can be beneficial for all, but right now, it is not working because china is cheating on four fronts, they have a legal exports, lacks environmental and worker standards, and they have intellectual property theft and they are all deemed violations." his main message is that he wants to target these things and china is a big target. host: let's talk about reception he has received. here's a story from "the associated press" and "the l.a. times." the chinese newspaper criticizing peter navarro, calling the traded kaiser and "anti-china alarmist," and warned both sides would suffer if commerce is disrupted. what sort of reception is peter navarro receiving in washington, d.c.? guest: it is mixed. a lot of people do not know too

much about him. he is a little bit new and only came on the campaign several months ago and has a limited background with president-elect trump. trump said he read navarro's works many years ago and appreciated them but they didn't , have much personal contact up until this campaign so the reaction is mixed. people who are against the message that the trump campaign say chinang, would may have some violations in international trade, but it is not as much as peter navarro and his team are talking about. the other part being, what are you going to do about it? protectionist measures are not popular along -- among the washington crowd, so the idea that something the u.s. does will provoke retaliation certainly makes a lot of people here and in new york and economic circles nervous. host: what is the last trade war the u.s. was in? guest: [laughter] tough question. a lot of people go back to

reagan to talk about -- especially when i mentioned defensive tarriffs. he certainly looks back to what reagan did trying to counter what japan was doing at the time and this is something that trump in the 1980's, you can find old clips from "oprah winfrey," where he talks about the potential for running for president and says, i just want to make things fair for american workers and he just changed to pan to china and it is today's message all over again. they were tarfiffs going on and they eventually settled. we will see what happens. host: there are talks about donald trump pulling out of the world trade organization, renegotiating nafta, some of the tarriffs, are these things you have heard peter navarro say? guest: yes, they have been

pretty consistent. p or navarro and dan d'amico about what can be done and what the plan is. it is unclear what the sequence of events is. he has also talked about probably slapping tarriffs on, but we will see how that plays out depending on what they think is the best negotiating tool and how they think others will react. to new york.ead lee is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: earlier this morning on tv news, they said that iran had negotiated with boeing for $14 billion for planes. now, iran says they will only pay $7.1 billion instead of $14 billion and i'm wondering whether this has come about because donald trump has told boeing you are charging too much for future presidential planes and this has put going in a -- boeing in a precarious position? guest: i have to apologize. i have not seen that news this

morning. what i can say is that donald trump and his statements about different companies including , boeing, have really been a source of intrigue, especially when he has made a lot of these statements via twitter and that -- not kind of in full speech mode. it remains to be seen. that is one thing from the wall street side that companies are looking at and trying to gauge how to react to certain statements he makes and whether it is a reflection of a policy move or a one-off criticism. host: when the tweets happen from donald trump any cause out -- and he calls out a certain company are we seeing a market lasts hours or days or have some of these companies have had weeks of problems when some of these beats -- tweets come out? guest: it depends. i'd have to look at theguest:

-- specific cases. initially i think it is short-term shock, but it is hard to rebound from some because you have someone with an enormous following, the president-elect, and enormous uncertainty under what he would do to follow up the statements. host: tim in conway springs, north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. trump says he is going to change all of the trade deals. the republicans in congress were the ones that passed all the trade deals. how are they going to deal with that? guest: that is a fair and interesting question. i think it will be interesting to take a look at how congress feels about this. he has a tremendous amount of goodwill in his own party right now having scored an election victory for the republicans in the house and senate, so some are coming into his administration with a sense of cooperation. a lot of them do not share his view of totally upending the

international trade system, so we'll have to see who becomes the allies and it there are enough to win over on things that need congressional approval. host: i want you to listen to this clip we played earlier. i want to get your reading. this is congressman kevin brady, the chairman of the house clean committee, talking about donald vow to renegotiate nafta. i went to know what you hear. [video clip] congressman brady: i have not spoke to him or his team about where enacted they would want to improve. he talks about these issues and really talks about not so much with drawing, but going back and negotiating, trying to make it a bigger win for the united states. we have a manufacturing surplus with nafta countries. these relationships helped us, frankly, move through worldwide recessions better than other countries as well. i would encourage the president to take a look at the parts and

-- in nafta that looked right in the 1990's but can be modernized today. my advice always if you're going , to renegotiate an agreement, make it more free trade, be bolder about reducing tariffs in all directions, give us more economic freedom to sell what we're making in america, buy the products that consumers want to buy, so the approach is going to take in nafta or tpp's is to go bolder, to open up more of that market to american goods and services, then i think that would be welcome. host: that seems a far cry away from donald trump calling this the worst trade deal in history. guest: right. a few things that congressman brady says that are interesting. one, he uses the word modernized, something that mexican -- the mexican president has said, too.

our neighbors to the north prime , minister trudeau, said he wants to talk about renegotiating and says he could modernize. what he is saying is, let's look at lacks worker and environmental standards, the criticism navarro has a china, let's look at modernizing those standards maybe in a way that twentysomething years later we can really keep up-to-date. he also talks about the opening up of the borders a little bit more through renegotiation. it seems counterintuitive to the message trump is promoting. it gets back to what people forget that even in free trade agreements, these agreements can be quite thick. some scholars joke that if it really is free trade, would it -- wouldn't it be one page? host: no tariffs. no guest: tariffs, but essentially come you have to tariffsare going to have

in all of this. how do we change the tariffs in place and maybe institute more or less and get rid of some? we will see how that plays out and what specific industries will be targeted. host: on the caller's concern about the boeing deal -- here's the story on what she was discussing. with an aircraft $6.6 billion to iran, may be worth only half of that, according to cnn. of 50 737hat money airplanes and 30 777s and the iran deputy transport administrators said the amount will be near $8 billion, so some news coming out today. jim is up in dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i have you on speakerphone. my left arm is not working right now. this is a quick question. 1996 -- i am ay

smoker, which i know makes me a dumbass, but i have been smoking for 40 years. i was buying cigarettes in america for $40 a carton. i got on the internet when it went worldwide and you could trade and everything. i found a website where i could in ukraine andny buy cigarettes from them for $12 carton, made in the usa, and they would ship them to my house, united states postal, and i was turning around and selling cigarettes to my coworkers and other people are $20 carton. i just want to know how is that

possible that a product made in the united states can be packaged, shipped over the ocean, and then sent back to me at 20% to 25% of the cost was -- of what i was getting it here? host: michelle jamrisko, globalization one cigarette time. guest: [laughter] it can get complicated economic question, but it does get and one thing that has come up also in the nafta agreement discussions, which is companies companies are making decisions not just around where cheap , wages and labor are, but around where they can get the most bang for the buck, so to speak. to answer this in a different way, they look at where can they employ people that will be most most productive? when you adjust for productivity, mexican workers at

certain factories are much more economic efficient for companies to send jobs there than in the u.s. and china, so you see a lot of different decisions forming this kind of calculus around where to put your resources and where to produce the products that and up being cheaper sometimes. host: a tweet says we have been discussion. jd reading says trade agreements can be good for certain americans but not necessarily american workers, like if it is not america first. and another twitter user asks, despite higher trade deficits, hasn't nafta resulted in more u.s. exports, therefore, or -- more jobs? a lot of discussion on what nafta has and has not done and a lot of disagreement on the fact. guest: it can be a dangerous thing to wholesale blame or credit nafta for certain things, but i think we can point to certain nonpartisan outfits like the congressional research service, and a lot of these independent looks at nafta in a

different trade agreement was said that their modest effects but in the end, their modest positives with the u.s. economy, so not too much on the whole to benefit the u.s. economy, but really what this agreement is about this year is how do you compensate those who do inevitably lose from these trade deals? host: let's head east to talk in new york. eric is a democrat, good morning. caller: thank you. very engaging discussion. michelle, i pleased you are the am guest. i hope a giving an example, if you could explain how this will work through. if we could take the auto industry with cars and trucks, whether they be foreign cars made in mexico, japan, kia, toyota, volkswagen, and we -- foreign cars made in a foreign place and we change things and do these new tariffs and they are in effect, who in

ot thed is going to fo bill and be paid? is it the end consumer, the car manufacturer, the country, is this all shared? can you explain if this goes through by using all these many cars -- foreign cars and trucks the united states, how would this all work in the end? is it the consumer, manufacture? can you give an example? host: michelle jamrisko, we'll let you get that. guest: those are all great questions and things being asked by companies, scholars and politicians. to your point about how this affects the end consumer, a lot of people who are rebutting the trump message say that you forget the people who have lost out and others who do not necessarily lose out from nafta or other trade deals and how they are enjoying cheaper prices, cheaper import prices from certain countries and

different products, so in the end, that is the benefit to the consumer. countries and different products, so in the end, that is the benefit to the consumer. however, it will depend on how these industries are targeted and as the caller mentioned, the different parts may be made in different places. if you take -- to use the example of the car, certain parts may be made in mexico, china, vietnam, and the whole supply chain concept that has gotten so complicated over the through globalization is hard to disentangle, so one company with many parts, yes, maybe if trade deals are renegotiated somewhat, that part needs to find the new home, maybe america, but the whole product is affected in a different way then it used to be, or the product was maybe made in one place or smaller products in one place. host: in new jersey, curtis is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning.

how are you guys? host: doing well. caller: doing well as well. a few things to read about nafta, donald trump and myself, really quick. do.a is a must now we are on to the asian theater, the asian treaty. donald suggest should these things the knowing, they have been in air force one for years, they know what they are doing. i am a defense contractor in the united states of america and ran for president in 2016 that was taken away illegally, sick and youe me up and elmer if want more information. i do really care too much on that, but nafta, we need mexico, the border between texas, and the one in canada, that keeps us secure. donald speaks before he thinks. he is too loud and core religions and populations of people is ridiculous, and i

thank you very much. i think your news station c-span is first-class, first-rate and thank you. host: curtis, question on nafta, if donald trump does renegotiate nafta, what role will congress play? did they have to approve and the negotiation? -- a renegotiation? guest: we haven't really done this before, but the consensus is he would be doing that with canada and mexico and would send the package to congress for an up or down votes in the house or senate, so it would have to go through as another trade deal, but it remains to be seen. he made try it another way and we would have to see how the reality plays out. host: as we try to guess at what will happen, lots of concerns about the mexico portion of nafta. are there specific concerns u.s. canada and

manufacturers moving to canada? guest: that has been lessguest: of the concern, especially concerned -- in comparison to mexico. you china's specific industries and with other manufacturing in mexico. mexico is concern for the impact on agriculture and different parts of the agriculture economy , so everybody has their pet industry, and mexico has not been that much in the conversation of the need to renegotiate as mexico has. att: you can follow us c-span wj. joe is in miami, florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the oil trade from 2000-2008 crisis,

to $1000 -- from $13 plus barrels of oil, was caused to an agreement of opec to reduce production so that the price of oil would go up. the effect was devastating in 2008, just because we slowed down. one of the things happening again here is that opec is agreeing to reduce production again, and has raised the price a little bit more. -- before we cannot compete because we had legislation that we cannot an international market and now we can. i don't see that move being taken advantage of and i believe god is regulations, so once regulations cannot, what will -- i believe god is regulations, so it's regulations, out, what will be competing? guest: there is a lot around the

oil markets that is interesting and not so much a part of the trade disagreement we are talking about in discussion. what we have seen is that the u.s. -- officially u.s. shale producers have survived the downturn in prices worldwide. adding morem are breaks, coming back, getting production back in business, so that is part of this story. he also got up deregulation situation. we have seen since president-elect trump's victory, a lot of small businesses, and other businesses or sentiment surveys, expressing great optimism about easing the regulatory board in on tax reform, so it remains to be seen if those policy initiatives are pushed through, we could see higher sentiment leading into action by companies that we have not seen, which is lackluster business investment over the years. host: colleen in florida,

democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. just for your information, the thing about the cigarettes, that was a tax paying, not a trade -- game,ing, not the trade and the taxes were still due to the state the person lived in. as far as trade goes, we have we are pickinge winners and losers. 5, allhey had the g8, g those conferences around the world, there were protests, all highly secret negotiations. the tpp -- are congress had to go to a room where they cannot take a pencil and paper to read them. they have shipped away at our civil rights, which is more important than our financial rights. when you talk about these economic things going on between countries, people are making a

fortune. i mean, the money is the whole problem with it. when we gave up tariffs, we cannot level the this whyield, and that we closed our steel industry and why we have had the financial situation that we have had, and the investment opportunities that send our stock market crazy, again, that is our regulations were gone, and it harmed the population, the working population of the country. did notalization protect anybody, it did not protect china. all the people in china now have all the environments of problems you cannot have before. host: michelle jamrisko? that areo points interesting, one, thank you for pointing out the tax issue, a very salient point and something we will see play out and put

donald trump would really like to institute wholesale tax reforms and there is an appetite in congress are that carried you may see that play out in the trade conversation, with the big effect on the end product price trade she talked about globalization. i thought it was interesting how she put it because it is important to remember how this happened in the campaign and how it affected the final vote. a lot of people forget maybe did not know that hillary clinton, among voters who said the economy was the top priority, she won. it is not totally story of people saying that my economic circumstances are terrible, i will vote for trump. it is much more complex. something that trump pushed on three different friends at the same time with an economic agenda surrounding trade, security, immigration. he talked about all these three things together and appeal to people who had a fear, not only of losing their jobs or having higher wages, but of immigration

kind of having an effect negatively and security. he played on all of these and talked about how closing the borders are cutting off open borders with help. host: before we leave colleen's call, she talked about the negotiating process for trade deals and what congress could and could not do when it came to dealing the trade associations. in the first segment of our program wanted to know more about the fast tracking, fast-track process and why congress would want to take themselves out of that process. can you explain? guest: it is one of those things are you look and say, congress wants to proceed in power in a way -- [laughter] ofwas recognition that some the politics and processes have gotten out of hand, so before tpa and fast-track authority, congress, any congress member could amend or filibuster in the senate a certain process and

effectively killed the trade deal. there is such -- at least in congress, there is much more of a broad bipartisan. resolve the nafta vote earlier on hopper down two decades ago, but there is still popular sentiment on how free trade is good, so they wanted -- on both sides, they wanted to help move the process along and about the chance that it would not be tripped up by any one person's amendment or filibuster and allow the authority to give an up and down clean vote trade agreement. host: greg in virginia, independent. the morning. caller: good morning. when i was in high school, we learned about mercantilism and the key was to have a favorable balance of trade, and it seemed like her problem is we have not had their trade policies over the last 20 or 30 years, especially with countries like china, japan, and i like to know how donald trump will handle that, especially with china.

policies need to be fair, we need to be able to export and import from them. you see going to be able to get those things done without having an all-out trade war with asia?ast guest: i think the two friends that president-elect will have to look at, a number of callers mentioned that free trade is not necessarily fair trade, and that is a big point in the discussion. i think president-elect trump has to look to mystically, inward at what we do to compensate workers who inevitably lose out in trade deals. the caller mentioned haskell trade, and i am thinking back to my own high school professor thatng about how they used advantaged and produced a trade system in which everybody wins. if you have traditional affects taken care of, being the workers

who lose their jobs or whose wages are driven down because the company is putting resources elsewhere, then there was all of that to consider on the domestic side, how do you compensate workers or find something different and how do expand worker training, that's what of but versus high you negotiate with these countries, the question of the day, or you find common ground and so everyone is happy in the end? signed into law over 20 years ago, do we still pay money for trade adjustment assistance? guest: the program is still in existence. it does seem a little outdated to people, so the effects of taa have not exactly been what we .anted that is another area they look at in terms of institute and

tout there are hard negotiating mines, which i am sure we will be doing host: something for certain workers. in the cold. in the transpacific partnership negotiations, how much money was congress being asked to set aside for trade adjustment assistance? put a i hesitate to specific amount. allen say that it was not enough for some people. i would say that donald trump and bernie sanders and hillary clinton between this line about how there was not enough trade protection for workers, and that is the reason all three decided to work for it. host: dorothy in virginia, democrat. we have 30 minutes left. good morning. caller: good morning. for you, i would like to clarify for me and the american public what to presidents negotiated nafta, walker bush, and who

signed it, bill clinton or george bush before he left office in december? rallying around waving flags and talking about is going toe nafta be for the american people -- was that not newt gingrich? would you explain that to the american people. host: a little political history. guest: a fair point. this was all started under president reagan, at least initially drafted, carried through under the two are still be bush administration and ratified under the clinton administration, so you do see a bipartisan picture. answer showed earlier in the previous hour, it was bipartisan, so to think of that era, it is almost like a different time, where globalization as we know it was catching on and a lot of people were enthusiastic about the promises of free trade.

host: i should clarify on that vote total we showed, it passed 234 to 200 would support of 102 democrats and 132 republicans or 156 democrats who voted against it and 43 republicans. that was the implementation act passed on november 17, 1993. john is in new hampshire, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to mention, i think it was the 1960's, we used to have rca making tvs and radios and then the japanese dumped their product on us, and it seemed the government was reactive and never proactive and looks at we go through it all the time. how come and why don't they learn from that from the japanese dumping their products? guest: interesting question and one a lot of people ask this year.

what can be done, and why hasn't the government done more? this goes back to the question we askcture and when what the president can do without congressional approval , theen we look at tariffs president generally has the ability and the executive branch has the ability to institute very narrow tariffs and short-term tariffs, but not long-term tariffs without congressional approval, so that is the best way to sum it up, but they today, you mentioned japanese dumping with a negative effect. day today, the commerce department can [indiscernible] especially in response to certain company complaints, but that is much more host: smaller in scope and more narrowly focused. when we talk about presidential powers on trade, we will talk about that in our next hour and our next hour, the senior fellow at the pearson institute for

international economics and dean baker will be with us, cofounder of the center for economic and policy research, so that is coming up in 15 minutes. if you have questions for michelle jamrisko, republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. she will be with us for another 15 minutes, so get your calls now. gary, chester, west virginia. go ahead. caller: yes, i signed up when i became a republican, but i bodes -- always try to vote american, not party. that is something that people in government forget. they are american first and democrat and republican second. should be dones in congress on this 95% are in the room, congressional meeting room. i see too many times that there is 1, 2 or three people, and

ory are presenting bills whatever to the congress and there's nobody there to listen to them. that is wrong. they should only represent anything to congress on the entire congress is in the room. host: would you be ok there are other members of congress watching from their offices? caller: no, they belong in that room. they belonged in the congressional meeting room. host: you think that will keep commission getting much work done, if any 5% of the members have to be there for work to get done? caller: we have got so many laws on the book right now, they are just wasting time thinking of other ways to do it host:. go ahead, another point? caller: yes, no foreigner, anything,of of besides embassies, like one on and ist and west coast, voted for obama when he first

ran for office. , have no qualms about that although i am a republican, i thought it would be good to have not in their, but i did vote for him the second time. within two years, and in his first term, i knew he was the wrong thing at this country. i do not the democrat or american. american, and that is what people in the united states forget. host: american first, party second or last. all right, gary in chester, west virginia, bringing a president obama. but while his legacy beyond the issue of trade? is a little incomplete. i think his administration with his commerce chief, they try to put certain things in place to move u.s. manufacturing to

another level, and they talked about advanced manufacturing jobs, so if you look at the evolution of economy, this turned out in the agricultural economy and then into services, as the most advanced economy in the world, we are primarily services, so a lot of the bravado around the negotiating trade agreements and bringing manufacturing jobs that is people saying they really don't want all the manufacturing jobs back. what we do best is advanced manufacturing and services. manufacturinga's type to move back to the steel industry or bringing back card manufacturing jobs and saying, those may be best funded by others and maybe we can benefit but would be cheaper and labor can be more efficient if we focus labor on something else host:. it's good to allen in missouri. come on. caller: good morning.

i have a comment and then crushed. i grew up in the 70's -- 1970's, and i remember the hubbub about by american, buy american, and return that around. now, my question is, how do these companies get away with not putting "made in america" on the products? instead, they are putting distributed, and it is always distributed in the united states, but that doesn't mean it is made in the united states. i kind of wanted to know how to get around that. americane buy provisions that have come up in the trade discussion to not really restrict [indiscernible] obviously, not every product has to be made in america, and the by america scope has been on

large procurement projects, and which i'm glad this caller and gary brought up earlier because it has been an interesting point that some have made in terms of wanto you balance what you from say mexico and canada pushes what you will offer? some have suggested -- and i don't think it is a track president-elect trump will take same, but given the amount of infrastructure he wants to get done and given the support for the program, a be loosen up the buy american restrictions and have point entities compete for those projects, which you will need a lot of resources to do, trump has said we have had enough unemployed people and we could fill those jobs at americans, but it remains to be seen. there is a lot needed for the type of scale infrastructure projects that he is talking about. host: not the first caller to bring a product labeling.

has donald trump said anything about product labeling? guest: it would be dangerous to say no, but i'm hard-pressed to think of a specific time. host: bruce in new jersey, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i wanted to go over everybody talking about trade deals, but actually, it is about the patent office in washington. a log thatt we have states all products be in the patent office are not made in the united states? why wouldn't they want that? want capital rules, they the cheapest product anywhere they can have it made, so i wanted to address the patent office. we should stop it right host: there. your thoughts on that proposal? heard theave not

patent office come up too much. there has been backlog for several years and it has eased more recently. i don't know. again, one of the four chief concerns that peter navarro has, particularly with china, is intellectual product stuff, so we are seeing a lot of issues on how do you protect the intellectual property around producing any number of products that might be going throughout supply chains in different countries? host: have you met peter navarro personally? guest: not in person but the phone, so hopefully sometime soon. host: tell us about his time as a professor. guest: he can be kind of feisty. he has a bone to pick on this, and he understands people disagree with them. he is in california, which is funny. you talk about a left-leaning atmosphere at here in academia, and he is waging this fight that

is found not in line with what the typical liberal right now is taking and what university professors -- so he talks with a bit of a chip on his shoulder about how he is getting criticism from others in his field, but he knows the theory just like the best of them and teaches that to his students and is trying to promote this message that ricardian theory should work but the caveats are so strong right now that the international trade system is broken. he is passionate about what he believes but very focused on china. host: what about the national trade council? will that be in the white house or how much access does he have? guest: i think at this still uncertain, but as far as access, he will be in a high post. it is one where the could very by administration. people under obama and

previous presidents that had titles that were fairly new or than theyrently usually with her been in the past. it is unclear. we do know that trump thinks navarro's strategy and message is an important piece of his economic agenda. host: suggestion from dd fredericks on twitter, make america great again should be transferred to made in america, again. harry, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good. caller: i am from an area in garrett county, where years ago, we had a plant that employed and marylandple, is not the most employer-friendly state, and a number of other things, jobs getting much got shipped to ireland and mexico and took a big hunk out of our middle class.

at the same time, if you look into allegheny county down the potomac river, most industries that use to be there or not there. there is a paper mill that has , employed since 1888 about 2500 people years ago and now is down to 600 to 700 people. they are struggling and the biggest problem they had between agencies thather harassed them all the time, you -- china operates these paper mills, and because they are government operated, they don't have to compete. they pick certain industries and they try to drive them out of business. there has got to be something there because these people that they employed, not all are college-educated but good people and they needed these jobs. gothe same area, you obama's war on the coal industry, i mean, pretty soon, there will not be jobs.

except maybe would you like more fries, sir? host: we will be talking about energy and environmental policy tomorrow, taking up that topic for our three-hour program. michelle jamrisko, i'll give you a chance to respond to harry. guest: three different challenges connected to a ,onvention, one is tax reform which we mentioned sporadically, but a big part of company decisions to locate. to notes it is important quickly target a trade deal as a trade deal as the reason for companies moving jobs or resources. often, it is the cheaper tax rates abroad, which is another thing from has talked about. he also mentioned china having an easier time >> you can watch the rest of this segment at c-span.org.

we take you to the house pro forma session. live now to the floor of the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 27, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend gene hem rick, st. joseph's catholic church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: