tv Discussion Focuses on President Trumps First 100 Days CSPAN May 4, 2017 12:36am-2:02am EDT
forsyth strategy and risk initiatives here at the atlantic council. it's my pleasure to host today a session on question that is on everybody's mind. it's what's next after trump's days.hundred we're at day 102. already, i think, had a lot of interesting things happen the first 101 days. a harder stance against immigrants coming in the with allies and partners in asia, europe and america. he's also taken a stronger stance and obviously he also launched his first attack in syria against weapons.se of chemical
he has run into trouble with his agenda. continues to be plagued by his with russia.ties in addition, many government positions remain unfilled signal that nominees are coming. environment trump has walked into is as tough as the u.s.een for how it's diffusing away from the and south.st there's dischord in the western so calledeen globalists and so called populist. in u.s. there's division between political, racial and ethnic lines. as it is now. it's unfair to grade any early into his
tenure. we can begin talking about it as already is. have today an incredible group of incredible analysts that are moderator, hudson, a foreign policy reporter, buzz feed news will the discussion. before i turn the floor over to noteand his panel, please that we are live tweeting this @acscocroff. hope you and the audience follow along. is on the record. it's being filled by c-span. my thanks to the panelist for coming together. look forward to hearing what
everybody has to say. --ll allow for some final time for questions. on the a short video first 100 days which we'll show first and then the panelist will follow. started. and let's get [video] >> america first. >> protests and backlash from plan.ent trump's energy >> i have recused myself. >> we just fired 59 missiles to iraq -- >> to syria. >> yes. there is an fbi investigation the trump campaign possible take take -- ties to r. >> putting an end to the war on coal.
theirlies are not paying fair share. obsolete.nger >> that was terrific value there. thank you for the introduction. john hudson correspondent with buzz feed news. delighted to be here to talk days.trump's hundred sound like we need more volume. you hear me? today is former director of national intelligence of u.s. ambassador and unitediraq nations. chair of thece council. manual, director of harvard
center ford international affairs. in preparation for this topic senator john mccain last week about his views on the days.100 saying, he upbeat couldn't pick a better team of national security advisors. obviously someone who was herly critical of this christian. --administration. it was the turn around. it was the administration that went from saying china is the currency manipulatetor to it's not. is obsolete and it's not. not war at syrian government and we're shooting these missiles at the
syrian government. the republican party establishment captures the trump administration. the blog member of celebrate -- [indiscernible] >> i don't know whether it's the has capturedrty it. the reality has captured in it. captures him progressively for more so everyday. i think this is part of the of theg curve presidency. in past presidencies, not unsimilar phenomenon. people come in office with their own notion. what they're going to what they're going to deal with. they get temper -- this is important in the case of particularly important. their encounters and meetings and discussions and
with their peers on the international scene. discussionssn't had different leaders of continents. now he has such conversations everyday. his calendar in the coming weeks and months, he's going to have a very heavy schedule. i promise you that will leave to event more foreign policy. >> what about the extra latitude he seem to be giving to the pentagon. it seem like the defense department has wider latitude to wars in iraq and afghanistan especially with the ab.h moab for people concerned about the pentagon. is that something to be concerned about? you mean byure what extra latitude. we don't have the expeditionary
forces in iraq or afghanistan at the moment. very talking about moderate presence. forces.d have those they bolster confidence and in localities in the relationship of the united states. it's essentialal good thing. latitude, april 17, 1961, john f. kennedy conducted the invasion. that for this foreign policy success? theow are you looking at first 100 days? especially when it comes to the house's relationship or hands off approach to the pentagon? trying to avoid it. think many of us were shocked about what happened on november 8th. after we got out of bed, we try to we were going to
do our best to be optimistic. hearts broken. as the administration came in, theas so obvious that administration had done very planning. really had not the banders of had tothat other people get cabinet people nominated. paperwork have been done. then for me, the ethics issues i -- expected that the norm, enormity of being president and the idea of taking on the mantle of being the leader of the free world would sober up mr. trump he will begin to do the would.hat we expected he divest himself of assets he a blind trust. ties -- family
members running trump empire, off to the side and not in the white house or west wing. many of usoment on, had to mark to mark everyday reality of how this was not going to be a conventional president. the unconvention believety of donald trump as a candidate will continue into the white house. there were things that we gotten to expect over time from different administrations, democrat and republicans, ways started to look. from the national security perspective, i can say that he did make a good decision in picking general mattis. choicerthat his second national security advisor is a good choice. the fact that most of the buildings in the government, state department for example, bomb hite a new trump
it. the building is there but there are no people. gives you pause. are they going to get anything done? my old spot, doesn't have anybody really there. you not have people there? some of the best people in the world on wmd. issues like north korea simmering. you think somebody would say, go find those people. situationm in the room now. i just don't think there's any on.lar order going >> when you don't have people secretary position, not proliferation under secretary were at the state department, how does that affect an administration? impact onhat have any the interagency process? obviously, you point to the issue of north korea which is the most salient challenge that
facingsident is probably now. yoursort of role would former office be playing in the interagency process? as we know, it's filled with who are note political appointees and don't have as much sway in the process.cy what effect does that have? doesn't the white house have it?t people that can handle >> no. they don't. -- ink the issue really is think that donald trump is really a ceo. he's a corporatized ceo. he has a family business, it's not like it's a public company. from theally obligated responsibility of transparency and disability. we have a corporate view of things. everything is about the deal. about a good deal. laws --e winners and
losers. what he missed some place along lines, is the government isn't a business. it would be nice to think, i wer business say, shouldn't add better business principle. of things about it that you want to have honesty go the want things to right way. you don't have the same responsibilities. it's a lot easier to be in business. about thes it's bottom line. it's about making money, it's about making deals. having your product sell and having more money. that's not what the business of is.government it's nice to have the many timesity, how those of you that are foreign service professionals and have government, how many times did you know where good deal was and know you country have an allyse you or adversary that caused you to
the shape of the outcome? that's credits harder -- that's why it's harder to be in government. during those days, early on, when president trump was outsourcing the north korea problem to the chinese, which week ago, heut a really didn't need anybody. do.as doing what ceo's we had a week in the building, they'll come in and clean it. cleaning it. i'm going to outsource this problem to somebody else. well, the chinese are doing what they've done for three or four administrations. not getting the outcome we're worried about. we've got to do something. now you see people in the state tillerson,or depending on who it is, saying talk to ourave to allies. what about the republic of korea and japan? line. the party that's what we have been saying in democrat and republican
for a long time. we're getting back to where we were. i think there's a little bit of trump's way of point of view of way he's always done things. a 70-year-old guy. people do things they tend to do. think he's course correcting. not necessarily because he wants things have toy be. you need people in the state department. if you're going to engage with you do need people in state. in asia.ounterpart you need people with expertise in 1994. what happens about the different mechanisms you need. they're going to find them. i don't believe they want to fill these jobs. the have to start depend on people that have i think they are going to find themselves -- i do not believe they want to fill these jobs.
i think they are going to have to depend on the people. >> when it comes to engaging with allies -- i wanted to bring up the nato front. trying to shake money out of them. president heen the deputy, tillerson, mantis, and trips to bond and brussels, have really been on team reassurance. i do not personally think they have been messengers of the trump line that this cannot continue any longer. at least to the level of severity that trump communicates it. do you think in any way -- and a cabinet members undermined his efforts -- what is your sense for me recent travels, avoid
impressions -- he is living behind him what they are understanding from this administration's message on they tell? -- nato? >> it was clear in the security conference -- you have the vice president, the secretary of defense saying nato is vital -- of course you have tweets from the president that were two weeks old, saying the opposite -- everybody took questions. except for the u.s. reps. they went on stage, spoke, and left. the first question would have issue is an me the agency structure achievement -- how much will this structure way on trump -- by the structure i systemny layers with the including his cabinet, the judiciary, his own party in congress, the fed -- there will be issues with the fed and monetary policy, because he will be interested in lax monetary policy.
there will be tensions there with inflation. how does the church are way on him? him?igh on he will be constrained another -- a number of fronts and he has been already. nato is part of that issue. a people could minify them toe. they monitor -- a nato, not some of them spending targets -- most of us agreed in any case -- including people from europe. i do not think there has been a major shift there. i'm worried about -- we were discussing this before -- perspective of what has happened in the first 100 days and what have is after. but i think is interesting is the trends here -- why people voted for him in the first race and why people are voting a radical options in europe. the trends are still there. the broader question is, will he be able to address the underlying issues?
that led to a lot of political radicalization. i think the answer is probably no. some of the policy we have seen only make issues worse. i have data i brought to show you guys, it's a good idea to show. >> please. understandtarting to what has been feeding this populist revolt. my thesis here is that this is produced by -- on the way -- generated in our societies, much more than trade, immigration. we are starting to have a lot of data on this. it's compelling. i brought some slides with me. happened forat output in the u.s.. there's been a lot of -- not just job destruction, also an increase in precariousness.
this tends to be left out of debates. it's not just an employment, also under and subject. there's this new economic class which you contend, the precarious, which includes not jobs orlloyd -- loss of suffer the downward pressure that technology puts on those jobs. industrial jobs in the u.s. in the 1980's to the best two today. output is the little one, increased by 250%. the red line shows employment, almost half. this is what trump will fail on his promise to -- bring back industry of jobs. he may accelerate it come not jobs themselves. of american units for million dollars in industry is about 25 americans in 1980, 6 .4 today. productivity, and collapse and employment. this is happening in services as well. there's a lot of jobs being
automated in services. estimates are in the transportation sector, many due to self driving cars. estimates -- their 50% of current jobs -- in the next 20 years. i me this changed the way think about this issue entirely. it's fascinating. from 1973s. data onward, we have had a decoupling of productivity and hourly wages. some of us have termed this a breach of our social contract, because simply by our growth model to the maximum, we believe that increases in productivity that ended up trickling down -- and to salaries and fading the middle class. that has ceased to happen in the united states in the 19 of these. we have found a way -- my thesis is technology, to increase productivity without creating jobs or paying better for the once we have. is what is behind the troubles we are currently living.
decoupling is producing disturbing dynamics. this was from a stanford researcher, before at harvard, given access to a huge united states text database going back to the 1940's. he calculated the probability that an american or in one of these generations were on and his or her parents throughout his or her lifetime. it keeps collapsing. millennials it's under 50% a little bit. assist the death of the american dream, social economic mobility. this is stagnation. one of the consequences of that is us. the other is a huge increase in inequality. data --p -- this is going to the top 1% of income earners, bottom 50%. you have a big change in that trend. the top percent is earning a lot
more for the pretax income in the event than the bottom 50% michael thesis -- it was wondering if we could play the short clip, it is like 50-50 second clip. i'm wondering if we could lay that, it summarizes how i think this lays out. out. it is not working. andhe going to be stubborn difficult for the president to overcome. one of the things the president is better at than any politician right now is salesmanship. you can see this when he was ruling out the carrier announcement that they saved hundreds of jobs. a lot of people remarking at the time that that was a better
salesmanship job than it whatever happened during the -- continuously viewed as something that did not succeed in polling. a seasoned politician -- someone who has her own congressional campaigns, is this something the president might be able to overcome through his proven ability to connect with voters who are suffering from those trends? >> look. the president has a big problem on credibility. he does not see ash the truth on a regular basis. going to catch up with him. telling people west virginia that he will bring money jobs back is terrible, to people that not only are suffering from black long and have a depressed
economy, but -- he lies. telling people, making claims that he is made. i find it to be stunning that there are people that went along. but eventually -- your mother was right. you are going to have square yourself eventually with the fact. right now he is in trouble, with promises -- he made it big deal about this himself. these are the things he was going to do, he to contact for the 100 days. he got one thing done. it was, for that part of the republican party and federalist society, having neil gorsuch go through that process was a victory. i'm not too sure the senate will ever be the same with the elimination of the filibuster. the whole question
is, what does he start to do that resonates with his on-base? kinds of problems with people that didn't vote with him. he has done nothing to unite the country. here's been a very divisive person. he saw his speech on saturday night -- it was almost as bad as his inauguration speech. think something is going to half to happen where he decides that he is the president -- and powers fallen on his shoulders, nelly is to change the way he has been doing things and be more accountable for claims he is making, and start delivering on the promises he has made great eventually, there's no that therom the fact houses up in it -- the entire house is up and 18. my former republican colleagues that are running are now trying to figure out how they live in a
world where trump has so much influence camilla they get home and get battered about the head every weekend. aey're going to probably pass horrible replacement for the affordable care act. instead of moving to the middle and getting charlie -- and other republicans, even perhaps working with nancy pelosi to get reforms on the affordable care act that was needed, getting something that actually would help people keep their insurance and make sure people were not going to get run out of town on an -- the insurance issue. he moved to the far right with rand paul and the freedom caucus. they are going to have a waiver in this book of the macarthur waiver that will allow states to ofve the whole idea pre-existing condition insurance. that's going to devastate the
insurance market. is going to -- he's going to pass it, maybe. maybe. he still doesn't have the votes, but the seven it -- senator will never pass that bill. --se republicans are really there are canaries in the call mine right now. their majority is at risk, they will have very little of the promises he made to deliver. that's for you start to see the contact between republicans shred abouted, and august of next year. >> when it comes to making promises -- we have seen in the desireek, the presidents to renegotiate nafta. john, given your experience as ambassador to mexico, i am interested in your assessment, the state of the u.s. mexico relations. how much chance do you think the president has of getting some sort of renegotiation of nafta that can be greeted -- agreed
upon among the three countries? how will this affect our relations with our southern neighbor? >> i think that's a lot of these issues that he has raised, hugh see this -- you see the whole system of checks and balances in this country very much at work, not only between the branches of government, but also with the media. and now more and more, also, he has to contend with reactions from foreign countries, which i think he is going to take more into account going forward. one other point before going to mexico. on this question of the promises, i think he has a interesting way with promises. all right. he is going to revive the coal industry jobs -- no, but that is what he said, right? i watched on tv this morning, if
i am not taken, they have agreed on some provision in this new budget agreement trade >> for health care. >> on full health care benefits. >> right. >> for all comite or sand their families. >>. >> kids visualize him saying, i promise to the coal industry -- i delivered it in some kind of important way. -- arerguments can sometimes a matter of interpretation. bashing was aa much a part of the campaign. the word nafta has been very unpopular a time that very much pre-dates president trump. that into a very strong campaign. i think when they came on board, there was a recognition that developed that has much developed now, that the supplying -- supply chain into
relationships with mexico, the network seven -- interconnection between our three economies -- canada, the u.s., and mexico -- is much more heightened van it was at first -- tha it was a first. there's a company with who we have a $500 billion a year -- relationship, 10 times the media with russia, or the united kingdom which we treat with such deference. there is a realization -- has , this isthat gee serious business that, we better be careful -- careful. i think the way forward on the nafta, really is to try to take some of the elements -- not all, but some of the elements negotiated in the tpp, which he fromdrew -- withdrew and try to incorporate them into a new nafta agreement.
this a of digital economy, updating intellectual property. aere are other features of potential free-trade agreement between the 3 -- three north american countries that are think are possible. the last thing i would say, which we have heard mentioned occasionally from the white gee, we could make america an important economic platform from which we could compete for the rest of the world. let's make it a powerhouse. you are that talks a little more often now than you did before. i think it will turn out all right. think for mexico, they are willing to suffer, if you will, the indignity of the wall at some of the ethnic slurs, which i personally believe for very inappropriate, throughout the campaign. but only if the economic park turns out all right. if it doesn't, we run the risk benefits of other
work we did for the past 25 years to bring mexico politically closer to the united states, especially since 9/11, since which time the cooperation on security matters has been absolutely excellent. i do not think we want to go back to a relationship of quote unquote, distant neighbors, as a new york times correspondent wrote 25-30 years ago. the irony of returning to a distant neighbor relationship because of actions taken by the united dates -- not mexico -- would be even greater. >> but this is where donald trump's bravado and hubris clashes and crashes with reality. again andca great america first. if i knew that was your posture ,nd i had a contract with you
and you said -- i came to and said, i want to renegotiate our deal, do you think that is going to be a deal that -- where i have any fairness, or i have any chance of reaching a parody? that's why this is, you know -- i think president trump still needs to take a lesson in the differences between government and business. i do not know why anybody would sit down from canada or mexico and be willing to renegotiate the deal, when i am telling you, i do not think i got more than i should, which is what i want. i want to have some. , to do better than you, to be first. >> did you read the artist the deal? set theow you negotiation terms, frontload those demands. [laughter] economicmexican aretiators
very sharp people. everyone of them has a phd. >> of course. >> harvard, yale, m.i.t., chicago. from salinas on down, they have been brilliant. they continue to be so. >> is there something that the trump administration might succeed and extracting from the mexicans of any sort of deal that you think is in the realm of possible command may be should even be shooting for from it early nationalist perspective? i don't know -- >> i don't know for sure because this tech go, but maybe some things on rules of origin regarding the automobile sector, to ensure -- for example, to ensure that more u.s. parts or content. but it is already the case that -- theywhich imports export $300 billion, or 200 something billion dollars for products, but 40% is american already. as opposed to 5% china. we have basically a fundamentally favorable trading conditions with the country of
mexico. they can be tweaked, but not overhauled. >> i will add something on this. think that's why the broader analysis of why we are here is significant for this. the way these trends that i was showing -- before have played out is two ways. one is pessimism about the future, it is fascinating to read if you look at trump voters, there was a survey done for the election, they were asked, is like for people like you better or worse than it was 50 years ago? 80% said it was worse, hillary voters become true in europe as well. the other is on elitism/ . if you look at brexit voters -- the bank of england, very negative levels of trust of these people. why is this relevant?
to the discussion we are having -- the geopolitical consequence of this is that the strong erosion of the liberal order in a large art because the liberal order is highly and in trusting elites. as for trade and trade is the case for the eu. we do not have-- trade theories are integration theories in europe that did not have a lease rate of the court and trade you need business, political elites, where of the benefits of the company cost, breaking up trade just. those people would be will have traction with their electorate, the people they are representing. seeing are we are derived from severance of that trust. more andlying trends more people go into this category, if that level of trust keeps on collapsing. of not sure -- politics
trump economics, i think the concerned ---- i'm my key messages its former structural everything. it would've to address the underlying issues, the entire architecture -- in some instances the capitalist regime itself, the ultimate consequence of this has been anti-elitism and establishment feeling -- also collapse of support for democracy, which for me is the most serious consequence. we can have a discussion about how that looks best survey data on this is worrying. look at the details of what is happening now with -- what the administration was doing. this, do the long view on and if we do not address the underlying issue, global trade and other issues are very much at risk of being reversed. we've seen this in the early 20th century. >> we have previously.
>> if i could give a little story. -- i was national security adviser for ronald reagan. last couple years of it. there came a day january -- 808i aink -- that he had to sign teleconference, the u.s. canada generalith rhino -- powell and i went in everyday 9:30 in the morning. we said today, present -- you will be signing this fta with canada -- she looked at me and said, john, give the president a few words on the content. the president got me off, it really said a word. he said, you do not have to to me about free trade, i remember. [laughter] be, it's not only the lack of structure, process
them in a-historical administration. history will catch up pretty soon. i'm interested in your perspective as the ambassador to the u.n.. right now we are seeing an interesting dynamic, where one of the most comfortable speakers and mouthpieces for this administration's nikki haley, who seems to be pushing the administration -- or at least communicating a more hawkish traditional republican foreign policy, when it comes to taking a hard line with russia, potentially -- may be more expensive roles in the united states in syria. dynamic --ke of the you have an when ambassador to the u.n. who was more vocal than the secretary of state? we've had -- >> we had experiences like that -- kirkpatrick is the person i think at the beginning of the reagan administration.
what you have to have, especially when our basset or to the u.n. is a captive -- cabinet member -- which i was not by the way -- applicants administrations -- usually is not a member of the cabinet. that atke the case another time. you have to have confliction mechanism one way or another. the secretary of state and ambassador to the united nations saying wildly divergent things. the other is, ultimately, the secretary has got to be the principal spokesman of our foreign policy, other than the president of the united states. that said, it's good we have an capablec -- politically permanent representative of the united states and united nations. it will get relevance to the u.n. street she herself -- is going to discover some of the
real benefits that accrue the united states from being embraced united nations. humanitarian agencies -- whatever, she was going to have a sufficient force, to draw those benefits to the attention of her peers and cabinet. the ticket is a plus that an important personality has been put as our representative to the u.n.. obviously, north korea has been -- does it -- at the forefront. also we have seen that abstention from china, the un security council. -- one of the most committed changes is a posture that the trump administration has taken. talked about and how much of a problem china was. suddenly, the post she mar-a-lago engagement in the
where the administration is true -- increasingly touting how well it is working with china. >> it was amusing the way, to the credit pennsylvania on saturday he said, you do not think we should hold a currency manipulator, when we need them for the korea problem, do you? they said no, they agreed with him very enthusiastically. make -- it's quite skillful. you have to give him credit. >> do you see these achievements -- do you think that he is maybe, has, has to come to the personality of magnetism of xi jinping, or do you think he is playing a game that maybe we are not -- obviously we saw shipment of call that up and turned back. >> that was my earlier point, the part of the checks and balances of the school system is meeting with your peers. i think he probably understands
-- these issues now. he did 100 days ago. axiomatic ofs been her since we have been focused on this issue for the past 20 plus years, that china has -- one run of this. as a decisive? think theirk so, role is exaggerated. my chinese counterparts over the years have told me, you it should be too much influence to us for the relationship with north korea. that said, they are an important part of this situation as a japan and south korea and russia they are a neighbor. there been range of those nasty missiles the north korea's developing. concerning diplomacy -- and the key elements are going to be the united states, china, ultimately once we've set the table and the site -- that the site -- that the side of a kind of outcome we want that are the me reach the agreement mutually then tried to find a way to
influence north korea to accept some kind of negotiated -- >> al, you're a democrat. president trump is not your favorite present so far. but what is the best decision he has made a warm policy, outside of the matches pick, which you are clearly excited about. is something you could point to to say, this is a position i'm not horrified about, what is it? this is an administration that has taken all of them, so there's a lot to choose from. >> it was syria. having us speak out about the use of chemical mistake in the previous administration and a more demonstrable way. i support the fact that he did that. the problem is -- i want to know what his policy is. the problem with the president is that this is a -- temperance problem.
crowds of -- his campaign, he will say anything to anybody about anybody to get applause line. the problem is, now that he is president, to has to look like gumby to make that into -- his role and see if the president. -- not to for the most people, think whiplash on what you can go back and forth trying to figure out what to do you understand, weaker everything he is saying. harrisburg saying things like, i'm only nice to the chinese because it want them to take the problem north korea off my hands, then i will make good deals for them because i to do that, i think the chinese as john is saying are saying, look, you mistake what power we have. by the way, we are not
interested in working for you. set that we do. you are me that's what you want, that definitely something i'm not doing! for a number of reasons. i think if there is a -- there is a shocking, dangerous naivete about how -- all about what was done. some but he has to make sure that this temperance issue starts to get -- he needs to be in the middle lane. there's a reason people don't always say what they are thinking and what they would like to say. part of it is, you do not want to be on the record for. the second is, for a minute constantly talks about how he doesn't want to tip his hand, he is telegraphing to people allies and adversaries all day long, very mixed messages. >> at think we have did start to get him -- rules and elaine where at least there is some of whiplash -- so much whiplash by allies. >> john, as a republican and someone who signed one of those
letters that happened before the election, a lot of those people signed as letters have gone quiet lately. obviously vocal, publicly available human being of washington. what is the worst decision this president has made it since coming into office, something you are most disappointed by. ? >> he did it the first day, withdrawing from the tpp. to object --ay -- in jack's another region i just came back from abu dhabi and muscat last week, an eight-day trip. talk about a part of the world where they are really happy, particularly in saudi arabia and the uae, they're very happy that mr. trump is the president. they think the atmosphere has changed, that they have all the list of concerns and complaints
they had about the previous administration, and they think this administration be tougher on iran. nothing i totally agree or disagree with what they have been saying, but i'm just -- there is a part of the world which is genuinely, i have found, comforted, particularly of mr., with the advent trump to office. thesn't that because -- temperament traits and has taken sides in the historical sunni-shia >> i don't think it's taking sides, i think they have taken geopolitical sides. but they have concerns -- they're not dealt with this in the nuclear agreement because there are not part of it. the nuclear agreement was silent on the issue of support for hezbollah and hamas and for and iraq andsyria
elsewhere. and of course, now there -- settled with this in saudi, with this conflict with the duties and humans. so no, think it's -- i do not think it's just -- i don't think it's only -- >> can i add a note on europe? think the shift the name -- nato policy is promising. they're focusing on issues that are workable in the near future. before thes me since munich conference this year, the discourse on the eu support for brexit, endorsements of running le pen. these are serious issues that undermine u.s. interests in the region. and, an investment in the u.s. european for 70 years, inspiration. think brexit will be hard to make a success out of it. i can only see the destruction
of values across the board for both the year -- remaining european union members and the u.k.. think the geopolitics of brexit will be perverse. we are seeing them play out. this is moving into a gain sort of scenario where hippies trying to extract value. it took about 24 hours for french plan -- prime minister to offer tax incentives in paris, also 24 hours for the spanish foreign minister. -- thether fronts will weakening of relations with europe and nato allies that are now all and the eu, but one of them is leaving. i think it's a huge threat to the european u.s. interest. i do not think the white house is aware of this. nato has struck people defending and at the white house at the department of defense and the national security council. peoplet see a lot of defending the eu. >> i will remember, and i will share in any outcome 11 theresa
may was in washington, she was -- asked a couple times but trump who is next, it was one of the questions she felt she was here. she said, i hope nobody. everyone was surprised. it also tells me there are few people defending the eu in the white house. the rest depends on the british prime minister making the case for integration -- we're in trouble. germany, and this speaks to john's point about the constraint and interacting with others. apparently -- angela merkel was asked to terms with the u.s. could negotiate a trade deal with germany. the laws eu rules -- we have to decrypt -- it was some 10 or 11 times that she was asked, which is something a lot of people predicted -- and mature view of the world, things are bilateral. of course it's better for the u.s. -- for countries in the eu, but within -- eu norms. after that conversation, the
white house -- transatlantic trade and investment partnership will have to continue to be negotiated. there's constraints there. -- the lack of support for eu integration come about understanding the value of integration not just an economic term, it true geopolitical terms. if this in russell square back -- we will see this with brexit. it's a worrying development. >> haven't there been sort of softening on that visit? so far, it looks like the trump administration just has from time to time, flirtation with the right -- right wing nationalist in europe. as a about marine le pen -- or nigel farage making another surprise party and getting photo op. is that president asked about maybe thereems like
has been an evolution, but yourself is that there's still code red alarm united states does not support the european project, a liberal order could crumble. >> i don't see it. >> what you say about the status of the negotiation? >> i think they are ongoing. it's not like nafta. >> they're going to do it. >> apparently will continue conversations. >> there's a silver lining there, isn't it? >> you. >> europeans are always the problem with that. [laughter] >> why? we go back to the lack of trust. any of us -- you know a lot more about international trade than i do -- like >> i don't. >> even if i grade, i wouldn't know. there's a level of trust and delegation that needs to be there for national trait to be sustainable. the system some working for you -- you're out in cologne or
whatever. i can assure you, people protesting against the steel know the details. it'sif it was fully -- mostly public, but people were posing tpp even before we had negotiated. the something there that had nothing to do with free trade, it's not an assessment of free trade. elected populist issues, the lack of trust, all those things. is submitting to tip, we have a great scoop here on our hands. you have your time worthwhile for the integrated press the administration harder on to find out where they are, did you want to add -- that i was a democrat that voted for trade deals all the time, not easy to do in california. but my congressional district supported trade deals, and i was able to continue to serve them.
the question is, for the populist side of donald trump, where of the counter balancing programs for trade? where's the trade adjustment authority and the things we're supposed to make -- free junior-college -- or community college? the package that democrats always push, that republicans in when theyand senate, had republicans of the, never wanted to go for. these are the program to give that are dislocated by globalism and international trade -- a sense of how they can pick up and move out of manufacturing to a tech job or into something else. where are these programs? you expect populist than a -- of donald trump should push these and. again, like the west virginia problem. or, the kentucky, problem.
thingsromises -- these are going to continue to fail. things are got -- not going to futurelize, and the same is -- they are going to be heartbroken if they would jump and go someplace else. the people of the house of representatives, the next election in 2018. that's why republicans in the thee are on the front line rhetoric needs to catch up to what promises of -- and expectations have been. >> i totally agree. the u.s. returned to pre-crisis gdp levels in 2012, u.k. 2014. the u.s. elected a president on a platform to break the will --
at the moment the system was the richest of ever been the u.k. did the same with brexit. so we are failing at the management of prosperity. abundance. this is the issue with trade. now we deal with the people affected negatively. you will get a backlash against the. free trade, tech, international law -- we are failing at the equity piece. >> we are failing at the issues of training and education. it goes to what you showed us earlier. for some recognition of that. we haven't quite figured out how to deal with it. >> we do have the building blocks of what trade authority has been. we've had for 25 years.
if it is funded, it actually works. we know you have to empower and education before lifelong learning to adjust their skills -- in the new market. if those things that will thwart them into a new economy whether his health care, a loan to go to school, even how to manage their mortgage. -- thee to give things federal government has to fund a lot of these. they have never been funded to the extent they have -- they never had a sustainability to the point that they need. clearly the people that would benefit from them don't think they are working. a simple message from a populist president and he is not said a word about it. >> the education piece, i think it's central. the latest data that i've seen from the european commission, there are over 20 million jobs in the eu that cannot be filled because companies cannot find people with the right skills.
your places in southern europe with two digit -- of unemployment. your view of -- jobs not filled. this is a skills gap -- cap that is huge. we do not know how the estimates will bef current jobs automated. would know which new categories will emerge in the future, but we have a sense of where the you needheaded area quantitative skills, social skills, combination of those two , increasing demand in job, job categories. >> data analytics. all of these things. >> there are things that can be done there. the question is, the trump it worries me because what you have there is a huge collapse on capital, which by the way most people think that will tumble education, we'll have to restructure taxation to some extent.
capital is accruing so much of the income, you have to rebalance your taxation from labor income -- capitalism. that's going down. that will probably increase the issue of inequality. some of the signals we are getting just silences, but also on the action side, it looks as if the diagnosis is not be done correctly. of course, this is my opinion. a measure are headed in the right direction terms of policy. >> want to kick it off to questions in the audience. one last we have general hayden back there, great if he could final question to alan. awaydemocrats got carried ?n ties to russia there's so much innuendo. there's a lot of smoke that
keeps coming -- surfacing. but, there's also a lot of unanswered questions. is there any downside to having a constant drumbeat of russian innuendo to his presidency in a way that that might affect u.s.-russia? >> and want to put this to rest, would you? i would like to know what the russian influence in the 2016 elections are previous ones have been. i think everyone would have an interest in this. core of our democracy. intelligent 16-17 intelligence agencies got together and said, not only to the russians influence the election, they did so to the benefit of donald trump. i don't know about you but i do not think that the -- vladimir
putin got together with the gruma said, influence the american elections. i want to benefit donald trump. and i don't care how it turns out. don'tt think he said, i take -- care how terms of i think he said, do it. if he said so, how many people here were surprised about the outcome of the election? oh, come on. [laughter] up, of your hands everybody. even donald trump was surprised. [laughter] i want to know that we have integrity in our election. most people don't understand national elections in this country are run by -- it's a patchwork quilt. a county can of five different ways of voting. some of them highly susceptible to being influenced by wireless servers and other thing. i want to know what happens.
for but he should have an interest in it. no one in the republican party has an interest in. suggest we need an independent, 9/11 like commission of experts that would have a rock band of real fix aryans. they would find out what happened. i want to know what happened. i don't like the idea that there is an overhang, but i also don't like the idea that no one in one party that benefited from this. not only did we not expect donald trump to be president, we didn't expect mitch mcconnell to be the majority leader. there's a lot of people with a lot of interest that worry about their elections being de-legitimate ties who have the power to stop us from getting to the bottom of this. i think the american people should fit -- pitch a big fit and say, i want to know what happened. bless you. now.t to know credibly and we have elections and '18 and '20.
if someone had so much influence that.ant to know to stop >> i would like to give it to the audience. his woman right here. thank you. -- the gc elar. veterans your group -- into the international. dealans have complied the light is theiea trump administration wants to halt and kill this deal and place more sanctions on iran, said of giving a new economic sanctions to iran, which is more aligned with his campaign more, boostbring the american economy by giving more incentive to the iranian
economically? that would in turn boost the american economy as well. thank you. u.s. wire they trying to undo or get out of the deal -- you ask why they are trained to undo or get out of the deal. they have decided that they would not withdraw from the deal, that's what i recall general mattis saying fairly early on of the of constriction. we don't like it, but we committed to its and we are going to keep a watchful eye on implementation. a believe that's the current posture of the restriction. you step back for a moment, i don't take it is unfair to say, essentially what iran has done has frozen their nuclear program. periodve frozen it for a of 10 or so years. at the same time they have been given a free pass on their support for insurgencies and other kinds of detrimental
behavior throughout the region. way ofa broad-fresh looking at. there's concern about that second part of what they're doing to destabilize other parts of the region. i don't think it changes -- if the same group of people philosophically took over iran in 1959. >> please introduce yourself am -- s i >> i am policy turn, atlantic council for a long time. you don't want to know. [laughter] the questions you raised -- uln, elaborated on with regard to helping those labor that has inequalityaling with , the wage stagnation, etc.
started back committee you have .n in the 70's and 80's chester distrust of the elites, it is not just that congress enough -- the business community didn't step up. questionvery specific to ask you. when you do your day to -- maybe you have it in your fit note -- the disparity between labor and muchctivity output, how wages of that reflects the automobile industry a industry, which started to
deteriorate most drastic -- dramatically when it was at the international dutch commission in the 70's -- and into the 80's -- how much does that have to do with unionization in those two sectors? >> that's a hard question. data is aggregate, so we do not know -- the industrial jobs that on them follows a similar has beenhat decoupling produced fundamentally by the destruction of jobs and industry. it is no starting and services, which is what is worrying. inyou look at developments artificial intelligence and the impact they will have a secretarial jobs, travel agency -- i mentioned transportation -- that the next wave. the change will be very different to the one we have experienced in the past. there's a big debate in the community of economists of, will live through this in the past.
culture of jobs in the united states from 1860-1950, who had a huge collapse and labor in agriculture. 60%, went on to single digits. now it's under 5%. u.s. is get it. you can imagine the productivity of the people that have been working in that sector. it emerged in industry. what comes after services? that's a huge question, nobody has an answer. jobs beingugh the lost and services -- we will have sufficient new categories that emerged to fill that gap. make this is, probably not because the nature of the transformation is different to previous ones. we are not substituting physical, human, we are such a tuning brains. it will take us a while to come up with a new category of jobs that are detached from the
services. it's a huge debate. what we do know is it ever happens we will have a long period of depressed employment and -- we will have to tweak education. the question is -- we are a political compulsion there is product of the social contract. how does this look? for me one of the biggest questions of political science and government which is, how do we come to a new equilibrium, economic and political, that fulfills the requirements of equity and others? we are just in the early stages of that today. they're going to have to be major changes in the way the state thanks. the labor income will be declining. you get a lot of concentration and capital, changes in the way the state distributes that income. like a want to sound socialist european, social democrat, but their issues there, for scoring in different ways. i will finish with this because you brought it up, and the private sector.
makes the principle of corporations maximizing profits and going, having the principle is sufficient. actor, you create a middle-class, that's a sufficient go. many stop, you have a huge collective action issue. you can have two company's do well the girl, be profitable. but they are crating jobs. they start living in hostile political environment. we've seen us in europe. then you get people who come in and break trade deals, some the proposed nationalization of companies. there's a a new role for the private sector. it's accomplished debate. what we do know is trends are unsustainable. it is continue their economically and politically unsustainable.
i could be deported. [laughter] >> a few more questions, under 10. gentleman with the blues in the middle. yes. in terms of our hemispheric issues, within 100 days we've seen as venezuela -- venezuelan key situation getting worse, but we don't seem to be policing the general information, not concerned about it. is that because -- that contain situation? will we only pay attention to venezuela if with see actors coming to play or to stabilize neighboring countries like columbia? thank you. there is a problem that has been doubled our venezuelan policy for quite what. permalink for george dubya bush, his thesis was -- we ought to ignore hugo chavez and, basically got out of his skin,
we didn't mention his name. works, andat policy worked up to a point. i was hoped mr. obama would do something more visible about the situation in venezuela. mr. trump at least has met the one of the members of the opposition or the wife of one of the opposition is. i thought that was good. there is this concern that if the united states leans too far forward on venezuela, they runs the risk of discrediting the efforts of other concerned countries in the hemisphere, particularly when the secretary-general of the oas has been fairly active in highlighting the problems that venezuela has. is, theiculty venezuelan people meanwhile are suffering tremendously from the deplorable economic situation. , mr.ure sooner or later
madero will go. the russian s, at what price to the people of venezuela? >> of the questions? questions? trumps to seen towards china changed dramatically. -- how does that affect the u.s. taiwan relations? i do not know if you've heard that trump said, he would have to talk to xi jinping before he talks to -- anyone if he has the chance to talk on the phone for second time. how would you interpret that? thank you. to you john.e >> it is consistent with american policy since shanghai communique. the fact that he received a call from saying one -- after being elected. one time, i don't think it had
an impact of any kind. to carry that further, would have been -- caused for great concern in beijing. we are back more or less on the path that, seven or eight previous presidents have followed, which is -- we recognize that the government of beijing, there's one china. that's that. our relationship is taiwan is one of secondary in a diplomatic sense, although we are guided by the taiwan relations, we seldom equipment that is intended to help fight for their self-defense. done that faithfully. >> another question here, yeah. >> thank you. i thought busby did a good job moderating the democrat and republican question. the topic that has not come up as infrastructure spent, $1 trillion.
as the ambassador punishment -- have you somewhat sector should the most attention, or what regions and then infrastructure spent -- >> the administration got themselves into a problem. what's the reason they had to come back so ugly after failures to repeal and replace obamacare, is because the have harvest this $1 trillion of savings out of killing obamacare to pass tax has to be a revenue neutral. that's why -- it's nice to know how the government actually works. it's these -- these little things trip you up. when they couldn't get it done the first and second time, they had to come back to it because they still cannot move on to what they wanted to do next, which was the tax cuts. they don't have the money to do it and cannot use the rules in the senate for budget right silly action, which means you
need 50 plus one votes, but it has to be budget neutral to use that. i was on the transportation and armed services committee. first of all, we have ridges in this country that are dangerous. have to move that infrastructure. similar to what we did around -- understanding -- i would invest federal money only in places where governments are investing their own money. i would be building things that -- didn't build things were there wasn't a local consensus or investment. you can quickly put -- get together. i like elaine chao, i think she will be good in that job. getting something done for transportation is good. i also think in california, we want to use our own money to take diesel engines on caltrans, electrify them. we think that can help us keep
our impressive environmental goals. but right now, this is about sequencing. what can they get done without getting the health care bill done? the have to get it all the way. the have to repeal it, but get it done so it is fine, so you can actually harvest that money, and use it. think the administration is a fickle. they can't move on with the things you want to do things that are necessary. frankly i'm still fumbling about is, license the president talking to democrats? he could get democrats -- if you want to democrats in good faith and talked about how to work on the obamacare bill without repealing it, because that is an artifice to come by the way -- and then get it done -- you can get a passed in the senate when -- that way -- then you can move on to tax cuts. there democrats willing to work on them, someone to work on infrastructure.
right now, he is using just republican majorities in the house to get things done. they don't agree. all it's doing is showing that the republican party is fractured. -- do other men well or john have anything to add? any more questions? final question, yes. quite thank you. when helen was talking about russian influence into the election -- possible russian influence, you mentioned that this could be a call for american democracy. i know that many foreign correspondents rushed to the ukraine after the elections, believing that -- the connection of american russia -- the -- is in the ukraine. i wasn't often investigation. know there's something
about my country in the world. i wanted to hear -- to see any kind of change in -- of attention in relations ukraine from the white house administration? and how can you see the possible, you know, um, umm,opments, with ukraine, talking about, you know, russian influence, and, all those rings. thins. >> i haven't seen any enthusiasm in the white house to help the people of ukraine. umm, deal with the russian occupation or, the seizure of crimea or any of those issues. i haven't seen and are injured -- energy at all from the white house. it may not submissive -- he is certainly in that press conference with theresa may, you may recall, and the issue of
sanctions on russia. that's because of ukraine -- he said, that's not for now. he kicked the can down there. kerry has said repeatedly, homelessness is philippe dauman to become a sanctions will not be released. the obama air-conditioned -- thank you so much for everyone coming out here. terrific questions, think it's a much analyst. [applause]
. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. tonight on c-span 3 the president meets with the president of the palestinian authority. a house armed services subcommittee hears from sexual assault survivors. a hearing on the visa waivers program, and how to prevent terrorists from entering the country. and a look back at president trump's first 100 days in office. in the morning, the republican plan to replace the affordable care act is expected to come to the house floor for debate and votes. republican house leaders announced it officially believing they will have the
votes. we'll have live gavel to gavel coverage from the house floor when they return at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the president of the palestinian authority mahmoud abbas visited the white house today after being welcomed by president trump. the two met in the oval office and later delivered a joint statement to members of the press. here's a look. >> thank you very much. today i'm ple t