[applause] there is a bit of news. I was trying to remember. We will do whatever the president wants us to do. If he decides to take live witnesses, we will. Thats how you work in the white house. If you are in an outside agency, theres little bit of distance, but inside, you do what the president tells you to do. Ahead,e says to go depending on previous investigations. If he asks you to testify, what we say . What would you say . People asked me how i would handle this, and this is what its like. I want you to imagine the on tv going through the worst possible divorce you have ever heard of. And then your spouse gets to go on tv and give his or her side and you have to sit home and take it. The thats wrong, thats not even close, and you do want to go out and tell your side. Consider this your opportunity. Folks will say, why dont you testify . First, the president told us not to. But number two, who would go without your lawyer . Not knowing the rules. When you go to court, you know what the rules are. Im still not sure today with the rules are paired i saw something that was so bizarre its hard to describe. Go down and sit behind the table and testify not under oath. He presented testimony refused to answer questions, and then left and sat up on the dais asked questions of the other two people. That is the most outrageously bizarre thing to ever see in terms of procedure. West ofthe wild wild processes and you cant lend legitimacy to it. Process, sondland says that you were in the loop on everything. The president s effort to pressure ukraine and announced in investigation announced investigation in return for military aid he says you come upon payout, everybody. I will remind everybody what he said. That he very rarely talk to me and could not get me on the phone. He said you were in the loop. Have picked and chose what they wanted to say. Was trying to catch the articles as they were being introduced. There are very specific. As you mentioned, the first article is for abuse of power and the other is an article regarding obstruction of congress that should surprise nobody thats what this is going to be from the very beginning. Mind, 60 members had already voted in favor before the process started. There was a vote on another summer matter, but heres my point im not going to sit here and make the case, just going to point out this is a political process. It is not legal or judicial. All true. But sondland said this about you. You have a response . To theok forward opportunity to tell my side of the story. Sounds like the white house is taking the fifth . Thats just not right. This is a kangaroo process. I dont mean to be to be too energetic, but this was never level playing field. Would anybody in this room know into that setting without the white House Counsel was a mark no sense at all. Can askt knowing who you questions and for how long . Mind, the rules changed in the middle of the hearing. You do your 45, i did mine and then we would say to take another 20 these things actually happen. This is washington, d. C. With natural to equate it a process you have seen in court , but thats not what this is. And if youve ever been involved in the campaign, they are not like anything else. So that wequestion can move on i still havent gotten an answer. [applause] [laughter] press conference in october that you got heat for seemed to be a moment of notable clarity. You said politics gets into everything, including foreign policy. Byt is a position supported all who testified, saying politics were all over ukrainian policy. Belast question, it seems to theres agreement. I will speak to this as a more general point. Affects is going to foreign policy. One of the things that stood out in my mind watching the ittimony was they said that used to be that politics ended at the waters edge. What i interpreted that to mean that you and i might be a democrat but once we leave the country, we are all on the same page. Thats what i thought that phrase meant. That if you happen to be a democratic president you happen to set foreign policy. Thats one of things they let we have onet do American Vision overseas. That is not with the career staffers meant. Is foreigneant politics are too important and professional, career staff sort of make these decisions so it doesnt get dirty by american politics. I happen to completely disagree with that pretty think its dangerous. It dealt with the effect anything over that the ecb. Elizabeth warren took the position that Consumer Protection and Financial Services was is it too important for politics. Go back and read the story of the founding theres only one appointment and she wanted us to be above politics. I find that to be extraordinarily dangerous. There is no such thing as a professional class running this government. We should not be run by technocrats who are not accountable to voters. Politics can and should influence foreign policy. You may have a foreign policy, i may have a different one. Thats the point i was trying to make in that press conference. That politics cannot should influence foreign policy. But something short of getting another country to investigate your political rival. Im not going to go into this. Youre doing a good job and i appreciate it but im not going to talk about the fact until the president tells me to do so. Really good conversation im you i couldnt believe couldnt get jerrod and nancy stated. Ont wouldve been great stage at the same time. That would have been great. You seem to be moving forward, usually according to this audience, with a good brief. Lets talk about the next trade deal in china. December 15 is the deadline administration has given. Is that likely to happen . Heres what i will say about that. 15 willpens on december have a lot to do between now and december 15. What is the trajectory of the discussions . What is the trajectory . I think it is pretty good. I talked to wilbur ross this week and this morning. The trajectory towards a phase i deal is pretty good. It is the smaller components and parts that deal mostly with trade and not the structural issues. A lot of the discussion would be bound up in phase one. Sense tokes perfect break it down into smaller pieces. Walk. Before you can so we can make some progress on phase one in the next couple of days and weeks. I think that would have an impact. Phase i has generally been described as buying more agricultural goods and lowering tariffs. That is not unreasonable. , at best, as to be return to the status quo. And its after tariffs have been andsed that cost consumers taxpayers have made additional funds farmers hit by retaliatory tariffs. Even a return to the status quo. And at some cost the United States to the United States. Mick i would not agree. We would not be having any of these conversations of donald trump is not president. If donald trump was not present. It was always going to be harder. At some point in time, we wouldve had to have these discussions. Many of us wish they would be 20 years ago. You are going to have to have the discussions. It was always going to be hard. Ive ever sitting down with some folks in the white house i remember sitting down with some folks in the white house, talking about how excited we were about the deregulatory successes we had and less excited about the regulatory process. There are some things easier than others. The regulation is easy because its just us. Deregulation is easy because its just us. Legislation, its harder because we have to convince congress. Even when run by our own party, that was hard. Hardestals are the because you have to get another country to change its practices. That can be really difficult to do and we have seen that. At the root of all of this, what is the discussion with china about . It is about whether china wants to join the first tier of nations. With jeremy, you are not required to give away half of your business to do deal with jeremy. Germany. The chances of them stealing your stuff is low under list of concerns. China needs to step up to that game. But that is going to be difficult to do. You say three steps forward, two steps back, in the long run, the country will be better off. That assumes china is concerned about its reputational standing. Lets call it the full question. Is it sustainable . You finally snap and say, stop stealing my stuff. Thats a fair conversation. But those are the issues that the rest of this country is waiting for. Thats the big stuff. The smaller stuff is getting back into buying goods and lowering tariffs. The big stuff is subsidies of state owned enterprises, forced tech transfers, theft of intellectual property. We have not seen progress there. Thats just human nature. Its always easier to do a big deal after a small deal. Its easier for me to sit down with one reporter for an hour long interview after a relationship. I get what youre saying, but i think you are ignoring human nature. Is even more difficult to do the big deals first. Doing something on a phase i basis to develop that relationship, that just makes sense. And its fair for you to say that this has been in the works for 30 years. The dissolution of state owned enterprises was supposed to happen close after their ascension to the wto and it didnt. This has been on the table for 20 years. Let me just read the question for those who have not answered. Produce s,talks will fig leaf deal, c describing, or d, a comprehensive deal. While we are waiting for the answers, President Trump has suggested we might go past the election before a deal is struck. Is that language that is preparing the markets the American People . Mick it is just the president being honest. Before in the real estate business. Ive seen people with deal fever. People who work so hard and have to have a deal and will do anything. Ive been on both sides of the equation. That does not exist here. I think you are seeing the president taking his word on that. Im not in any hurry, i think ive got a lot of the cards. I think he does, economy is much more resilient than expected. As for the cost borne by the american taxpayer, i was on that argument as to who would pay the tariffs. When you put the tariffs on an inflation goes down, theres a real strong argument that consumers are not paying for much of the tariffs. Situations a vibrant and i dont think you will ever see the president saying he has to have a deal. Looks like the room is split but a little more in your view of things. I would have more even distribution there. Deal, only 3. 2 . I dont know. Lets move onto another sticky situation, the deficit. Lets show whats happening with the deficit. Why, in 2009stand this happened 2009, this happened. But after some of the years of the best, its growing. You are a tea party man. What happened . Heres what happened. The years that bothered me the most were 17 and 18. Thats when republicans held the house, senate and white house. The deficit was way too big that. People say, mulvaney, you are the budget director, how could you allow this . The truth is, what is the president s budget . People say it is messaging. The message is, the president was in charge, heres what the spending would look like. That budget is dramatically smaller than on their. There. E it exposes that some republicans like spending as much as democrats. Theow does that concern acts cut u. S. Made . Made . Cut you it is not concern me at all. Does not concern me at all. , i thinkfiscal year 900 billionwas 800, dollars. Only half of that was an mandated spending, only half in medicare. My party has done such a good job of convincing ourselves that entitlements are the problem weve ignored and we spent a bunch of money on this. The republicans on the hill spent money. Keep in mind, Congress Spends money. They remind me, the constitution lets us spend the money. They are absolute right. Absolutely right. It was almost as big as when democrats were in charge of the house. It is hard to get members of congress to stop spending money. When you said a president is to blame, go look at his budget. Your stated expectations were that the tax cut would stimulate the economy to the extent the economy would grow faster than the deficit would accrue. That has not happened. Portions of it have. If you drill down to the numbers , almost all of the deficit triggered to the tax deal is related to the child care tax credit. The Corporate Tax cut did exactly what we said would do. So im very pleased with the results of that. No complaints about the matter growth we have. But the deficit is rough, no question. There are a bunch of republicans walk around and saint deficits dont matter and i dont know saying deficits dont matter and i dont know what to tell them anymore. I think they should matter they havent but they havent. Until theres a change in the center of gravity of both parties on the hill, youre likely to get it. Before we go to questions, one last one. We just talked about questions you will be dealing with. The end of january 2021. The president has been reelected to a second term. Yeah. What is the top agenda item . We think it is very unlikely we are going to get done on a legislative standpoint. Go back to the spectrum of legislative and trade change. We are going to do stuff on the regulatory scheme from now until we are fear. Here. If you think that even in a good year, congress is pretty much finished by fourth of july and sometimes memorial day. Give got four months of legislative time between the first of the year to still go out. That is magnified a little bit in a president ial year. A short window to get major legislation done. We will be pushing for changes to Prescription Drug prices. Theres a good chance we get that legislatively. Do,ill be very difficult to especially in the political environment we are in. We will continue to push, it gets difficult. , whatwer your question starts january 2021 is stuff we love to do now. But there is no time or attitude to get. I think the president would love to see further refinement to tax policy. He was always disappointed he couldnt get the tax rate Corporate Tax rate down a little bit more. Also, to make some of those cuts permanent now that we have proven they can work. Sometimes, what has been the biggest success. Years from now when they write the history of the trump administration, it would be that we proved supplyside economics work. You have Growth Without inflation and bring millions into the workforce. We brought 5 million into the workforce 5 million more into the workforce with no inflation. We will continue to push that in the second half of the administration. Questions for Mick Mulvaney . Lets go right back here to paul. Holdings. Om bdg thank you for your service. I am curious about last evening when mr. Kushner was speaking about immigration. Australiaso merrickbased system as being central. Based system as being central. It is going to fundamentally rethink our idea of immigrants when you go to a meritbased system. Australia is vastly different from ours australias civilization is vastly different from ours. How do you see it reshaping our country, aside from the businessneed for folks who need manual work as much as phd work. We all recognize we need the people. The president is not antiimmigrant. He just remembers the mistake that reagan made. Reagan gave amnesty in exchange for Border Security never got the second half of the deal. Look, we are not going to talk about fixing Legal Immigration until we fix ilLegal Immigration. Way, that goes beyond the southern border. Itany given year, approximate only half of our immigration. The rest of it is all over the states. Fixing ilLegal Immigration is a precursor to fixing Legal Immigration. What you have seen us telegraph in terms of reforms gets to one of the president s priorities for the second term. We need people across the scale spectrum skill spectrum and if we move towards a merit system and less of a family tree system, that will benefit the economy. It does not get that much attention. I am surprised by that because i thought we one of those things that would kick up the left and right but the story went away. Thatll be keeping a look added. Look at it. It seems to me the real issue is americas relationship with china. Do you see a pathway to peaceful coexistence . I do. , anyth any relationship relationship by definition would be mutual. To the extent they look at the world as a zerosum gain and , i dont knowte if they still talk about it as overtly as they used to. If its a zerosum game, it creates difficulties. If there is a way to get interest aligned, there is tremendous opportunity. Our relationship with india could use cultivation. A million and a half people. Withinteresting, we met osaka, and hen pointed out the exact date to the year that india would have more people than china. He talked about the population growth in india and the lack of growth in china. So i think theres opportunity with other nations as well. Not a good answer, i apologize. We have time for just one more real quick question. Steve, yeah . Prescription drug pricing is a top three priority. [indiscernible] [inaudible] because it is important to folks packo. Thats the bottom line ive said this before and i know i am speaking to people in this room who probably meet half of this definition, but he is a billionaire man of the people. I am neither, so im struck by both of those things. But he does have the ability to sort of listen to, channel, and understand what we would call ordinary americans. He understands what is important to them. He started talking more and more on the road about traffic. This is a man who has not driven himself in years and now does not drive. But he still understands its important to folks packo back home. He does it because he knows its important to them. Mick mulvaney, thank you for joining us. [laughter] jerry thank you for that introduction. Thank you, general barr, for being here. The headline for this conversation is antitrust and other matters. With your indulgence, there are quite a lot of news. Lets start with the other matters part of the program. It may have possibly captured your attention this morning that the house of representatives published two articles of impeachment against the president of the United States. Let me just read out an excerpt from the first article of impeachment which says that using the power of his high office