Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

No Action Predicted on Shutdown Until New Year; Dems in House Adding Staff, Lawyers Ahead of Ramping Up Investigations; Explosion Makes Turks Sky Blue in NYC; Dow Roars Back After Historic Losses This Week. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired December 28, 2018 - 07:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[07:00:04] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Blue light flooding the New York skyline after a transformer explosion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a bunch of flame, blue, green, white. It seemed like there was a UFO or something.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Lights went out, and it was like, "Everyone run."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is NEW DAY with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman.

BERMAN: Good morning. And welcome to your NEW DAY. Alisyn is off. Erica Hill joins me.

And I'm happy to inform you, there is no alien invasion.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: I'm glad no one was abducted.

BERMAN: Right? People always complain we never report good news. That's good news.

HILL: That is some very good news.

BERMAN: No alien invasion, right?

Because New York last night -- it was about 9:30 or so -- it looked bonkers. Right? There was this transformer explosion in Queens. I think we have some pictures here. And you can just see what it looked like. This is no filter. This is actually video shot from Manhattan. Look at that. That's crazy.

HILL: That's wild.

BERMAN: Again, a transformer explosion on a power plan in Queens. Luckily, no one was hurt, which is why we can joke about it. Luckily, there was no alien invasion, which is why we can joke about it. And no lasting significant power outages either.

HILL: It is wild. But really, a beautiful blue. I do have to say.

BERMAN: Again, yes. And no Zuul.

HILL: And no Zuul.

BERMAN: And no Zuul.

HILL: So the city is safe.

BERMAN: The city is safe.

HILL: For another day.

BERMAN: All right. That is the good news.

The not-so-good news this morning, the government is shut down and will continue to be shut down into 2019. The House and Senate, they both adjourned without even coming close to any kind of agreement to keep the government up and running. That means about 800,000 federal workers will continue to be furloughed, or they will work without pay, even as the politicians who can't, or won't, make a deal, they will get their paychecks.

Incoming House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, says Democrats have given the White House three options to end the shutdown. None, though, include funding for the border wall. The president still says he wants $5 billion for that.

HILL: So as we watch that, we are also keeping a close watch on the markets, those volatile markets. The president, as we know, follows them, especially the Dow, very closely. And CNN has learned Mr. Trump got a boost from the Dow's record gains on Wednesday that had him making enthusiastic calls from Air Force One on his way home from Iraq. The Dow roaring back again yesterday to finish higher. A drawn-out government shutdown, though, could rattle Wall Street.

BERMAN: Want to bring in senior White House correspondent for Bloomberg News, Margaret Talev; former Clinton White House press secretary Joe Lockhart; and Republican strategist Alice Stewart.

If we have the poll numbers on the shutdown, I think this is an instructive place to start. Not the shutdown poll numbers, but I should say the poll numbers for the border wall.

HILL: Border wall.

BERMAN: Well, over 50 percent, 57 percent, oppose a border wall; 38 percent say they favor it. Yet, this is what the shutdown is over right now, because the president has dug in, says he wants $5 billion. And the House says, "You're not going to get it."

And Margaret, they quit even trying, at least until next year. They've gone away. So now January 3, when the Democrats come back, that's when it all begins again.

What do you expect to see? How do you expect to see this play out over the next week? MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, John, you know, it

certainly looks as though the Democrats believe that they have the upper hand in the negotiations here. The incoming speaker, we expect, Nancy Pelosi, has a few different options; and one is basically, that $1.3 billion they've already talked about. And there's a couple other variations on this: a full year's worth of a continuing resolution; breaking this up into several pieces; and making sure that the DHS portion of it doesn't have what you would call border wall money.

But in the end, the -- where the negotiations dropped off most recently, it doesn't leave the president a whole lot of maneuvering room, unless the Democrats -- unless he were to accept their original offer, and the Democrats were to think it were in their interests, in the waning moments of Republican control over the House, to just get it over with so they could go back to their agenda. But it doesn't look like that's about to happen.

HILL: It does not. Alice, what do you think there is that the president would agree to that would make him feel -- because we know this is important? The president needs to feel like he gets, in his words, a win. What could happen that -- that it would work with both sides here?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Erica, he would agree with $5 billion from the Democrats. However, we all know that's simply not going to happen.

And looking at the numbers of 57 percent of Americans don't support the wall, it's not a surprise. But the president made a campaign promise that he would build a wall. Unfortunately, he said it would be a wall that Mexico will pay for. Now we are picking up the tab, and it's a lot less interesting to a lot of people to do that.

The real issue is border security. And I do think the president has done well to satisfy his base by pushing back, holding firm, getting some pressure from a lot of the conservative talk show hosts that are getting criticism, but they're speaking for Trump's base that say they want it. He has made his case to them. He has held firm on pushing back to get funding for this, to the expense of shutting down the federal government.

[07:05:10] But my recommendation is to take a page from Kenny Rogers in "The Gambler": You've got to know when to hold 'em. You've got to know when to fold 'em. Now is a good time to fold in some way or give in some way, because once the Democrats take control of the House, he is going to have a very losing hand that's going to make it very difficult.

BERMAN: You never count your money while you're sitting at the table.

HILL: That's right.

BERMAN: That's one thing I learned from Kenny Rogers there.

Joe Lockhart, I want to read some fresh reporting that we got in just about an hour ago from Lauren Fox, Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju, our Hill team. And I'm putting to you -- this to you specifically, because you have experience in a White House.

This is a job posting for legal staff for the House Judiciary Committee. And it's asking for people with experience in criminal law, immigration law, constitutional law, intellectual property law, commercial and administrative law (including antitrust and bankruptcy) or oversight work.

Erica was joking the only thing not listed three is experience in --

HILL: Changing light bulbs?

BERMAN: -- in reality TV.

HILL: Reality TV.

BERMAN: So basically, it's asking for everything but people experienced with reality TV.

It's clear that the Democratic committees are staffing up for their new oversight role over the administration. And you, who have been in a White House before, know how perilous that can be.

JOE LOCKHART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I'm not sure they know what's -- what's about to hit them. You know, this is an extremely dysfunctional White House. The counsel's office is not an exception. They've had no oversight in the last two years.

The congressional committees have given them a complete pass. They're about to get hit with -- you know, even normal oversight they're not prepared for. This is going to be aggressive, given the pent-up demand.

And my guess is they're going to be overwhelmed by it. You know, you can't imagine how much work it is just to find the documents, produce the documents, meet the deadlines, much less try to explain what you're doing.

So I think they're going to find the -- you know, sort of the White House in disarray -- being in more disarray. And they're -- most importantly, they're going to lose control of the narrative on a day- to-day basis.

You know, normally, the president, you know, and their spokespeople can -- can set the agenda. I think over the next, you know, six to 12 months, the agenda is going to be set for them; and they're not going to like it very much.

HILL: Which -- that's interesting when you put it that way, Joe. Because one of the things that the president has actually done a pretty good job of is the messaging. Right?

He is very consistent on his messaging, whether it's accurate or not, but puts things out there. And Margaret, some of the most recent messaging that we can see coming down the pike, is the president who has said not only -- put out that threat not long ago to Democrats but also, just in the last few days, said any oversight, in his view, is nothing more than presidential harassment.

TALEV: Yes, and you know, I actually think Joe raises a great point, because the way that the president has pretty successfully been able to drive the narrative himself is overwhelmingly through Twitter over the course of the last couple of years.

But when he kind of over torques it, it can have an impact on the market, the sense of stability, all these kind of issues that may be really pivotal for him in the next few months as we head towards what becomes the 2020 season.

And I think on the messaging front, the tragedy of not just one but two children's deaths, the second child now, from what is now being determined to have been the flu, is going to add a new element to the oversight debate, because in addition to the ongoing oversight on sort of Russia, the kind of Mueller -- the parallel to the Mueller investigation in Congress, and to some of, you know, economic and paperwork disclosure stuff, we're now also going to have this element of oversight on border issues.

And that's going to tie, I think, very much into funding, because as Trump is making requests for wall money, Democrats, you're already beginning to hear them say maybe the money needs to be in oversight and management and child protection issues. So --

STEWART: The Democrats run the risk, too, as Margaret indicated, heading into 2020, if they spend a majority of their time and a lot of the focus on investigating instead of litigating, that's going to backfire; because the president will be able to use that against them as that is their primary focus instead of taking care of the voters across America; they're too busy attacking this president. So they need to find a good balance if they're planning to do such oversight and focus on their legislative package.

We know Nancy Pelosi has already indicated she's going to do some anti-corruption and voting rights legislation as part of their package, but they need to make that front and center. Otherwise, too much oversight on this president is going to backfire.

And unfortunately, as a Republican, we do know that the Mueller probe is standing in the background that is doing quite a bit of that to give the president some -- some tweeting about the witch hunt. That takes care of quite a bit.

BERMAN: I will say, though, I think, Alice, you're right. And I think Nancy Pelosi thinks you're right, also. I think that is her primary focus now that she's got the support she needs to be speaker.

Her primary focus heading into January 3 and beyond is to strike that balance between investigation and legislation. And she wanted on day one, I think, to come out with legislation on voting rights and other things. She's going to have to deal with government funding. She wasn't counting on that. But legislating is something she wants to look like she is doing, even while the investigation -- we were talking about the narratives there and the ability of the president to control the narrative. I will say that a subpoena tends to speak more than 140 characters, right? And that's the problem the president is going to have going forward, Joe.

LOCKHART: Yes, I think you're right. And I think, you know, people wonder why Bill Clinton's polling went up near the end, and it was because the Republicans did overreach.

I remember at one point, we counted up 44 different committees and sub-committees using subpoena power to investigate everything from the president's personal life to our Christmas ornaments and whether they were offensive or not.

So I think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer understand the difference, and they so have to balance these things. You know, one of the things is, you know, a subpoena is a lot more newsworthy than a hearing about, you know, reauthorizing superfund legislation.

But I think Nancy has very clearly indicated that she has an agenda: voting rights, you know, shoring up Obamacare, things like that. And I don't think you'll see -- you'll see them overreach. But you are going to see the White House held accountable the way they should be. And again, as I said, I don't really think they're prepared for that.

HILL: It will be a lot to look for in just a few days.

BERMAN: And I'll also say, we talk about hearings and subpoenas. You know, people are always talking about investigations and this. But there could be hearings and oversight over the military, on foreign policy. Anthony Brown, congressman from Maryland, points out, you know, they could hear hearings in House Armed Services about the Syria pullout.

STEWART: For sure.

BERMAN: And you could call military leaders to come in. And that's the kind of thing, Margaret, I don't think people have baked into this now. This policy, all these policy decisions are going to get a much more fulsome public hearing.

TALEV: Yes, that Jim Mattis hearing, we're hearing, is going to be pretty interesting. And I think you're already seeing President Trump try to -- there is a really interesting element, sort of a sidebar -- trying to drive a wedge between Schumer and Pelosi, trying to say, "Well, I know we could make a deal with Schumer. Pelosi is the problem." And we're starting to hear aides echo this also.

So I think this is, again, the president looking for a way to control that narrative. If he can find some way to divide Democrats, maybe it makes it a little easier for him to regain the narrative. But so far, in these very early days, it doesn't seem to be working.

BERMAN: Erica Hill was all over that early, all over that dynamic very early, pointed it out it was happening.

All right. Margaret, Alice, Joe, thank you very much.

So this explosion last night created a spectacular sight over the New York City skyline. There were a lot of people on social media speculating it could be an alien invasion. Could you imagine people on social media --

HILL: Speculating about anything?

BERMAN: -- speculating about anything?

HILL: No.

BERMAN: It was not an alien invasion. It was a flash from a power plant.

Our Cristina Alesci live in Queens with the latest -- Cristina.

CRISTINA ALESCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, and it all started in the power plant right behind me. I just got off the phone with Con Edison, which described this as an explosion last night.

It offered more details in a phone call with me just now, saying that basically, it started as a result of a malfunctioning piece of equipment. That piece of equipment had 138,000 volts attached to it, and that blue light created by a spark, a flash, if you will. And that blue light got a lot of attention.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, that can't be good.

ALESCI (voice-over): A transformer explosion at a New York power plant illuminating the city's skyline. The eerie, pulsating blue glow confusing and frightening onlookers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Holy (EXPLETIVE DELETED)! Oh, my God!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That fire is so --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at the sky!

ALESCI: And sending social media into a frenzy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yo, why is the sky blinking? Yo, does anybody see this?

ALESCI: The flickering lights from the blast visible from across the city and parts of New Jersey and Long Island, leaving Manhattan's bridges silhouetted in blue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I heard a giant bang. I thought it was fireworks going off, and I looked to my right, and I saw just the yellow sparks in the sky. It looked like blue fire.

ALESCI: A spokesperson from Con Edison tells CNN that an electrical fire broke out after the transformers tripped.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a high-voltage emergency going on at the Con Ed plant.

ALESCI: But it was quickly put out, and no one was injured. Residents pouring into the street as smoke billowed overhead.

The explosion causing temporarily outages and grounding airplanes at LaGuardia Airport for an hour, according to flight tracking company FlightAware. The FAA reports that every terminal in the airport was impacted, briefly leaving passengers in the dark.

[07:15:10] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are at our gate, and then --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then the lights started flickering and the lights went out. And then, it was like, "Everyone run," and so everyone ran out.

ALESCI: New Yorkers speculating that the strange phenomenon was something out of a Spielberg movie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looked like it was daytime. You looked in the sky, and it was bright blue. It was insane. It was a really weird blue color, too. I was like, "Aliens are here."

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my God, yo, look at the sky. It's blinking.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yo, there's aliens leaving (ph) Earth, Mommy. I'm telling you, Mommy.

ALESCI: The head of a New York Police Department nearby in the Bronx attempting to put rumors of an extraterrestrial invasion to rest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ALESCI: Authorities are still investigating, but they did put out a statement last night saying that the incident is unsuspicious, suggesting that there was no foul play -- Erica, John.

HILL: So the good news there, no foul play. And once again, just to smooth John Berman, Cristina, no aliens. So that is good, too. Thank you.

BERMAN: They keep saying "unsuspicious." I don't know that that's the word I would use. I think it's totally sketchy when it looks like there's an alien invasion.

HILL: OK.

BERMAN: I suspect something. I mean, you know, look, it looked like "Ghostbusters."

HILL: Did you expect 138,000 volts?

BERMAN: I suspected Zuul. Do we have that? Do we have Zuul? Do we have "Ghostbusters"? Hang on one second. This is worth waiting for. This is worth waiting for.

HILL: I like the split screen.

BERMAN: On the right -- on the right is back to reality. On your left, there's actually -- yes, that. That on the left. Look at the two. It's the same thing. Can you tell which one is "Ghostbusters" and which one is this alleged transformer explosion --

HILL: This is a serious question. Are you color-blind?

BERMAN: No. I mean, I know one is purple. But really, you don't see the --

HILL: I was just checking. Just checking.

I didn't see any ectoplasm on the streets this morning, so I feel like -- I feel like we're good.

BERMAN: All right. That was well worth it.

HILL: The wild ride on Wall Street this month leaving many with a lot of questions. The volatility, though, likely here to say. Just ahead, more on the markets and the Trump effect.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:21:00] HILL: Boy, talk about a wild ride on Wall Street; and we're only looking at the last few days. This week alone we saw the worst Christmas Eve in the Dow's history, followed by the index's biggest single-day point gain ever. And more gains yesterday. So is the volatility really here to stay?

Joining us now, "Washington Post" opinion columnist Catherine Rampell, and former senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign, Stephen Moore. Good to have both of you with us, as always.

Volatility really is -- anyone I speak to will tell this is really the new normal. And part of that is the fact that we've been, obviously, in a bull market for nearly ten years, so it's going to happen.

What's fascinating, though, is the president's attention here. And what we saw from him at the beginning of the week on Monday, tweets bashing the Fed once again. We see that massive 1,000-plus point drop. We don't hear anything from the president when markets reopen on Wednesday. Then we learn he sees the success of that Wednesday trading day, starts making calls from Air Force One on his way back to the states.

It's -- Steve Moore, I'm wondering if -- if the markets are starting to pay closer attention, in some ways, to what the president is saying and doing?

STEPHEN MOORE, CNN ECONOMICS ANALYST: Well, sure. And look, let's not forget that the market, you know, now is up 20 percent since Trump was elected, so he has been -- he's been very good for investors.

There is turmoil, and by the way, I think you're going to see a lot more of this volatility over the next couple of months. I mean, this isn't the end of it. I think the biggest factor of all is clearly the -- what the latest, you know, developments in the trade war with China, because that's -- that has huge implications for the global economy.

The Fed did make a major, major mistake a week and a half ago, and I think Trump was very right to call them out and say this --

HILL: In calling them out, though, Steven, we saw a 1,000-plus-point drop.

MOORE: Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Let's get the chronology straight here.

The drop in the stock market, the severe contraction began the moment that Jerome Powell opened his mouth in that press conference and started announcing these rate hikes. And those were --

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: That's not true.

MOORE: -- substantial -- yes, it was. It went down 700 points during his -- his speech.

RAMPELL: No, markets have been falling since September. They're down 15 percent since September.

MOORE: Yes, actually, you're right about that. September is when the first rate hike. Both of the rate hikes were unnecessary and have caused a deflation in the economy. And I think they're the biggest danger.

RAMPELL: There is no -- wait, wait, wait. I want to stop you there. I want to stop you there, because you said this last time I was on with you.

MOORE: Yes.

RAMPELL: There is no deflation.

MOORE: Yes, there is.

RAMPELL: No, there is not. You look at the Consumer Price Index.

MOORE: Look at the -- look at the Commodities Index.

RAMPELL: That's not -- no.

MOORE: Look at the Commodities Index.

RAMPELL: No, soybean prices are falling because -- soybean prices are falling because of the trade war, because China stopped buying our soybeans.

MOORE: No, they're not.

RAMPELL: Yes, they absolutely are. And besides --

MOORE: Wait a minute.

RAMPELL: -- deflation --

MOORE: How are -- how are the trade war --

RAMPELL: Deflation -- no, I want viewers to --

MOORE: It makes no sense what you're saying. Why would the steel -- the steel --

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: Guys, nobody can understand what either one -- Stephen, stop for a minute.

MOORE: OK.

HILL: No one can hear what either one of you are saying when all you do is talk over each other. Finish your point, Catherine. Then, Stephen, you can have the floor.

RAMPELL: If you look at overall inflation, according to the CPI, according to PCE, the PCE core index, which is what the Fed actually looks at, we're at about 10 -- excuse me, 2 percent.

If you only care about, like, soybeans, soybean prices have fallen because China stopped buying our soybeans. That's why soybean prices are down. That does not reflect overall deflation. And I think it is completely irresponsible for you to tell the public things that are not actually correct.

MOORE: So why --

RAMPELL: I'm old enough -- I'm old enough to remember when ten years ago, during an actual deflation, you went on TV on a rival network and said we were about to have hyperinflation and told the Fed that it was irresponsible then for them to keep rates low.

And now we have normal levels of inflation, not deflation. Deflation, for viewers out there, mean prices are going down. If you go to the supermarket, prices are not going down. When we have normal inflation, suddenly your hard-money ways have, you know, disappeared and you're claiming that the Fed should pump more money into the economy. That's -- that's just -- it's totally inconsistent, and it's totally irresponsible to make up numbers.

MOORE: I'm not making up numbers. It's not -- I'm looking at the index of not just one or two commodities. I'm looking at 35 commodities. They're down by 10 percent. It's not just soybeans. It's not --

RAMPELL: That's not overall deflation.

[07:25:03] MOORE: But commodities are the one thing that remain constant over time. The reason that you have price rising in things like telephones is because a telephone is better today than it was a year ago.

RAMPELL: Phones are actually cheaper, but OK.

MOORE: Look, I mean, the bigger point here is this. Yes, there is a lot of volatility in the market, because we have a president who is a disrupter, is a guy who came to Washington to shake things up. That's why he won the election.

Now, do I like trade wars? No, I don't. I don't think the markets like them. But I do think if Trump can pull this off -- and I think the American people are behind Trump on the China trade war. I mean, this is a dangerous country that is involved in a lot of nefarious activities that we now know. And they've been cheating and lying and stealing.

And I think people, you know, applaud Trump for finally calling them out and saying, "We're not going to take this any more."

HILL: So --

MOORE: But it would be great for the markets is he could pull this out and get a -- some concessions from China. And if that happens, by the way, I think the market will boom.

HILL: So let's take a look at what else is happening here. So I know, Stephen, you said earlier this week the Fed absolutely did the wrong thing.

MOORE: Yes.

HILL: But we have heard from Kevin Hassett coming out and saying, "Listen, Powell is 100 percent safe."

We've also learned, Catherine, that there may be a meeting in the coming weeks between the president and the Fed chair, not entirely unheard of, although it is rare, because it's obviously meant to be and remain an apolitical independent institution.

So when you hear that there could be a meeting, how do you look at that, Catherine? Could something good come out of this?

RAMPELL: No.

HILL: Could the president get a better understanding of what the Fed's job is?

RAMPELL: No. No, he fundamentally does not understand that the Central Bank needs to be politically independent. That is at the core of not only the U.S. financial system but the global financial system. We have seen counter examples from Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey, lots of other places, where politicians got a hold of the printing press, and you had massive economic disaster.

If Trump continues to exert political pressure on the Fed and even fire the Fed chair, which Stephen Moore has actually advocated last week on TV, which again, I think is completely irresponsible, that would cause an immediate global panic.

And, you know, the people advising Trump need to tell him how critically important it is to protect the sacred political independence of the Fed.

Let other outside people criticize what the Fed does. I'm allowed to criticize it. Any American is allowed to criticize it. It's completely different when someone who potentially has the power to fire the Fed chair, which would be an untested thing, when that person is going on Twitter and is floating rumors that he's going to not only fire the Fed chair but, potentially, everybody on the Fed.

HILL: Stephen, quick response from you?

MOORE: Well, look, I think this is a teachable moment for the American people, to see this disastrous decision by the Fed that has caused this massive reduction. I mean, Catherine, this has been about 2 to $3 trillion of losses for 150 million Americans in retirement accounts.

And who -- who is the Fed responsive to if not the president? I mean, this is one of the most powerful agencies of government, and you're saying it should be responsive to no one? I mean, that's ridiculous.

RAMPELL: I'm saying it should be politically independent.

MOORE: OK, but that --

RAMPELL: It should do what the experts believe is appropriate at the time using whatever data and theory are available to them --

MOORE: Except that they once -- Catherine --

RAMPELL: -- and not politically expedient to the president, which is what we're seeing.

MOORE: You seem to think that they're, like, some oracles from God that think that -- that think that they --

RAMPELL: No, no.

MOORE: -- know what they're doing.

RAMPELL: Again --

MOORE: We had hyperinflation in the 1970s, thanks to the Fed. We had this big real-estate bubble --

RAMPELL: Yes, you were predicting hyperinflation ten years ago when we had deflation.

MOORE: I'm talking about the Fed.

RAMPELL: So they should --

MOORE: I'm talking about the Fed, Catherine.

RAMPELL: I know.

MOORE: I'm talking about what happened in 2007 and '08 when we had this massive asset bubble.

RAMPELL: You know how we corrected hyperinflation? Because we had a politically independently Fed led by Paul Volcker, who was not afraid to do things that were -- that were painful and politically unpopular in the short run, including raising interest rates.

MOORE: You mean -- you're talking about Volcker?

RAMPELL: That's why we need an independent -- yes. That's why we need an independent --

MOORE: Yes, and you know what Volcker --

RAMPELL: -- Fed. Not one --

MOORE: Catherine, you know what the Volcker --

RAMPELL: -- that has -- that has its arms twisted --

MOORE: Catherine --

RAMPELL: -- by whoever is in office.

MOORE: Do you know what the Volcker rule was? You know how he killed inflation? He followed commodity prices. Every time commodity prices went up, he -- he raised interest rates, and every time --

RAMPELL: That's not what the Volcker rule is.

MOORE: Yes, it was. That's what he did, and that's how we conquered inflation, and that's why --

RAMPELL: Google the Volcker rule, people. That's not what the Volcker rule is.

MOORE: Yes, it was. Ask him. Ask him.

HILL: The rule right now is that we're out of time.

MOORE: OK.

HILL: So we're going to leave it there.

And in case I don't see the both of you, have a very happy new year.

MOORE: Thank you.

HILL: We'll pick up with the passionate discussion in 2019. Thanks, guys.

MOORE: Thank you.

BERMAN: I feel like there was progress there. I feel like we all moved closer together.

Eight hundred thousand federal workers remain on furlough or are working without pay while lawmakers in Washington continue to get paychecks. Congress now punting the shutdown to the new year. We'll be joined by a key Republican member of Congress, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)