are sadly subject into failing governments. is it still homeland security threat? >> last year's era had become a matter of homeland security and i still believe that. what i was referring to is what i referred to here today. the ability of terrorist organizations to reach into the homeland by use of the internet, by use of social media, the foreign fighter phenomenon people traveling to syria and other places to take up the fight there linking up with the extremists and then returning back to their home countries with an extremist commission. that is what i was referring to then and that is what i was talking about now. >> well, that segues to a second question and that is about our program. ..

something you heard from me over and over again. there is not such thing as 100% security. no matter how good you are and you are good. and no matter how good the first two rose here are, good and they are good. something could happen somewhere so, my question is, what are you doing to prepare america for the day after a possible attack?

>> well, i have a lot of faith in this country. i mean we, we have agencies, systems in place for emergency response, for disaster response. ii have a lot of faith in the character and culture of this nation. and how we respond to crises. i think it is no accident that, twice i think i think i got it right. twice as many people ran in the boston marathon this year as last year, in light of what happened in 2013. i was there on the finish line and it was a remarkable experience to be at the boston marathon in 2014 after the tragedy of 2013. i was in manhattan on 9/11 and i was in manhattan in the days after 9/11 and in the new york area to see people who, a lot of people in lower manhattan got

up went to work the very next day. people former colleagues of mine in the pentagon, the day after of the pentagon was hit, were at work the very next day at their desk in the e-ring. so i do not underestimate the character, and the courage and this is what i was referring to, of the american people in responding to a crisis situation. i think that what's incumbent upon us in government service, national security and homeland security is to be straight with people about the risks, about the threats. the last the last two statements that i put out where i announced the things we were doing to enhance homeland security ramming up the federal protection service and aviation security people in the public always, always think when they read things like that what are

you not telling me? what are you hiding from me? why are you doing these things? what is prompting you to do this what you're not telling me? what i said in the each the statements i write them myself because i want the reason to do this is "elf" evident. the attacks that i referred to canada and paris, and the calls by terrorist organizations for further attacks on the west so we're not hiding the ball. i think that it's important for us in homeland security to be straight with the public about the situation that we face, without scaring people without encouraging, discouraging people from flying, going to the super bowl pogue to public gatherings. these are things we all cherish and take for granted in this country. i think it is important that we be straight and, not be afraid to ask the public for things

ask for public participation in our homeland security efforts. that is one of the reasons we have this new, if you see something say something presentation that we rolled out yesterday for the super bowl. it is going to be all over the super bowl all over the stadium. and it's like the very expensive painting you probably have in your house, jane. you hang it there and stop looking at it after a while and but then if you put a new frame on it move it around, you say that is nice painting. you start looking at it again, start admiring again. that's what i want people to do with the if you see something say something message. we're representing it to the american public. >> there was a lovely photo on the evening news of a guy on the back bay positives ton, shoveling snow on the finish line of the boston marathon.

his point, this should not be covered up. what a strong powerful message. i end my questions folks with one about the super bowl. why wouldn't i do that. you said homeland security should not be a political football so let's ask about football. i'm not sure how much you can tell this audience about the precautions for the super bowl. you wouldn't tell me whether you're going. i guess it is classified. >> i was there yesterday. >> but can you reassure the public that precautions are taken? i'm giving awe chance to offer any comments you want about deflated footballs. >> i'm going to stay away from deflated footballs. i'm going to stay away for any preference. none of my teams got anywhere close to the super bowl this year. and i was there yesterday. saw first-hand the marvlous

cooperation and partnership the federal government has with arizona state public safety, with the glendale police department, the phoenix police department. i met with the governor. and it is a marvlous partnership. it seems to be working seamlessly. i've confident that we've taken tremendous precautions for the super bowl. there are magnetometers everywhere. we're screening all the people who come into the stadium including workers. we're screening all the vehicles that get within a certain distance of the stadium. and so i encouraged, in a press conference there yesterday, that we that we, i'm confident that we'll have a safe and successful game. somebody asked me what do you fear most about the super bowl? i said overtime. [laughing] >> all right. well it is warmer weather there.

so the ball should not inflate, deflate. questions from the audience. >> i'm not going there. >> please identify yourself and ask a question. we'll hear your comments at another forum. but please just ask a question. yes in the corner here. >> mr. secretary, i'm with the sobrowksi institute out at the naval postgraduate school. art is as you know is the leading light on information technology. i'm working on a project with naval academy on trying to expand the knowledge of the threats of information technology without making everyone feel the way i felt as a child. i had to dive under a chair. >> yes. >> ask your question. >> my question how do you tell that story let everyone understand how tenuous we are in terms of what can go wrong? everything from, i mean i

remember when we started working at this, guns could just put out a -- >> thank you. you get the idea. >> got it. >> this goes back to what i said before. we have the obligation to be straight with the american people. to be realistic and when we present challenges and threats i think we also have to present the solutions too. so when we talk about the terrorists threat globally, i also want to talk about in the next paragraph here's what we're doing about it. and go through the things that we're, you know, okay, it is good to bring the public the problem but i think we owe the public solutions as well. and, i am not, i'm not of the school of thought that you just tell the public about all the threats without also telling the public about, okay, we're doing this, we're doing that, we're doing this we're doing. that and i think that is key.

>> question over here. >> thank you jane. i'm from syrian-american council. we're the largest syrian-organization in the united states. we're covering 13 states. we would like to thank your department about everything they are doing with syria. at the same time i handed awe protocol guide for the syrian-american community. we would like to partner with you. the extremist is our enemy. i know syria is focus going forward for all the terrorists. it is our enemy as much as your enemy. it is that we're all from the same nation and we're looking forward to working with your department. thank you. >> earlier last year when i was in, when i was in chicago suburb i visited a with leaders in the syrian-american

community. i was impressed by the cohesiveness of the community and i have been doing a number of engagements in the community around the country as i mentioned. to talk to people about their issues with the department, talked to them about public awareness, public participation. in their efforts and i want to continue to do that. so thank you for your comments. >> in the far back, last, last, row. then we'll go to you. >> may name is karen with the bbc. if you can tell me about the conference planned in february on countering violent extremism and cooperation that you have with u.k. officials or with people in other countries. >> well, i'm going to the u.k. next week to meet with several of my counterparts. one of the things in our agenda,

ways which we engage our community further in our respective countries. we've had that one of my engagements. this is one i believe in columbus, ohio a mayor from belgium was there with me. see how we do it here in this country. of the so that is a little of international discussion i think is becoming all more important as, as the homeland security challenges evolve to a more domestic-based, type of challenge, i think it becomes all the more important that we have these community engagements that we partner with state and local law enforcement and we encourage public participation in our efforts so. >> if i could just add a follow-up question to that, one of the differences, at least

it's alleged between france and us is that we have made a lot of effort to a simulate communities, especially muslim communities in the united states. the comments from our friend from syria, from the syrian organization are evidence of that. are more efforts planned? are you planning more or are most of these happening at local law enforcement level? i'm certainly aware that in los angeles there is a number of these efforts that are quite successful. >> well we're definitely planning more. we ramped up our efforts in the last year. the department of justice the fbi is doing the same thing. i think it's what happens when i do these things is i will go to a city and the county sheriff will be there, the area police chiefs will be there a couple of members of congress will be there and community leaders will be there and in the muslim community, i have learned a lot from these engagements, in the

muslim community they have a lot of issues with airport profiling, how we administer our immigration laws. they tell me about some of the discrimination that they face which always spikes after an attack overseas. some of the issues that even their children face going to school. and, you know, i really feel for these people. what i say back to them is, i hear you and i know that there are things that we should work on in my department but i want to ask you to do something which is it's all of our homelands and it's our public safety your public safety. we all have a vested interest in it. so we want to see you build bridges with my department, with this sheriff with this chief with this mayor, this assemblyman, this member of the county legislature here, so that if you see trouble in your

community, you will think to contact one of us. >> well that works. there is a lot of evidence that works. question in the back over here. you. >> oh, catherine well, all right. we'll go behind you. fine. >> [inaudible]. >> can you use the mic better please. >> hello, catherine. >> [inaudible] >> we're still not hearing you. >> i bet catherine knows how to shout. >> i bet she does but then she won't be heard over the airwaves if she doesn't use the mic. she is an important voice. we need her heard. let's use the other mic, please. okay. >> thank you for your patience. jane, thank you for hosting today's event. secretary johnson, has the paris

massacre emboldened aqap and isis? does this make the likelihood after similar style attack in the u.s. more likely? a second question, the fbi has been throwing around this figure of 100 americans in syria for the better part of a year. is that still the figure you're working off of or has it gone up, thank you? >> well, first of all, i will not try to surmise the mindset of aqap leaders. i do believe that the attacks in europe plus the calls for further attacks in the west by these groups means that here in the united states we have to be vigilant, vigilant in looking out for similar attacks here in the united states which is one of the reasons we've made the enhancements in homeland security that we've made in the

last self weeks and months. i think it's a rather obvious thing to do. i think it is necessary. and so and what i was saying before. there is this there is are no secrets here. these groups are operating in the open. they're calling for these attacks. they're calling for independent actors to committees attacks. so we've got to be vigilant and working with the nypd, with the, with major chiefs and sheriffs around the country to share information. one of the functions of our intelligence and analysis directorate is vertical intelligence and information sharing. i think that's become all the more important given the current challenges that we face. so i and i said that to a group of mayors of sheriffs and chiefs earlier this week. look the numbers, the numbers what i will say about the

numbers is that i think that we in the fbi do a reasonably good job of tracking people who are going to syria, going anywhere near syria. attempting to go to syria, to take up the fight there. you don't know what you don't know, but given the systems that we have in place think we do a reasonably booed job of tracking these -- good job of tracking these people and as they travel and as they return. the bigger challenge are the european countries. they have as jane said much bigger numbers. which is why i think we also need to be vigilant when it comes to travel from countries for which we do not require a visa. looking at security assurances that go along with participating in the visa waiver program is something that i have asked my folks to do. it is an important program. we should maintain it. but, it's something that we

should focus on. >> well, let me say that, you know, as i said in my opening remarks, people weren't sure how a dod guy was going to adapt to the homeland security mission. when you said you had a slide show, i started to shudder. and then i watched the slide show with little jeh and his sister in front of a capitol where -- >> i told my staff one message per slide please not seven not 20. >> what i want to point out the close of the slide show which showed masses of people around the world with that not afraid sign standing up for freedom and the last slide, if i remember it right, i was sitting right there, was selma. it is the 50th anniversary of selma in a few weeks. a big crowd will be going down there to celebrate the fact that we achieved, not perfectly but we achieved more equality in the united states. and i just want to say to you,

jay, that there won't be 100% security. something bad will happen. but it is very reassuring to many of us, to have you as the face of homeland security. and to have you speak honestly including about the problems. with the mission going forward. there will be problems certainly. congress is a problem. but i'm hopeful that with good leadership and a increased morale at your department that our country will be safer and i'm confident too with the kind of leadership you offer that our country will be freer. thank you for coming back. next year is going to be speech number three promise me? >> yes. >> thank you all. [applause] >> we're live this afternoon from the eisenhower executive office building where white house budget director shaun donovan and other senior

administration officials are coming to discuss the president's 20,164,000,000,000,000-dollar budget request. live -- 2016, $4 trillion budget question. we expect this to get underway in just a moment. a little more on the budget at 1:30 eastern. we'll take you to the pentagon for series of briefings. we'll have an overview outlining some details in the budget. we plan to bring you that live on update from force and readiness spending as well as briefings about the army and navy budgets. that is at 1:30 eastern here on c-span. the house rules committee meets to consider rules for debate on bill to repeal the 2010 health care law and instructs certain house committees to develop an alternative. this is the first time in this congress the house will vote to repeal the health care law. the house has made 60 attempts to repeal part or all of the law since 2011. that effort gets underway in the

house tomorrow. you can watch the house live on our companion network c-span. [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations] >> is this thing on? i always wanted to do that. good afternoon everybody. the day that you've been waiting for for so long is finally here. the administration has released the budget. you all heard us talk about this quite a bit already. so what i am going to do, i will have my colleagues each very short opening remarks to talk about highlights they have been focusing on putting budget together. but we'll reserve bulk of the time to taking your detailed questions that i've been putting off for weeks but now i can finally go through them. so shaun since you are the principle author here, why don't

you go first. >> great. thank you, josh. and i want to thank my colleagues jason cecilia jeff, for joining us here as well today and let me begin with where we've come from. this budget comes on the heels of a breakthrough year for america. in 58 months we created over 11 million jobs and our unemployment rate fell 1.2 percentage points from the previous year, the largest annual decline for 30 years. the number of uninsured americans has dropped by an estimated 10 million. we brought our deficits below 3% of gdp, less than the 40-year average. this budget supports the president's ambitious vision for accelerate rating growth and expanding opportunity and does so while meeting key fiscal tasks of sustainability. reducing deficits to below 3% of gdp and stablizing debt as share of the economy and putting it on a declining path. it achieves these goals paying for all new investments replacing mindless sequestration

cuts with smart reforms and achieving $1.8 trillion in deficit resuction primarily from health, tax and comprehensive immigration reforms. i will talk primarily about the latter two prongs of our approach. my colleagues will speak about specific investments. in 2014 we moved away from manufactured crises in austerity and helping pave the way for job growth and market gains. the budget act of 2014 murray-ryan, reversed portion of sequestration and allowed higher investment levels in 2014 and 2015. not only has the murray-ryan agreement contributed to improving job park met and accelerating growth but it allowed for important investments in critical priorities ranging from early education and manufacturing, to providing appropriate funding for national security. but that agreement expires at the end of this fiscal year. causing a return to equestions operation in 2016 that would bring discretionary funding to lowest level adjusted for

inflation since 2006. that despite the fact since twix the u.s. population has grown by 7% and costs in key areas such as veterans administration medical care have grown much faster than inflation. it is despite important needs in national security. the joint chiefs have been very clear that a return to sequestration levels would significantly reduce the military's ability to fully implement the president's defense strategy. that is why the budget proposes to end sequestration, fully reversing it for domestic priorities in 2016 matched by equal dollar increases for defense. these investments are more than paid for with smart spending cuts, program integrity measures and common sense loophole closures. the proposed increases in the discretionary budget caps will make room for range of domestic security investments that will help move the nation forward including a number of investments my colleagues jeff and cecilia will discuss in a moment. i want to emphasize again every

investment in the budget both discretionary investments made possible by reversing sequestration and new and expanded tax credits for middle class and working families and mandatory investments that will expand access to community college and preschool, all of them are fully paid for through spending or tax reforms. meanwhile budget also achieves additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction in the budget primarily focusing on the key drivers of our budget challenges health care cost growth and inadequate revenue levels in the face of an aging population. specifically the budget includes about $400 billion in health savings that build on the affordable care act including measures that compliment the administration's other efforts on delivery system reform that secretary burwell announced last week and will help maintain historic slow down in health care cost growth and improving budget quality. it raises $640 billion in net

revenue from deficit reduction. this reflects the president's support for common sense comprehensive immigration reform along the lines of the bipartisan senate passed bill in part because it balances out a aging population, immigration reform is good for the economy, for the social security trust fund and our budget more broadly. overall the budget brings deficits down below 3% of the economy while putting debt on a declining path. it shows how we can build on economic progress that has been made over the past five years and make invests to insure our country remains strong and prosperous while at the same time continuing our fiscal progress. with that, let me turn it over to jason furman who will discuss the economic outlook and the budget assumptions. >> good afternoon. as shaun noted the u.s. economy the considered strengthened in

2014 with strongest growth any calendar year since 1999. looking ahead the administration expects the economy will continue to grow at above trend rate of 3% per year in both 2015 and 2016. this assumption is in line with the forecasts from the congressional budget office and the blue chip consensus and the somewhat more conservative than the latest international monetary fund forecast. while the economy has come a long way since the recession, the expectations of additional above trend growth reflects the widely-held view that the economy is still returning to the full utilization of its resources. several factors are supporting this growth. fiscal policy has shifted to a generally neutral stance aided by the ryan-murray agreement reached at the end of 2013. if congress continues to act without brinksmanship or harmful austerity, fiscal policy will continue to be conducive to

strong growth. consumer spending has picked up reflecting the savings from the recent drop in energy prices. the ongoing improvement in household finances and increased economic optimism. and there is continued room for growth in both business and residential investments. the slowdown in breath for many of our key trading partners is however a headwind for the u.s. economy and a downside risk to the near-term forecast. in the later years of the forecast window we assume that the growth rate converges to our projected 2.3% rate of potential gdp growth. this matches the latest long-run forecast by the blue chip panel and is generally in line with cbo's recent estimate of 2.2% per year for potential. we also projected inflation will remain low, unemployment rate will continue to edge down and interest rates will rise as the economy continues its expansion. finally, i i want to note that the

forecast is finalized in november in order to give agencies time to prepare their budget estimates. on friday we learned that the economy grew 2.4% in 2014, above the 2.2% rate that was assumed in november and appears in the budget. moreover both inflation and interest rates are also somewhat lower than we had forecast in november. we will of course have updated economic and budget projections in the mid-session review that would incorporate all of this information. and with that, let me turn it over to cecilia. >> thanks very much, jason. good afternoon, everybody. you've heard us talking about the budget in the weeks leading up to today, that the budget is an expression of the president's vision for what he wants. what he wants us to be what he wants our economy to look like in the 21st century and how we will continue to lead the world economically. supports for working families you see in this budget in particular a expression of

vision of white house economically as well as what supports the middle class in particular supports and create as good start for our youngest americans. i will focus in a little bit on the series of proposals around children and child care because this budget presents the most comprehensive to date approach for early childhood education for children in this country, from birth and until they enter kindergarten, the hope one of many results that of the policies the president put forward, more children entering kindergarten ready to learn. this has historic goal of helping every family with children under five find a place for their children to grow while parents work. biggest elements of this plan, include tripling child care tax credit for middle class families $300,000 families with young children. -- $3,000. while also working to strengthen the quality of child care

programs. in addition the president has repeating his preschool for all program. this is a proposal to provide pre-k, high quality pre-k to every 4-year-old in this country. there is also an expansion of the head start proposed in this budget in particular head start can be offered for a full day throughout a full year which is not currently the case for many head start programs. so the combination of these proposals is essentially a comprehensive approach to early childhood development in a way which supports children and also supports working families. there are other important investments in this budget in the k12 system. as well as in higher education. you obviously heard about the proposal to make community college free. we continue our commitment to pell grants and other supports for families in higher ed and they are important investments here in the title one program under the elementary and secondary education act, an important $3 billion investment towards the goal of making sure teachers are fully prepared and fully supported throughout their

careers and then a $1.2 billion investment towards creating better schools through designing high schools and school improvement grants and investments in charter schools. all together what we see is an approach that is really focused on again, making sure working families have the supports they need particularly families with youngest children but also making sure we are investing in the full spectrum of the educational system from birth, really through what we think of now as grade 14 by making community colleges accessible in the future as high school has become for americans today. >> i thought i would spend one minute a core component of middle class economics and that's the president's plan on infrastructure. infrastructure is critical to creating good, middle class jobs and also critical to our long-term competitiveness in a global economy. we have a over one trillion dollars deficit in

infrastructure. all of us feel it every day. workers trying to get to work stuck in traffic. businesses trying to get products overseas and in an efficient manner to export to support good paying jobs. infrastructure is critical in all of this. we're not where he need to be. the president goes very big on infrastructure in the budget to repair roads, bridges freight and our rail systems. it's a long-term plan, so it is six years up from four years last year that we've been solving infrastructure in few months patches. that is no way to plan infrastructure projects. this is a six-year proposal. it is $480 billion which allows us to fund at about 40% above the current level of spend and there are many high return invests for that $480 billion. importantly it is fully paid for through business tax reforms, specifically the one-time money that is overseas bringing that

money back and, raising taxes on that money to pay for the plan. so, the bottom line is infrastructure is traditionally a bipartisan issue. everyone agrees that our infrastructure outdated and needs to be modernized. it is also a two-fer in that it supports good paying jobs good-paying middle class jobs right away at the same time it sets up for long-term competitiveness in this global marketplace. with that i will hand it back to josh. >> thank you for the top line, guys. with that let's go to questions. who wants to be first? mr. kunan. >> thank you josh. jeff i wanted to follow up on the infrastructure and corporate tax reform proposal. do you believe that without a full corporate tax reform you could still do a one-off 14% on accumulated for inearnings, or

can only that occur in the context of a broader corporate tax overhaul? also yesterday ways and means chairman paul ryan said that corporate tax reform has to occur in the context of small business tax reform as well which would mean, somehow, dealing with individual income tax reforms. so do you see those as inevitably -- >> we do believe in comprehensive business tax reform which involves lowering the domestic rate, statutory rate which the 35% which is highest in the world to 28%, 25%, for manufacturing. setting up an international system that is a hybrid system where you have minimum tax of 19% and then bringing back the money that is overseas at this 14% that you mentioned. that is very different than a repatriation holiday which we

believe is bad policy. you're right that many businesses are small businesses and the president's plan does a lot for small businesses. it simplifies how small businesses file their taxes so they can use cash accounting, which is basically their bank statement, rather than very complex accrual accounting. that is available for all businesses up to $25 million. it also enables businesses to write off investments in the first year of up to a million dollars. that will really help simplify small business filings and lower rates for many small businesses. so we believe in doing business tax reform across the board. >> so the -- >> while at the same time, making sure that we do things good for the middle class. i mentioned in my opening investing in infrastructure is good for the middle class. that is an important component of any tax reforms we do making sure we're benefiting middle class. >> 14% could not occur absent broader -- >> not a one-off proposal.

part after more comprehensive approach to fix what is clearly a broken business tax system. and at the same time we want to make sure it is, as we're addressing business tax reform we're doing things good for middle class. >> jeff i know that josh you described kind of the -- [inaudible] i have interest in something the president said while he was unveiling it today. i will not invest in a budget locks in sequestration going forward and not accept a budget that severs vital link between national security and economic security. i wondering as you are entering negotiation with republican congress are those both bright lines you will insist on in any budget document that might actually pass? >> you're asking additional ones beyond the one's the president mentioned today. >> would you address those two aspects? >> we put out our budget

proposal today. we haven't seen anything from republicans yet. i doesn't want to be republicans found it a virtue for some reason to declare budget dead on arrival before having seen it. i don't think i want to put myself in the same position of the president indicated he is willing to consider good ideas from either side of the aisle wherever they, from wherever they originate, particularly if they're going to benefit middle class families. i mean i think that's part of why you've seen the president identify at least those two areas as, as essentially deal breakers for him because, you know contending to leave the sequester in place does have a negative impact on our ability to support middle class families and certainly has a negative impact on the ability of our men and women in the military to keep our country safe. take my word for it. we've seen about every uniformed military leader who spoke on this issue raised the same concern. so the kinds of concerns the good news in all of this i think is that the concerns that the president has raised along these lines are consistent with

concerns that at least some republicans on capitol hill have raised as well. we know there are republicans concerned about the sequester both impact on economy and impact on national security for example. so you know, despite despite the president being pretty declarative about those two elements i don't think necessarily it will rule out or make it that much more difficult for us to be able to find common ground on some common sense budgeting proposals in the interests of national security and middle class families. >> josh, from a is if fiscal perspective there is growing bipartisan recognition that discretionary spending is not the important issue from a fiscal perspective. in fact our discretionary spending is at, near its lowest level as a share of our economy as it has ever been. i also think it is important to remember that national security is dependent on more than just the department of defense budget. in fact, in the non-defense category is all of the

commitments we made to our veterans. it includes the homeland security budget which obviously is a critical part of protecting our country. why it is critical we get a bill done full-year bill for 2015 right now. so i think we have to see this in addition to the investments that jeff and cecilia talked about, as this connection between the defense and the non-defense part of the budget, you really can't, that's what the president said today, you can not break that link. >> good. back to this side. jim. >> mr. donovan, you said the budget would be good for social security. i haven't had a chance to read the budget this morning. can you tell us exactly how this budget would strengthen the social security. >> well, broadly speaking the long-term deficit is significantly helped by this budget, just to be clear and cbo put out the numbers last week. under current law we would see

both deficits grow above 4% of gdp and the debt grow over 8:00ty percent of gdp. what this budget does is to reverse that course. it keeps deficits under 3% of gdp every year of the budget window. and, critically it starts to bend that curve on debt so it stablizes and then begins to reduce debt as a share of gdp. specifically on social security, trust fund, one of the fundamental problems we're facing is that the number of workers that we have relative to the number of retirees that are supported by social security has been shrinking. and so comprehensive immigration reform is actually one of the most critical things that we can do to shore up the long term solvency of social security. as a result, to improve our deficit challenges in the long run. in fact, you might have seen

loose week that -- last week, just from the executive actions that the president took late last year there is a positive impact on the social security trust fund because of additional payments that come into that. so comprehensive immigration reform on a much larger scale would improve that. cbo's numbers are comprehensive immigration reform of that's what we reflect in our budget in the first decade is about $160 billion of deficit reduction. in the second decade it is almost $700 billion. of deficit reduction. . .

and actively called on congress to pass that would set the threshold of that you have to as long as you are majority owned by your historic folder so it would take away the ability to find a smaller for an foreign company and acquired them to shift over. the entire reform agenda is also about making it more attractive

to invest in america "-end-quotes a number of the other loopholes the companies used that complement what they've done so in as the secretary said when he announced what he was doing administratively that helped, but it could do as much as you could do legislatively for that proposal that repeats itself here. to take a crack at the entitlement and then others could build on it this is a budget that does include a $400 billion of savings from reforming our health system. those reforms to the system are in the spirit of what we have done to date which is how to make the health system more effective and efficient and when you do that it breaks down cost and saves money for the budget and for seniors and it slows the cost growth in healthcare. that's part of an overall fiscal approach that includes reforming the tax system and reforming the immigration system so it follows in the same path but president

has in the previous budget of balance to deficit reduction coming from the spending side, coming from the revenue side and the death on the declining share of the economy which is what economists would think is important. >> two quick points i would make. there's been a lot of focus rightly so on the short run deficit and how much they have come down. this has been the fastest. a deficit reduction since after world war ii. we have also seen a single biggest driver has been the slowest growth in healthcare cost just to take one example if you look at the numbers our spending on medicare and medicaid in the year 2020 is now expected to be almost $200 billion lower just in that one year than it was when the president came into office. so, what jason is talking about on the entitlement reform is important that the building on

that as well we have a new proposal in the budget which would adopt bipartisan legislation on what's called the doc fix or sgr. we would adopt that and pay for it because everything in the budget is fully paid for and we would add some additional reforms to that legislation that build on what sylvia burwell secretary of hhs has done on the delivery system reform so if we can keep driving those costs will costs will work even when more important than social security or other entitlement issues of the issue of health care cost is the single most important place where we can really been that the cost curve in the long run on entitlement exchanges. >> there is a question on the sequester. >> let me say first off just look at the deficit reductions to date. more of it this past year was because of the tax deal that restored the clinton era rates on the income and the affordable care act. the combination of those then from the sequester and second of

all the most important is where you are over the medium or the long run and bear those steps towards the impact in terms of changing the medium and long run debt and deficit trajectory. we have charts that show precisely what role is played, but again, on jason's point it is morphed in the long run and also the fundamental point that it's not going to wear our challenges are on the fiscal side. discretionary spending again is at a very low level relative to gdp and in the budget window it continues to grow smaller as a share of gdp because it isn't growing as fast. so it is not the fiscal challenge we focus on if

anything we want to grow the economy and make the investments adjustments that you talked about. >> can you wait for a microphone please click >> hell did you choose the 14% level for the tax on bringing back overseas profits and whether there be any limits on what companies could do with those funds and if you have a forecast for the impact on the economy with a considerable amount that was brought back? >> that 14% is about 40% of the 35%. it will be on all dollars overseas not voluntary. the dollars would come back to the u.s. hopefully to be invested in the u.s. jobs and manufacturing facilities but there wouldn't be a specific requirement. the requirement is that they all

pay 14%. >> i don't ask a couple questions. first, the deferral of the high-fiving about the deficit which is impressive but it is a ticking timebomb. however such is as the policy towards producing the best? >> so, as i said earlier, on the current course that death would grow as a share of the economy from about 75% now to about 81% by 2025. what we do in our budget is bring that down substantially so that debt as a share of the economy shrinks from about 75% of gdp down to 73% of gdp by the end of the window. and even more importantly the

key things that we are doing unlike sequestration things we are doing for our long-term fiscal future grow in importance as you get beyond ten years. so the tax changes that we are talking about for example on the capital gains, they are structured so that the scale of revenue they bring in grow over time. immigration reform is something where the impact would grow substantially over time and many of the things we talked about before on healthcare costs deliveries versus the system reform and others, the benefits would compound over time as you bring the growth in health-care costs down below the growth of gdp. so all of those are the most important things you can do in the long run to bring down the debt. at the same time what we should recognize is that leo a debt to our seniors who have paid into social security and other

benefits. but what we can't do is make reforms that break that promise to them and recognize that we have a demographic bubble that we are dealing with through roughly the mid-20s 30s and 2030s and if we can get through the period the death stabilized we put the nation and a much better position as the number of workers grow particularly if we can pass in a grecian reform. >> a quick follow-up on i want to ask about military spending in general. fighting the war on terror and everything that is still happening is very real. does this budget address in your estimation everything that needs to be addressed or is there more that you can do to make sure that the american people are safe? and >> first of all we have to recognize that the country has made real progress. the president talked about in the state of the union address and he came into office we had 180,000 troops overseas in iraq

and afghanistan. we are down to 15,000 in on a downward trajectory there and so we have had real benefits in terms of the lives of our brave service people serving overseas. at the same time there are fiscal benefits. we are spending 130 billion less this year. because of his stewardship of the national security those costs continue to decline by more than another 10 billion the budget proposal. at the same time the budget recognizes that in the base investment in the dod budget not the emergency cost of the base budget there are places we need to invest and that means investing in our service people and it means investing in making sure that our technology stays ahead of other countries whether that is in space or other research and development so there are a number of places we recognize that and that's where you see the 37 billion-dollar

increase in 2016 for the defense budget that really focuses on where those needs are and keeping americans safe. >> i wanted to ask about the $1 million being sent to the central american countries to address the issue that happened last summer with the immigrants coming across the border. when they are there the biggest problem people in the and the government talk about his government corruption. what is the united states going to do to protect that to make sure that it doesn't appear in swiss bank accounts and actually helps the people? >> i will tackle this but on the reminder that i'm also a

domestic adviser. the focus is going to central america both to improve safety as well as development. when you hear the vice president talk about it he talks in strong terms and makes a comparison to what we did in colombia which required enormous investment of resources as well as political capital in partnership with the united states if we are talking about building the same partnership in the central american country to make sure that they are advancing economically and that they are also making the advancements we need with respect to safety and security. you will recall that the reason for the crisis and the arrival had to do with folks fear in particular of the fear of violence affecting young people so we are dedicating resources to a panoply of things with the goal being that the united states be a good partner to the societies and help strengthen them so that they are able to deal with these problems in country rather than to confront

the kind of crisis we had here and i think it is a broad restoration of the notion that we have to approach these issues as a hemisphere and the united states has to be thinking about this in situations like this situation we felt we experienced last summer from a broader perspective that was immigration situation that resulted in a larger phenomenon that we have a role to play making sure that we mitigate. >> just to add a little bit on that point, colombia has been remarkably successful going at the same issues that you talked about and so the piece that cecilia talked about in this country has approached him about specific piece of the funding that we would dedicate his on governance reform and would be directly targeted at making sure that you built the government institutions and also attack the kind of corruption you're talking about and the other thing i would mention this is

something the president and the vice president really have been focusing on for some time and we've already taken a number of steps where the three countries in particular that were focused had already agreed to a number of things to strengthen whether it's the rule of law or to stop corruption in their system so we could get more specifics on those but there are steps that have already been committed in advance of us making this commitment. it's also important to recognize that this is one of many opportunities that the president's efforts on cuba have begun to open up in the hemisphere. we had a moment of opportunity to move forward together with countries across the hemisphere so that we are much more likely now as the sicilia said to get other countries investing the three countries themselves that other but other countries as well that would support our efforts.

>> can you give more details about your degree and is the location for cybersecurity driven by being posed in china and russia? >> doucet on the asia pacific rebalancing. i think what would be best given is that we don't have a national security staff here is maybe if we can follow-up with you specifically. there are a number of places where we are increasing investment to focus but i'm not sure that we have the right expertise to get into the details. >> i will have somebody follow-up with you. >> we do have a range of investment around cybersecurity, well over $10 billion of investment that is going toward

cybersecurity. that includes both the research development is part of a broad significant expansion as well as specific investments at the department of homeland security and at omb that is responsible for setting the policy on many of these areas and also in our national security agencies more broadly cited as a specific area and you'll see it called out and the budget presentation today with many more details on exactly where those were focused. >> there's the legislation on the data breach and it encourages the piece of legislation to move forward as fast as possible in a bipartisan way. the president will also be hosting a summit on cybersecurity on the west coast at stanford university on the 13th of this month so ten days or so.

>> will a number of these proposals have been in the budget for quite some time. they were not passed by the congress that had a democratic control in the senate. what can you do in the coming year to bring republicans to the table and what makes you think that these plans have life with the new republican congress? >> i will take the first crack at this. the first thing that comes to mind, the fact they didn't pass it the first time doesn't mean they are not good ideas. the reason they are included once again is because they are good ideas and we will continue looking to members of congress and both parties to consider them and actually included in

legislation. the second thing is we also would acknowledge that this is going to be a compromise. we have republicans in charge of the congress, we have a democrat who is sitting in the white house. so anything that emerges when he's proposals into discussions about the budget will require an effort to try to find some common ground. maybe there will be an opportunity to include some things in the budget that republicans haven't previously supported in exchange for some new ideas that they may have. the third thing and this is a good segue, there are a pretty substantial number of things included in the budget that have been previously supported by republicans come and i think that it is a good indication that by focusing on what we think the goal should be in terms of protecting the country and investing in middle-class families there should be reasonable common ground we can find and that's why the president so strongly advocates ensuring that we not allow a

disagreement over one issue like immigration to become a dealbreaker over all the others. there's important things we can do that there does appear to be common ground. i'm not suggesting that this is easy or that anybody here thinks it is going to be easy but there is an opportunity worth pursuing. >> d. want to do two or three of the best ideas that are included in the budget that had previously been supportive? >> just may have some thoughts on this as well. there are a number of things that the financials see as a good example but also the linkage between international tax reform and infrastructure which were included in the camp plan and many of the proposals whether it's around childcare or a number of the other things that cecilia focused on that free community college have been ideas that not only have had republican support in the past

but actually legislative proposals that we've seen with bipartisan support. so that doesn't mean there's been support for every one of the ideas but we will see i think a significant opportunity to get some of these ideas advanced going forward. the other thing i would point out which i think you have a lot of good examples from the budget last year whether it is on the minimum wage or others it isn't just about what the federal government does. it's also about what the mayors and governors and other local officials to and i think there is a real opportunity in many of these ideas to build momentum and support in a way that congress may not lead on them, but they may end up following because of the work that happens in other parts of the country. >> i think at a strategic level we talked about some of the infrastructure and tax reform and everybody agrees that the

current tax system doesn't work and at the rate the rate of 35% is the highest in the world and the system is dysfunctional and then everybody agrees that, not everyone, but both republican leaders and some democratic leaders including the president most importantly agree on the basic framework for the approach so there's a lot in the detail that the strategic alignment is real and significant in that thing you can do more grain dealer and look at expanding which both the president proposes in his budget and paul ryan proposes, so you have a strategic alignment that's an important area and then you have the specific proposals both republican leadership and the president agree upon so we are hopeful to get some of this

stuff done. >> is there any chance that could be rolled back and we could lose our investment? >> we've already backed away from the proposal and it was a very small part of the restructuring of the various offerings with respect to savings and free college education. so the point here is that this administration continues to be committed to making sure that resources are available to make college more affordable so the budget includes things like making sure that programs are protected from inflation. we have the community college proposal but we also have a consolidation of the various tax credit and other structures that exist out and the idea being that we learned a significant number of folks who participate in one program ended up not participating in the one that would have benefited them more because there are so many

different options and it can be confusing. so the goal is to consolidate in such a way that more middle-class families and families working to get to the middle class gets the support they need to pay for college and to repay student loans. >> the administration has no plans or proposals in the 529. >> just to put a number on this what we are proposing in the budget is and the budget is a nearly 50 billion-dollar increase in tax benefits toward paying for college and so on a net basis what you'll see is the president's proposal dramatically improves college affordability and the in the tax system compared to what we currently have. >> two questions. one for josh and one for jason. what do you think the effect of

the budget will be for democrats heading into the 2,016th election at the presidential and congressional level? is there anything you think they are not going to like and then fork jason as jonathan mentioned, it's my understanding that loophole could be closed without a congressional reinterpretation of the treasury or the irs level. is that the case and if so, why not just close it? stupid as it relates to the 2016? the contest my suspicion is that everybody that looks at this well think that there is at least one element in the pages that they are presented with where they will think to themselves i might have done it a little bit differently great i suspect that is true both those who are in office and who are contemplating running for a different one. but at the same time i also think what is codified in the volumes that were presented

today at there is a pretty cogent vision for how to move the country forward and grow the economy by focusing on middle-class economics, we can build a kind of country that is in the best interest of middle-class families and also in the best interest of the long-term stability but there is an opportunity for us to use this new foundation that we have laid after recovering from the crisis to build this country in the direction of making it more fair and more free and creating more opportunity for everybody. and i think that really is the core of the president's vision and that reflects a vision the vast majority of democrats have and can agree with. the truth is i think there are a lot of reasons republicans can find to agree with as well. the question is will they put politics aside and work to find a common ground on the administration to do that or

will they not what has been consistent in the last six years >> in answer to the second question, treasury and irs are responsible for the tax system so you should ask them that question in terms of specific regulations. in terms of our budget proposal, we are asking congress to change the law so the income that is a centrally like any other form of income that burned in certain activities get taxed as such and that is a commonsense idea. >> in this budget it's been in the past budget and they implement the policy a policy to do that and i guess the question is -- >> you should ask the treasury and irs with their authorities and plans are in this area because this is -- they are responsible for implementing the tax law that congress passes.

>> steve with the "washington post" editorial board. still relying on the corporate repatriation to fund the infrastructure by not just raise the gas tax? >> the president hasn't proposed and has no plans to propose increasing the gas tax. the plan that we describe here using the dollars from overseas to bring it back to the u.s. and raising money in order to find a long-term reauthorization at a level that is close to 40% higher we think is the right plan. it's got a lot of traction. with that said the president is open to other proposals. >> i was interested in what the pay for is for the two free

years of community college if you don't mind and also jeff following up on that question how real is the plan and aren't you in effect raising taxes on american businesses which seems to be a nonstarter in this congress and then secondly, expecting them to believe that once you raise the taxes it is just a one year only and it won't become a permanent thing? >> so i will start the revenue raisers that we described in the tax reforms we laid out are more than enough to cover the community college program as well as the other elements of the budget that i described. >> repeat the first part of your question. >> [inaudible] bringing the money back from the corporations how real is it to expect this congress to basically raise taxes on american businesses or ask them to pay the tax they are not

paying now and the second to believe that this is a one-time only tax? >> as i mentioned earlier it is a comprehensive approach to the business tax reform. a very important component is to also make sure that it's good for middle-class families infrastructure investment being essential to that. there is the revenue neutrality so no additional money from the corporate or business taxes. with that said it is a one-time opportunity because the $2 trillion that are overseas that would be taxed at a much lower rate of 14% and that raises the money to do the six-year reauthorization at a much higher level than the current so its long-term it's long-term revenue neutral but this one-time opportunity with the $2 trillion which hasn't been taxed overseas is that 14%. >> can i add one thing to do it because i think there has been

some confusion about the relationship between this proposal and something that would be completely different and in many ways the opposite of the proposal which is the repatriation holiday and of course we are explaining the difference and also helps to answer your question. the proposal the president is making would be mandatory on all overseas is a opposed to the election that could be made. as a result it raises money hundred $70 billion over ten years as opposed to the repatriation holiday would lose money and then third that gets at your question this is part of the plan to reform the tax system so i'm a going forward basis you have a 19% minimum tax on all the earnings of the subsidiaries in the corporation and because it is part of a plan that deals with the earnings that occurred in the past and the earnings in the future, it becomes a stable system as opposed to a one-time measure that then raises a question about how you're going to deal with it again in the future.

>> on the politics the other thing that occurs to me is when the president was running for the office in 2007 and 2008 u.s. c-charlie advocating raising taxes on the wealthiest americans, something republicans said was dead on arrival that they would never approve of but shortly after he was re- elected and campaigned on the issue again he did actually succeed getting the republican majority in the house of representatives to eventually vote for the tax increase on the wealthiest americans so the point is because they are against it now doesn't mean that they will be then. in lowering the statutory and creating this minimum tax that is described and in printing the money back from overseas with the one-time charge. using that money for infrastructure for the components they are the same as the chairman plans last year for the republican house in ways and means. >> major?

>> three quick items. how do you achieve your mandatory savings projecting over ten years, what is the baseline number for this. how do you project the spending going forward and what is into what is your disposition of overseas con tensions these? >> on the mandatory side we discussed a little bit earlier there's about $400 billion in savings on medicare and medicaid. in addition to that those are not the only mandatory savings in the budget. i want to be clear there is program integrity savings that we would achieve for example in the irs. because we are under investing in the capacity we are actually losing out on the tax, cut chance to the tune of tens of billions of dollars so it is about $60 billion of mandatory savings we get if we invested more in the collection and enforcement in the irs that's one example.

crop insurance is another area where we think we can improve the system and encourage farmers to actually be planting more, where the excess profits of insurance companies and there is a range of other mandatory favors in this not just on the health side. but on that whole side there are a range and jason has a pretty great expertise here that include reforms on the provider side that accelerate the kind of saving measures that we have seen in areas where we think there are not current incentives to save and have things like household care and a range of other ways that the payment arrangements we have with providers. there are also about 20% of the savings which focus on ensuring

that the highest income beneficiaries are paid their fair share and there are also than things like controlling the drug cost and other things that right now are leaving even though healthcare costs are growing much more slowly than they have historically we still have areas where costs are growing quickly like particularly some of these designer new prescription drugs that we think could be brought under the umbrella of the cost-saving proposals that worked in other areas. >> if you have 15 pages with dozens and dozens of mandatory proposals there were two others but they seem like numbers we can get you afterwards.

>> the one i mentioned earlier is down about 130 billion since the president came into office and it declined another 11 billion under our proposal. and on the va i don't have the precise number in front of me but it is a substantial increase for veterans health care i think in the range of 7% but let me get you a specific number. >> you mentioned the first time you thought about the budget and a 2016 context. i want to ask about that because isn't this something that you're hoping democrats will see as a mission of helping the middle class and also if i could ask you to expand a little bit on the idea why you by you targeted crop insurance and savings from that because it isn't playing well in kansas.

in terms of 2016 i guess one reason is we will have a budget that will be out in early 2016, too so that would be one reason. the other reason is we certainly do hope democrats and republicans will see the ideas in this budget not for a political end but to get something done in congress that would benefit the families. that is our aim and that's why maybe i should have thought of that more in the 2016 context but haven't because the principal goals are run by partisanship and around trying to get action on capitol hill and not just a talking point. >> may be to go back to the earlier point if you look at the broad scope of proposals that we have in the budget and recognized the fact that we have roughly 100 different cuts, consolidations reforms to the

significant programs i ensure that there will be places in the country and things democrats and republicans alike will find that they may not totally agree with but we have in the past years proposed reforms to the crop insurance as well. specifically what you find his there are places where for example by the way that we've structured these insurance programs we actually encourage farmers not to plant on the land for examples. we also have other places where we encourage or subsidize farmers in farming techniques that are less sustainable for the land that they are working and so we think that these are sparked reforms that both maintain the basic protection of farmers for the emergencies that

happen but don't actually encourage them not to plant when they could or encourage them to follow practices that are actually not good for the very land that they depend on. >> i know you said that there is mandatory savings that would help the sustainability of social security in the long run but you started out by saying now with economic growth and things starting to move again this budget was an opportunity for the president to say what he thought should have been and i wonder why a lot of people are saying since it's a missed opportunity he didn't choose to the very fast projected growth of entitlement over the next decade he didn't choose to tackle them as it politically difficult to do that? >> let me disagree on the fundamental premise of the president came into office, he

recognized what i think a broad group on a bipartisan basis recognized as the single most important contributor to the long-run growth and in the cost of our entitlement which was the spiraling cost of healthcare health care and in fact what we have achieved since he came into office in part because the recession he inherited and also because of the structural reforms in the system have now substantially lowered the long-term cost of entitlement. i will go back to the point i made in the year 2020 are talking about almost $200 billion of savings in medicare and medicaid and if you look at the projections in the budget he will see substantially lower costs far out into the future for these programs then we have been than we had when the president came into office and the fact that we are adopting not just the 400 billion in medicare and medicaid savings we discussed in

the budget, we are also adopting a bipartisan proposal on ethics reform which incorporates additional delivery system reforms that will lower the cost of health care in the future and a range of other things we are doing beyond just the medicare and medicaid investments on medicine and a whole range of other areas. i think we have a very strong argument president has been focused on since the beginning on the key that key drivers of every long-term entitlements and he continues to be focused with some real momentum in the healthcare cost. i also think this has been lost a little bit in the sort of political back and forth around immigration in addition to healthcare cost of the single most important thing we can pay attention to is that we have a demographic imbalance in the country. we have a growing number of retirees for the number of workers we have in the country

and therefore immigration reform is fundamentally something that alters the balance on the entitlement in a way that very few other things do because it grows the number of workers that we have and that's why the contribution for the social security trust fund and on medicare and medicaid, all of those are enormous healthcare benefits that should not be ignored. >> and i had a tiny bit economically? in 2008 and the transition with larry summers, peter orr said, the whole economic team was trying to figure out what the right fiscal zero was going to be an economically the decision was the right goal was to make sure that the death was falling as a share of the economy that required the deficit being below that 3% of gdp. that's the goal that we achieved and that is the goal that we need to take additional steps on taxes and healthcare and immigration to make sure that we

continue to meet that goal over the next decade and beyond but it's one that is very consistent with what economics would tell you you need to do to be in a sustainable and a strong position to grow economically. >> that was also the one targeted on the simpson bowles commission. so it included the wisdom of the obama economic team that also included the stamp of approval for the commission. two other planes that are also relevant to this the first is that that for the president the president has also been clear about the fact that his approach dealing with the debt and deficit is we are not going to ask the elderly families to bear the brunt and improving our fiscal situation that there are a variety of steps we can take that reflects a balanced approach and that's when the president is committed to. the last thing i'm going to sort of speak like an economist so

correct me if i'm wrong one of the important things we can do is to ensure that we have a strong dynamic growing economy and we are not going to if we chip away at the kind of investments that we know are critical to the success of middle-class families so making the kind of investments that we know will be good for the growing economy are also going to be good for the debt and deficit reduction line. did i at least passed? >> forgive me if this was already asked and answered but the budget proposes to cut veterans choice card program and take some of that money and move it elsewhere in the system. can you explain that? is the program not as neat as it was last year? >> there isn't a proposal to cut it. if it is a mischaracterization.

as we were looking at the projections for the va going forward recognizing this choice program is a brand-new program and for those not involved in the details, the choice program was set up by legislation that gave certain veterans who either had been waiting a certain period of time or lived a geographic distance further away from the facility the ability to get a veterans choice card and seek medical care outside of the va system. as we were putting together projections for the budget, you could imagine that it is quite uncertain how many veterans will ultimately exercise that choice and use that program. so what we have done is to post flexibility that would allow the va to draw from some of the

$10 billion that was set aside for that program is needed if it is not fully utilized and in case, for example more veterans than we expect seek healthcare within the va system so what we were trying to deal with is to give flexibility in the resources to deal with some of the uncertainty that we have given that this is a new program and we are not sure how many veterans would choose either to remain in the va system or to seek healthcare using their choice card. ..