more than 50 individual provisions the most preenive set of chings to the uniform code of military justice since 1968. cumulative the last three ndaa's including 71 sections of law containing more than 100 unique requirements, including 16 congressional reporting requirements. this year's bill builds on that progress with 12 military justice provisions including every proposal that was offered by senator gillibrand during the committee's markup of this including every proposal that was offered by legislation. it is true that sexual assaults have been reduced. so to somehow allege that nothing has been done and what her proposal is accepted by

literally every member of the military that has experience. we cannot remove the officer from the chain of command. that's what senator jill amendment says to remove the commanding officer from responsibility. i will oppose that and i hope the senator from new york would acknowledge. respect and appreciation for her passion and for her dedication on this issue. i respectfully disagree. >> tonight on c-span2 congressional leaders discuss their agenda and their views of the president, world bank.

later a house homeland security hearing with tsa employees. will discuss u.s. policy in the middle east and military strategy in the fight against isis. live coverage again set 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span three and c-span.org. >> summer setting front left of the chamber if you will and when brooks comes in he comes in the center, sits down is almost looking directly at sumner. the problem is sumner is not

looking at him. he is literally signing copies of requirements in his speech. speech. mr. brooks gets up, walks down the center aisle with his cane approaches sumner. sumner is totally oblivious to what is happening with his head bowed signing copies of the book. he lifts his cane over his head and says mr. sumner i have read your speech over twice and it is a libel to my state. brooks is blurred through his glasses because he is so close and he hits him with his cane. the caning of massachusetts charles sumner by preston brooks. that's sunday night at east 80 string. the new directory is a handy guide to the congress.

it is full of photos of every member plus bio information. also has district maps, foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the presidents cabinet. order your copy today it's 1395 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at cspan.org the wall street journal today hosted their annual meeting of chief financial officers where policymakers discuss the global economy. here is part of the conference beginning with the discussion about legislative agenda. we will hear first from mr. michigan senator. she is followed by house majority leader debbie mccarthy. >> thank you all for being here. >> my pleasure. >> just a little background on the senator, she was elected in 1996.

>> right. >> i think you are the ranking member on the argo cultural committee and on the finance budget committee. you spent a lot of time manufacturing health financial budget. >> i think when your family grew up your family was an oldsmobile dealer. >> did you get a really cool car in high school? >> no i always got the clunkers. >> is that a gender bias thing? >> i don't know, i didn't think of it that way. >> anyway, i always wanted an oldsmobile and i had to wait till i was 30 to get one. anyway let's start with a broad range of economic finance issues that are pending right now. let's start with the one that's really pending this week which is fast-track and free trade

specifically with trade, specifically with asia. you wrestle with this in the senate. you attempted to attach an amendment to the fast-track bill that would have dealt with what you see as currency manipulation. that didn't work. it passed the senate anyway and is at the house. i guess the question i have for you is what is i have for you is what is your prognosis of what where this is headed and what do you think can be done to deal with the currency manipulation before we get to the end of this rope? >> thank you, first of all we need exports. we need to export our products not our jobs. how we frame what we do is very important in terms of a a level playing field in a global economy for our businesses. i have over the years voted for more trade agreements than not but i have to tell you, when we are going into a debate of the process for giving up our right to an amended trade deal, that's

what fast-track is, it's brought to you and you can't change it. it's voted up or down with a simple majority vote. i think the rules of the road become very important. when important. when the first trade agreement is up it is 40% of the global economy in asia where the number one trade barrier is currency manipulation. one of the rules we should have in place is a requirement for an enforceable currency manipulation provision. senator rob and i had a bipartisan amendment and almost passed. i have to tell you, no treasury secretary ever like us to get into this area and so we had the whole administration and the republican and leadership fighting us and we only lost by three votes. we made them work for it and i thought we did pretty good.

one of our members that was a yes vote was not there so was actually two votes away. why do i mention that? because it is very serious. ask your friends from ford motor company or other manufacturers about what is happening, not about currency manipulation but just between japan and u.s. which by the way has made a huge difference on a price of a vehicle. think about dealing with that type of price difference on your product. what's what's happening between the u.s. and japan in the market that we are going on after in india. we want to sell to them. it's making japan able they can manipulate their currency, and if they could undercut us

that's a lot of business to use. brazil is the same. we are talking about a global economy and we need to make sure the rules are fair. that was a dealbreaker fair. that was a dealbreaker for me. where do we go? i think the house have to figure things out and come and tell us what they feel their pass is. i do think rules matter. i know to each of these companies, rules matter. we need to get it right. in my judgment, what we had in front of us, didn't fit. obviously i am a pro manufacturing senator with lindsey graham the cochair of the bi partisan manufacturing caucus. caucus. i don't think you have an economy unless you make things and grow things. someone has to do that. i think the rules in a global a global economy really matter if we are going to keep those jobs here.

>> just a prediction when we get to this long and winding road do think there will be a free-trade agreement with asia? >> i would normally say yes probably. probably. but i think this has taken a turn that they did not expect in the house and it's going to be tricky to get out of it. i also don't think it's fair and we are adamantly opposed moving forward on anything that did not make a commitment to our own workers to be displaced. you you know taa is about training people who lose their job in a global economy, and that has to be part of the deal for us in america. we have to make sure we have people's back when, because of the global economy and the changes happening, they lose their job. >> there is another issue front and center right now which is high-priority for a lot of people and that is renewable export and imports.

it used to be around here, a fairly routine exercise. it's not routine this year. in fact serious chance that it dies the summer. what is your view of the prospects for keeping the xm bank alive? what does it take to get from here to there? and why is it so difficult? >> this one, i just difficult? >> this one, i just have to shake my head on. i do that a lot these days. i remember times when we would have a voice vote. were talking about global economy, the ability to compete around the world and every other country we are competing with has some financing mechanism. we have had this in place 80 or 90 years and the idea that we would voluntarily give that up we know the largest financing

contracts to large businesses that 80% of the individual financing deals are small business. why would we give that up? we are fighting very very hard in the senate. this should not be a partisan issue. it has come along with a whole bunch of other a whole bunch of other things that shouldn't be a partisan issue, we are seeing more and more people in the house and fortunately now in the senate who believe there is no room for government on anything other than the department of defense. there is no public partnership on anything. the bank becomes a part of that symbol. >> let me present to you the counterargument that the xm bank is currently capitalism on steroids. it's dollars at risk for the companies that the government has chosen to look upon with favor and that it is fundamentally anti- free market. that is the argument against.

>> that's really not true in my judgment. what we are talking about is the ability to backup and support the ability for people to export their products and have some confidence that they will get paid on the other end. there are a lot of small business, big nick businesses is one thing, thing, but small business is pretty tough to enter the marketplace. we have a number of things. the usda has a number of things, financing mechanisms to make sure that farmers who are exporting can have some confidence that there is someone at the other end who will pay for the product and be able to have the transaction happen. xm bank is a part of that mechanism, which is always been viewed as a rational reasonable thing to do in our economy. now things that have been viewed that way are not viewed that way anymore. i think that is an extreme view. it doesn't make view. it doesn't make sense. you would know better than i

would. you tell me. it just seems to me that support for these kinds of financing mechanisms make sense. business community says you don't need business community says you don't need it, fine. that's fine. that's not what i'm hearing from businesses in michigan. >> okay, so there is an interesting question if question, if you're not hearing it from businesses in michigan presumably you're not the only one. why isn't that make a difference here? >> if you believe that, if that if you believe that having the xm bank makes sense, we need to hear from you. we need to hear from you now rather later. what's happening is that folks assume that common sense will prevail or if they just have the data it will prevail. that's not enough right prevail. that's not enough right now. people need to hear from businesses in their state or their district. individual stories that can get beyond the ideology. we are having this fight on

ideology that has no relationship to common sense in the real world, in my judgment, of what's going on. you can help us bring that back to the real world. if you think that makes sense for the xm bank then individual members and need to hear from individual businesses. >> one of the oddities of washington these days is that even the things you think there is bipartisan support don't get done. two things are primary examples of that. one is the highway bill, a standard thing to fund the pot of money that actually pays for road repairs and improvement and more broadly infrastructure improvement. there seems to be bipartisan support that improvement. there seems to be bipartisan support that the infrastructure need some serious work and that's important to the business community and trade and for a lot of reasons, many of them economic, reason, many of them economic, but none of those things seem to happen either.

talk about the highway bill. talk about infrastructure spending more broadly and why that doesn't get done. >> again and my judgment it doesn't make any sense. what used to be just uniformly agreed where people may have differences on types of funding or project, but everybody agreed there ought to be better roads and bridges. as former transportation secretary said you don't travel across the country and fill up gas $5 at a time. you can't just do this a time. you can't just do this for a month and another highway bill from a month. it cost more money. to the taxpayers it makes no sense and so on. i think there are couple of things that play and were trying to address them. forty-five days from today before the highway trust fund. united states of america empty

china spending 9% of its gdp on infrastructure. last time i was there i was looking at a global leadership summit and they showed me their 22 new international airports. that was a couple years ago. i a couple years ago. i was in brazil with the secretary of agriculture a year ago and they were rolling out their robot rail and road effort to make sure they could bring their agricultural products to the port and were proudly looking at them proving. the global group that ranks the countries have put us at 16th. we are right below luxembourg but we are feeding croatia.

so literally we are right above croatia. given that you would think that it would be all hands on deck for everybody. we have two things that play and this is again where we need your help. there are strong efforts from the business community and labor community and i just came from a press i just came from a press conference that had people from business and labor and we desperately need you to help us break through. two things, one, the concern that anybody has about raising revenue anywhere. it's very hard to get people to look at things that we've always done user fees or whatever, the second thing is again, this general philosophy that there is no help from the government. when one of our colleagues introduced a bill that would stop all federal funding and send it back to the state. i can't wait to see how my governor reacts to that. the other thing i just want to

give a shout a shout out senator and house who chairs the committee, there's going to be rolling it out with two people who don't normally vote together but i want to give a shout out to them who is stepping forward to them to put out a six-year policy bill and deserves a lot of credit for that. that some bipartisan work coming out of a committee. i sit on the committee that finances it. we have yet to have a hearing. we will have a hearing this thursday and it runs out in 45 days. we need your help to get beyond this. this is about our economy our national security, jobs, farmers and competitiveness. there is no reason we can't get this done. >> what about the advantage of allowing companies to bring some

money back here. the two birds with one here. the two birds with one stone idea. >> i think we should seriously be looking at that. as a senior member of the finance committee i think we should be doing overall tax reform which i don't see happening in the next 18 months but 18 months, but it does need to happen, the international peace, not just one time but national taxation, that peace could happen depending on how it's done. if people want to do that, that could happen. we have to be careful because both rc corpse and then training our businesses. we as democrats have said that's ours harding pouring for negotiation. we believe that not just one

time, but as we address the international peace, and as we better deal with that quickly. we need to negotiate something that would also allow us to fund infrastructure. >> broader tax reform is a post- 2016 issue. >> i wish it wasn't but we keep saying that. it's something we should get done but i think it will be very difficult. >> let me ask you about two other things very quickly. one of the unfortunate features of the last year is a budget crisis followed by a debt ceiling. are we ceiling. are we going to have a budget crisis that were talking about government shutdown and a debt crisis where we talk about not being able to make payments on federal debt between now and the

end of the year or can those be avoided this time around? >> they can absolutely be about voided but it takes people to come together to do that. one thing that worries me is that we spent the bulk of the year doing things that we tried to do last year but they got filibustered and stopped. we spent a month on whether or not to fund homeland security. we wasted a lot of time when we should've been doing in an immigration reform, tax reform reform, tax reform, xm bank, highway trust form and so on. if we don't waste a lot of time we could absolutely get this done. here's what's going to happen, and it's going to happen by the end of this week or next week, and i want you to understand from ours perspective what this is about. today in our economy we have reduce the annual deficit by two thirds.

that is a good thing. i was in the house under president clinton when we eliminated the deficit and that was a good thing. but we have reduce it by two thirds and we are at a point where this policy was put in to place with sequestration. this is having very harmful effects on growth and innovation as well as security. when security. when we finish the policy bill on the department of defense this week, which will pass, we will then move to appropriations committee. our republican colleagues want to robustly our republican colleagues want to robustly fund the department of defense using deficit spending but then basically undercut every other part of the budget. including other parts of security whether it's mortgage security bio security, and so

on. we are going to say no to starting that process. we are going to say no to what's called a motion to proceed to the first budget bill because we want to work up an agreement now not when funding runs out. not when there is a threat of a government shutdown, but right now negotiate an agreement on how to fully fund all of the essential needs of our government. rather than starting on something that would lead to a shutdown in the fall we are saying, on the front-end let's agree to how we will responsibly invest in those things that we need to do with america and cut the things that don't. i would conclude just by saying i can speak with saying, i can speak with some authority on this, i led the effort on a five-year rule economic bill which we called the farm bill which is everything from agriculture conservation, food

and so on. we were the only committee that cut our own budget. budget. we cut it by $23 billion. we went into that and said don't protect programs, focus on principles. what are the goals that were trying to do? we ended up cutting 100 a hundred different programs that were duplication or didn't work anymore. i'm not suggesting funding things just to fund them. i'm suggesting that justin you and your business wouldn't arbitrarily cut things what we need to do is strategically grow, and in fact double or triple the things that are really going well and eliminate the things that aren't going well. i think that's what you expect of us and i know what can be done because we did it. what we are asking in this budget process is that be the

process. not this blind ideological, everything is bad let's cut it all because that makes no sense. you wouldn't do it in your business and it would be foolish for us to do it in the work that were in. >> let me stop there and see if there's some questions out here. i think we have a couple microphones. here's one right here to start. just raise your hand. quick question senator you talk a little bit about the process and the approach you're going to take. are you alluding to a democratic filibuster? >> yes, a democratic filibuster? >> yes, we are going to say no to proceeding to appropriations until we have agreement on an approach that is fair for all parts of the budget. it was done two years ago but things get done when we work together. that's how it's supposed to work and that's what you expect. not jamming people

on deadlines and putting them in a corner and threatening shutdowns. what we are asking for is some thoughtfulness on the front-end so we don't have problems in a few months. >> anybody else? >> there's a broader a broader question i was going to ask you and i'll do it now anyway. it sort of ties to what you are just saying. there's a sense at the beginning of the year that maybe this partisan gridlock was starting to crack and break a little bit. you referred to working with the other senator on it. you get to the middle of the year and you watch what's happened on trade and you see the on certainty and you wonder is this problem of partisan

paralysis getting better are getting worse? at the halfway mark of the middle of the year i'm not sure i know the answer. i know the answer. what's your thoughts? >> it's very frustrating to me because we are spending so much time on not the things that are the big issues that we need to move the economy forward and to be the economic engine and leaders in the global economy. here's a sort of what happened. the things that we've gotten done have been bipartisan and they've all been things we actually tried to get done for the last few years. the payment provision for medicare and doctors. i had a bill on that in 2009 but it was blocked. i feel like were doing filibuster cleanup is what i call it from the last four years. so now we are bringing up things that we could've done, but we are getting them done so that's a good thing even though they could've gotten done sooner. then we are bogged down in things that go back to ideology. we have a human trafficking bill that everybody supported, it's a

huge issue, and it went down to an abortion fight and it made absolutely no sense. we spent weeks on it. every it. every time we try to move, we get caught up in this sort of ideological extremism. when we've got important things like the economy and moving things forward and debating what's too far, what's far what's not far enough and those are all reasonable things to debate. there are important differences in ways to figure that out but instead of doing a highway bill instead of doing immigration reform, instead of dealing with other things that will actually grow the economy we get bogged down in what i view as ideological, political battles ideological, political battles that somebody is doing for someone and it wastes a lot of time. >> other questions question

mark. >> thanks for being here. could you here. could you talk about your perspective on opportunities for congress to help inspire growth in the manufacturing and agricultural space that you spent a lot of time on? >> it was great to work with your company on sony different issues. we would welcome your thoughts. certainly from the exports are part of that. i also think having policy that we award innovation here is very important. i know were dealing with a lot of different things, international tax reform and the question of innovation boxes or patent boxes in's and how we do that. taxes are a piece of that investing in infrastructure and

jobs with a qualified workforce. i hear from manufacturers all the time it from people in michigan that are creating jobs. there was one company recently they did the ribbon cutting and he comes run running up to me and said i need electricians. another person that i need welders. which, by the way is a minimum public-private function here. i think there is a range of things and i certainly continued to listen and want to hear it. it. i hear job training and access to quality workers is a big thing. in some areas it's immigration reform in agriculture. we are leaving crops on the ground right now because our immigration policy doesn't work. i think there is a range of things but they start and finish with realizing that we have to make this the best place to be

to grow things and create things to compete globally we need to do that. >> i think we need to be true to our word and let you get out of here and cast your vote. thank you for coming. it was a great conversation. maybe next year we will meet again and discuss how you solved all those problems. >> thank you, i would love it. >> thanks for rushing down that was kevin mccarthy. he's from bakersfield california. founder of kevin o's deli. why is it so? >> my middle name is on. >> kevin started a business at the age of 21. >> know i was 19. >> he went from there to college, to politics.

what did you learn as a small businessman? >> i was the first one to work the last one to leave and the last one to be paid. i loved it. i was the youngest in the family. my father was a firefighter. when i got of high school, i went school, i went to junior college and met a guy who owned a liquor store, but he had a car dealership. i talked him into taking me to the l.a. car auction. i talked and i would buy and sell cars and i would buy and sell cars and flip them to pay my way through college. i found out later it was illegal.

>> that's his story and he is sticking to it. >> one friday night i was visiting a buddy. i went to the grocery store to cash a check. this was around 1984. and i i cashed a check i bought a lottery ticket and i won $5000. i was 18 it was friday night and i just won 5000 bucks and i was ten minutes away from tijuana. and of the next semester i didn't go back to school. i didn't go back to school. i tried to get alone but no one would give me alone. i took my money out of the market and tried to buy a franchise but no one would sell it to me. i open my own deli. deli. i now had enough money i could pay my own way through college. nobody in my family had finished college yet. i sold my deli and i didn't know the man but i thought he would be lucky to have me.

i applied and he turned me down. i couldn't get an internship. i went back to this guy and said you don't have to pay me and i'll just cut papers. i i ended up interning for him and learned a lot about politics. >> those are lessons for cfos, but i don't know what they are. >> by that lottery ticket. >> mostly it's to win the lottery is the lesson here. >> you can't win if you don't play. >> your first order of business this week is to try to rescue fast track and by extension free trade and a a free-trade agreement in asia. how are you doing and what's the plan? >> what transpired last week, so you know you have trade

assistance and tpa. they tpa. they are always tied together because that's normally how we do it in america. one side gets the assistance to get the other to go. democrats shocked everybody by voting no. they want to have reconsideration but that means you have two legislative business days to come back and reese consider taa. what we did is we passed to extend the taa until the end of july. that july. that gives you the capability to do something. we have a lot of options in front of us and i won't break any news but i won't break any news but stay tuned, you will see something very quickly. >> the logical thing to do this is important to businesses all over the place, to create a

justice system which is what democrats like and you take the fast track trade authority and you put them fast-track trait authority and you put them back together and you have something that both sides like in one piece of legislation. why don't you do that? >> that's an f in what we did but it didn't work. >> know you broke them apart. >> know they were never broke apart. they were two votes because you will not get enough republicans to vote for taa and you will not get enough democrats to vote for tpa. that's why you separate them. >> that's why you should bring them into line and get them to vote for the stuff. >> there became a decision based on the democratic leadership that they wanted to change what they did before. they moved much further the other way. they think this is the only way

to kill trade. they don't want to do anything. what if we just passed tpa and submit to the president ask. then they may be more than willing to do taa. you could do taa at a later date. all a later date. all tpa is giving you authority. you really need tpp to give you taa. i think trade is very important if we want to have growth and for our standing in the world today and where we are with our allies. i believe we will get this done. >> if we did do something in that nature would have to go back to the senate and you would have to have those free-trade democrats. >> is that what's most likely to happen? >> are you just going to pass fast-track as a standalone. that's a very good option. >> let's step back and talk a little more broadly about what

lies ahead because there's a whole sequence of issues that are important in this room. there's export import bank there is a highway bill for infrastructure and the question of passing a budget and getting a new debt ceiling resolution passed without going through the breaking point walk through those on the importance to the business community. >> you have to look at this congress. it is not as bad as it looks on the outside. i believe in metrics. in graduate school i always believe you have to measure where you are, say where you want to get to and measure. i'll give you some metrics. in the first hundred days, i measured all the votes.

on a 40 year average 62% of the bills, the committee. in the 100 days we were at 7.6, today were at 10.2. you solve a problem in committee, 10.2. you solve a problem in committee, it's more likely to be solved on the floor. that's where people have to have the expertise. if something doesn't get solved in committee it's tried hard to pull something together on the floor. the other thing you want to look at, in a matter might not matter to your sustainable growth rate, why you should care about it i don't like cliffs. cliffs destroy us because it takes away uncertainty and you can't focus on anything else when a cliff is before us. sgr has been a cliff for 14 years. 17 times we kicked the can down the road. this time we did not. we paid for it and in doing so we thought different. why in congress today

everything is scored on a ten year timeframe? do we assume america and on the 11th year? if we would look at things at how it would affect american 50 years we would have a better outlook. so you just put three things out. i always look at things in coalition. there coalition. there are coalitions in my own conference in the democrats, how we move trade, highway is a major problem in america. we make policy in the world of politics. politics. so if you think why don't you just raise the gasoline tax, that will not make it. think of something else.

how you have a funding mechanism where you could actually fund a five-year plan because we are way behind and make a go. you have to find a revenue source and you have to find the money. that's a coalition that cares about highway but there's also a coalition that cares about tax reform. can't we do something where we can stop losing american companies because you're at such a different disadvantage? if there's a way you could take the highway bill a way you could take the highway bill today and extend it to the end of the year and you had tax reform and highway combined, then you could find a pay forward there. those are two coalitions that are married together and then they become larger than 218. think about this, when we did usa freedom, we did sgr the members and the senate said they would not take our bill. when that bill came vito at so

high and the end of the day they voted for it and we passed it. what you want to it. what you want to do is find a large coalition that can drive both. to me a highway and getting tax reform takes a very strong coalition on both ends and would be very positive for economic growth. growth. i think it would bring both sides together. >> are you suggesting tax reform that is not revenue neutral? in saying that are you talking about -- >> i'm not talking about raising taxes. when talking about and i won't prejudge what paul and they say that all tax reform starts in

the house. i think so many american companies have so much money overseas because that's how the structure works. i do not like the version the president has but i think another version could work where you lower it in a big chunk of money could come. that could be a one-time funding of highways and that would give us five more years to figure out how were going to fund it in the future we could get rid of all this backlog. >> could you do that with other types of tax reform or would it be a standalone? >> i think you can have a broader tax reform. people really want highways and people really want tax reform. when you get to all the fine details it gets very difficult. the president doesn't want the same tax reform that we do. he would make it this portion it. he was talking about businesses believing individuals out. we need to at least get on a better path. >> you say, do those things this year? >> policy is the world of politics but it we have so many people running in this

presidential election, i think it makes life more difficult. that doesn't mean we should not do big things in the house. i actually believe our big items that we pass can help make the presidential campaign about progrowth. maybe the president won't sign it and maybe get stuck in the senate but you have the debate and policy and people can start taking that up in their presidential race. i think if you get it done this year you have a better chance of a better chance of it becoming law. >> go back to one of the other things which we talk about import export bank. it's not a big item in your corner, but it's something that is supported by the business community. where does that go and how do you get from here to the final destination of xm bank? >> i'm going have a different opinion than a lot of people in this room. i voted for it last time. maybe maybe because it was a short form and there was going to be reform.

australia loses more than $100,000. they tell me xm is profitable. it goes against my principal because if it's profitable why doesn't somebody else foot the bill. it is nothing happens, it will expire. i happens it will expire. i do not believe something will happen by june 30. in the senate, they had overwhelming support. i think would probably happen at the end of the day is the senate looks like they would have votes, it will come to the house. votes, it will come to the house. i don't think something will come out of financial services. the one thing the speaker has said is that he wants to have a debate on it. i said has to be an open debate with open amendments, that it can't be one-sided. you have to let the floor work.

>> do you have an idea of the outcome? >> i'm not a betting man. >> but you bought a lottery ticket. >> i think they would've been smart to realize that they had a problem and solve the problem early. it's very difficult for the number of ig reports that are still out there. anything in life, if you get overly cocky and you think you will beat someone at it, it makes people who have supported you, oppose you. it's better to solve your own problem than to think the house and senate will solve the problem for you. >> you're saying it's still an uphill climb. >> yes. >> let's step back a little bit to something you referred to a minute ago. it's a progrowth agenda. let's imagine the world you hope, you the republicans retain control of the house and the

senate and you get the white house. what's the republican progrowth agenda look like under those conditions? what's the bill of particulars. >> overall tax reform c can be compared competitive. national energy policy. when you did the energy policy i focused on infrastructure. i'd look at it from a broader perspective than just america, i'd look at it as a north american perspective. if you were able to do these two, when you talk about manufacturing and being able to be kim pettit if and better energy cost, you're going to be competitive. why did airbus put a new facility in alabama? energy costs. we don't grasp how massive we have it when it comes to energy. third, and immigration reform. our our system is broken. it doesn't matter where you stand

on immigration, half the people that are here illegally came here legally. we have engineers and we tell them they have to leave the country. in the year 2050 there will be more people over the age of 100 than under the age of five. it comes down to a fundamental belief. you believe it is a place or an idea? if it's a place, build a wall around it and protect it, if it's an idea, you want that idea to grow. people can govern themselves. fourth, i find if we created america today we would never create the agencies. you cannot write the flow chart the way it is. i is. i have a group of members that are going through all the agencies. in the early '90s we had a brak for all our military bases. the legislation i'm introducing is a brak for our agencies. we

need to make it agencies. we need to make it more efficient and and the duplication. these agencies become too powerful, they write legislation and why wouldn't we take the stove piping out, make them streamline, make them open. my principles are effective, efficient and accountable. it's the largest population in the work force today our millennial's. they have never seen their government be successful. they did not see world war ii, they did not see the challenge to go to the moon and they did not see desert storm. what they see, and irs system go after you when no one was a countable, healthcare system that isn't working. and even the secret service not

protecting the white house. there is something wrong in the world house. there is something wrong in the world today if you can't say i want the very best and brightest making government work. the fifth i would focus on our foreign policy. we have to be strong at home to be able to be strong abroad. i love history and i make this argument to you. history always repeats itself. america you. history always repeats itself. america today, people would say the world like 1932, i say it's 1979. government agencies have not been successful. foreign-policy don't think of it in a political manner, i don't care what side you're on. when was the last time you watched americans being held hostage? when was the last time the u.s. ambassador was killed on foreign soil? that is a direct response of the respect and fear other countries have for us.

when was the last time the soviet union invaded another country? afghanistan and yet russia and ukraine today. when was the last time we debated the word when jimmy carter said we need to define a new norm. unemployment rates are low but there's two ways to lower it. participation rate today is 62.7%. the lowest participation rate since 1978. he wants mother quinn sentences? carter signed agreement that was never ratified. during that administration, it was the first time we distanced ourselves from israel. so far to the fact that the un ambassador had to resign because he lied about meeting with them.

i don't tell you that to scare you, i tell you that to excite you. there's a window of opportunity for some of our best growth because the pendulum have swung so far and we looked at putting it back together and working. that's the growth agenda we should not work wait for the next election. we didn't have it put in the debate for whoever becomes an enemy knee on either side on how were going to make america grow. >> one question? does anyone have a good question? >> i have a question about, what are your thoughts about education? this country has come down the ranking in terms of quality of education and it's clearly a major issue for us in the days ahead of having a highly competitive and

employable workforce. what are your views on the governments role on improving education question marks. >> i did not i did not make it one of my five because i believe it is a state issue. i have a son who will be a senior at georgetown and a daughter that just graduated high school. i'm not worried about my kids competing with your kids, i'm worried about our kids competing with india and china. i would turn it on its head. i do not think we are getting the return on investment based upon where were at and i think we should be very upfront. i think daniels has a very good what he's doing at purdue, i think con academy is amazing. i think a lot of our challenges i think what happened in baltimore i think what happened

in baltimore has to do with education. why do we expect someone that lives in a poor neighborhood that they can't have a can have a good school? that they have to go somewhere else to have something great? when i watched that mother seeing her son and bringing him home because we all cheered. every person that is apparent has the same dream. not what they become but what opportunities their children become. i'm a big believer in charter schools. it's much more competitive and has a better outcome. we have a responsibility to give children the opportunity until they're 18. what you do with it is your choice, but i would transform the education system and i would let the state have a pilot program to do it. >> this is been great. thank you for taking the time. >> on the next "washington journal" former governor and chief of staff george hw bush on a book he wrote called quiet

man. his amendment to ban the deployment of ground troops to iraq and syria. as part of our spotlight on magazine series, they will discuss a recent story on whether any of the 2016 republican hopefuls will cut government spending. "washington journal" is live on c-span every morning at seven eastern. you can contribute to the program on facebook and twitter. >> the summer book tv will cover book festivals from around the country. this weekend watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d roosevelt library. in the middle of july were at the harlem book fair with author

interviews and book discussion. at the beginning of the september were live from the nations capital at the national book festival celebrating its 16th year. that's a few events this summer on c-span2. >> now more from the wall street journal cfo conference with world bank president to discuss the u.s. role in the global economy. he is followed by house budget committee paul ryan who talks about the federal budget and obama's tax policy. >> before we get to that i know you just got back from egypt and i'd love you to take us on a two or of the emerging economies. we started out the years feeling very pessimistic about the prospect but that's aging now. >> for this year, the expected rate of growth is 4.4%. what's happened is the impact of

low oil prices at one point we thought it would spur growth but still we see it as a drag on the economy. also there is currency uncertainty. when you have a divergent monetary policy across the united states, europe and japan, and especially with the rising dollar, you see a lot of currency movement toward the united states and that affects the exchange rates in developing countries. the impact of russia and brazil in tracking is also been very serious. it's different depending on different countries. in africa and many of the commodity export countries, the slowdown in china has had a big impact. in 2000 china made up about 1% of total developing country exports, it's now the biggest trading partner with the and tire developing entire developing world. there's a mixed picture. if you step back and say, so what about africa and ebola? it

continues to grow and it did after the crisis. there are still great prospects in africa. china will grow at about 7% this year. we think it's because they are going forward in a very controlled, thoughtfully done shift of the growth model. it's really impressive to watch. my predecessor wrote this great report, china report, china 2030. they really talked through all the things they're going to do. they're gonna switch their growth model from exports to services and consumption. they're going through with it. we are not surprised that they have a 7% growth rate. :

we did a little study and showed them they are stopped 60% of the day whereas in the united states it's about 20% of the day because every time because the border he have to pay taxes.

so now he actually got the reform done. and when it's all said and done you pay once when you start and end and that is good to have a huge impact. his confidence in the structure reform has driven our own sense of the growth prospects and anyway we can keep going but with me stop there. >> are you optimistic where you see it supplanting any business because they are disappointed. are you optimistic enough that we should stop thinking about this? >> we are optimistic so far. he's a very complicated country that has lots of different problems to so the highest number of people in poverty in terms of any specific countries.

i have to say the impact of this one leader on our own sense of where things are moving has been profound. i wouldn't go so far as to say to supplant china that struck us as being very different about the prime minister when i went to see him we had this thing called the doing business ranking and you could imagine we are not very happy with it and it has been very critical of the methodology etc. but if it were based on your statement which he has instituted lots of structure reform and would be ranked 50th in the world instead of 56 so instead of continuing to critique he said we are going to

be at number 50 and i want everybody in this government to get us so it's a very different approach and again there are lots of different complexities of the system. >> you just returned where you had an eventful trip and there was a bombing in one of the cities where you were going to visit you kept going. could you talk about the middle east? it's all in such turmoil that you feel it's important for both the world bank and private business. >> we have a designation fragile in the state region because of so many different conflicts happening at the same time. egypt is really critical. people have said that one is

saudi arabia and one is egypt and they have to be stable, so i went in there to see what we've been doing. and we focus on things like cash transfer programs and that's why i was going to the place where they had the bombing and i was very impressed with his commitment to tackle major issues. youth unemployment is a major issue. sanitation is an issue the educational system as a whole. lots of major issues. i was very impressed with his entire commitment. having said that there is a lot of challenges. i saw two things. one, egyptian antiquities are of the great resources for the

entire world but at the same time it's also one of the very poorest regions and the conditional cash transfer program is making an impact on the lives of very poor women, so there's a huge agenda with egypt that we are committed but we are committed to this because we've got to attack the situations. our goal is to end poverty by 2030. by 2020, half of all people are living in it stream poverty so i've asked work in areas with there's a lot of fragility, do we have a new take for example are there things that we can do to help the government tackle this issue?

>> i understand you were thinking about going on a road show creating the different vehicles to end ties the private sector. can you explain? >> if you look at all of it together at about 140 billion then you had all of the funding provided by the development banks and it doesn't even get to have ended so there is no question. our sense based on the long history and some analysis done by the rating agency that the infrastructure investments in the developing countries are a

great return on investment for just about anybody, but the perception of risk is holding people back. we feel if we get together with all of the multilateral development banks with some of the private sector players that have been in the region we can effectively dearest so they would feel comfortable investing so that's what we have where we have to move past the perceived risk and then be clear in enough and present the picture so that the funds that do not have people on the staff that can assess the democratic republic of the congo began to trust the analysis we can provide. >> i want to ask you to answer a

question about how willing you might be to invest in some of these more affordable areas. i think that there's a question if we could he have. should the sector play a bigger role especially in the troubled regions like the middle east. >> we have a pretty good opinion here. 31%, no and 38%. so that means we have a little bit of work to do on this front. >> let me just say that we like to talk with a 41% out there. you know, the middle east there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty even for us. i think that we would love to

work more with the private sector anywhere. it's going to be the key for us by 2030 focused on income growth in the bottom 40% if we simply are not going to get there unless we can attract private capital. we had a private sector groups working in developing countries for a long time. but we are trying to bring together more of the private and public sector group. there are opportunities that they can present to the government they may not see otherwise. that is really what we hope that the value added will be over time. >> how concerned should we be about inequality in the world? you've spoken about the role of

technology and how really now you could see how the other half is changing in very fundamental ways. >> it is the most dramatic story i went to see him the week after his plane was brought down under the suspicion that he was traveling with edward snowden if you can remember so he's in a generous move towards america at that time but he said i will meet with you but you need to go to 14,000 feet and we are going to play soccer together. there are smart phones and you can see the education and income

the analysis is beginning to tell us higher and higher levels of inequality are in drag on growth. they came out with a study that countries should focus on improving countries in the bottom 20% because that's the first debate could -- that spurs the top 20%. this is all new research that we are beginning to get our heads around but for us it means trying to need to private sector growth to the bottom 20 to 40%. that's what we focus on everywhere. we've really got to get private sectors moving it.

>> and you don't want to get involved in the negotiations ongoing about the moment, but could you talk about the difference between austerity and the structure reform. >> i am not involved in the negotiations that we have been providing some technical support. about what me just take a step back for a second. there are different reviews and austerity that have taken a strong view and have had good outcomes as a result and others have a different review about the importance of austerity. the thing that everyone agrees on is there's hardly a country in the world that doesn't need to go through structural reform and it's the case everywhere so when i talked about changing the tax law, which i think it's given us all a sense of

possibility that we didn't have before in terms of the bureaucracy it still is formidable but the fact that he did that made a big difference and so the thing is we keep saying to every country in the world is that you all need to go through a certain kind of structure reform and in japan for example, one of the big issues are being opened to immigrants and getting women in the workforce but that's hard and whatever your view on austerity focus on the reforms and see if you can find a path toward getting there because the reaction of markets is pretty quick when you see they are serious about it i think that the growth and likelihood investment change can happen pretty quickly. >> when you look at greece and europe as a whole do you think there has been not enough

structural reform in general? smack it's one of the things the countries across europe have been needing to do it. they are seeing the benefit of that. these things are always hard and in our role in specifically for the minister. giving you an example of how they have done this had been have been walking through that with you providing support sometimes for the people who did these reforms or are involved in these reforms that is hopeful and that is how we want to be known. if you have a different structure that you need to go through we will help you get there. let me give you an example of a

structure reform that is difficult to do but has so many positive impact and that is the removal of the fossil fuel subsidies. succumb in egypt it is a huge portion of the budget and they have started to make budget. one we know that they are regressive. they did a study the top 20% benefit six times more from fossil fuel subsidies in the developing countries. it is essentially a regressive tax that takes money away from the government so they can spend much more effectively in other areas but if you do it then taxi drivers and tax drivers blocked the street and it's tough but we have now found ways ways and we've been helping certain countries get through it and it's not intuitive that you could do these things all together and get through a very

difficult structure reform like the fossil fuel. we want people to think about that and find examples of others have done this effectively. >> before i open up the questions i just want to ask a final question. obviously they've been a big part of the global slowdown. you were telling me backstage about the discipline that they have to take something that works in one and then immediately spread it to the rest. >> so, with the china 2030 report, they really wanted to be sure that the chinese were comfortable with what was coming at it in this text and so things like great flexibility now they are following the path. that was so successful.

now they want you to take on urbanization data so they had a lot of complex problems. if you were born in one providence you could providence you could only get service in providence. so when they come to the city it is difficult because you can't get services in the city when he so here are ways that you can begin to build cleaner cities moving in that direction. and they were happy with that and so the next issue they asked us to take on was healthcare. i have worked in this field forever. they are 5% of gdp and saying do we want to go to 17% of gdp like the u.s. would we want to get 4% like singapore or have better health outcomes than anyone? so now again we are bringing in

experts from all these different places to help them see if they can move in the direction where they will have better health outcomes for lower-cost. and we know that if we come up with good ideas, they will first of all implement them on a small scale with 100 million people. and then they will go into the wilderness with 1.3 million. and it is quite amazing to watch that happening. >> question. >> when you were are talking with the sector and the company has approached you give us a couple of examples where the diagram marks enough mutual interest that a project goes forward of companies linking up with the world bank on a project that the companies found beneficial to their growth.

>> it's a very strong industry. we've worked on building hotels and tourism is 90% of the economies of the two places that i just visited i went to indonesia and then when i was in egypt. it was on one of the first investors to turn that into the tourism area so there is a huge potential. for us to be able to help with everything from wastewater management to the right sort of policy changes in the government to make it worthwhile for the tourism focused companies and others to work in the developing companies and roadbuilding for example or the construction of dams. we were back focusing because it provides the base load while at the same time taking carbon out

of the air so there's all kinds of possibilities of infrastructure. we work with companies of the demand is an old routine over the world so we even worked in those areas. so if you can think of a sector we almost surely have experts that are looking to provide opportunities very specifically for american and other developed world companies. >> i wanted to ask about your own organizational changes in the world bank. there has been some criticism that you have been -- you have made changes to get the organization to focus on poverty. and they thought they might be able to relate to this. they are trying to cut down the silos that existed in each country and completely restructure. for those that are trying to do their own organizational change what has he told you? >> it's always difficult and

i've had great people helping. so, you know, just a couple of months ago recently retired from forthcoming and marshall goldsmith came and spent a whole day with us to help us figure this out so i would say try to get great people that have taken the organizations to change. they've had a great experience turning around the pharmaceutical companies that work for this. here's what they did. we went from being almost six regional banks to creating a real wrecks so that the technical areas in the region were forced to collaborate. before, it was giving each of the regions their budget based on what they got last year for the cost of living and now we argued about the budget and we are forcing ourselves to work together and it was such a huge structural change that it upset a lot of people. but we needed to do it. from the six regional banks to the matrix was a big change in

it was going to be an important one. taking money out of the budget is hard but we have to do both at the same time. we couldn't wait. >> so they become hundred million into the budget and business dropped 20%. this year we took 400 million out and grew 24%. so it was tough because we did so many at once but my advice is if you've got to do it, just do it and get tested as soon as you can and it's not something you would've the he would've the leaders in the bureaucratic institutions tried. it was new for the world bank group i'm glad we did it because if we didn't come if we hadn't done that we would have to start now. so i -- that's my advice.

[applause] >> good morning to everyone out there. i want to as we start talking about the news you and the senator sent a senator sent a letter to the treasury department talking about this big plan in the basic erosion and profit shifting project. but it seems to be a really big deal. talk a little bit about what was in the letter and how you see that in terms of your own efforts to work on the tax code.

>> we want to see them in the free enterprise tax system of trying to harmonize the taxes up. spec which is what they are attempting to do. >> it's also attempting to grab a tax base of our desperate corporations and so we want to make sure they have a united front against the best direction standing up and speaking with one voice on that and the other is is leading the way that it does bring attention to having to deal with the tax based issues in such a way that we want to give america the place but it's a haven. they call it highly mobile. we want to make sure that america is a place they keep those decisions here to base the operations here because of our favorable tax treatment so those are the kind of things we talk about with international tax reform as a component of tax

reform. >> what are the biggest threats to u.s. businesses? where they are headed on these rules? >> that you will have a system where there is no haven for lower tax rates and we have other countries trying to assert their jurisdiction into the domestic firms. where we break down these traditionally observed international legal barriers between the firms and countries. >> there seems to be other things like disclosure requirements. you mentioned them in the letter. spec that is something we are very concerned about. we are very concerned about the data protection and privacy of the firms. and i think that we will get into this reform about the tax reform. we want to acknowledge the fact that it's probably in our interest to see if we can move quickly to some international reforms that address this issue

to prevent the corporate tax from being eroded. >> so this adds to the urgency doing something here. do you think that is widely understood in the congress? >> it's the people involved in tax-writing. i think the members of congress understand that america has a terrible tax system, very anti-competitive. it locks money up overseas and they typically get the headlines but it's also takeovers of the foreign companies buying u.s. companies because of the tax policy other countries have and so members of congress are at an increasing basis but see this as a sense of urgency. so yes i do think that this issue is something for everybody. >> you think that they have the authority to sign onto this and give told them that? do you think that the obama administration agrees on that

sense? >> in particular i've had a decent amount of conversation with the treasury. i think that they agree with our view of things more often than not is not in every instance it so we just want to make sure that this is very clear that the state of branch is the branch that writes the law and nothing other than that. >> you mentioned this issue of the corporate tax base. how much does that add to the urgency because it seems we are heading in a direction you may not have a rebate is -- base to reform. >> if they rode so much because of all of these international rules, or because of the absolutely inferior tax system or tax treatment of the corporations, we won't have a tax base with which to reform the tax code and that is important so for those of us that want comprehensive tax reform we think it's important to make sure that we stabilize the tax base.

can we do that with this president is a big difference between our view into the president's view. he believes we should have higher tax rates on individuals and we think they should be lower and when they are what we call passed through his that's because this president 46.6%. overseas. they are 15%. the international average is 25%. that is something that the administration doesn't share with us so there's an impasse that is impossible. >> there are no comprehensive tax -- >> that isn't going to happen in the administration to friday || other reasons can't get to where you need to go to have the truly reformed comprehensive tax system. so the question for us is what

can we do in the meantime that gets us a step in the right direction? let's say there are 12 things to do, can we get you where three of them done and as we are looking at that,, we are looking at the international system. we want to move to an event to an exemption system and we want if we want to make every day a reprieve tree asian day and we want to fix this clumsy system that we have and so the way that we look at this is can we set up something that we know is when to be a permanent future of the new system anyway that helps protect the tax base and hopes that american firms in a more competitive footing. >> what are the top prospects of that? having mentioned that you can't do corporate tax reform, given all of things the things that you said about both sides with deals with the threat on the international harmonization? >> and what if it is because of the leading international system works and so we think that on

the conversion from the worldwide system is something that we would like to think it's in the cards meaning that it is possible. tax extenders applies to both sides that has to get done and we be leaving many of these provisions they ought to be made permanent. we think that is in the right direction for the tax reform. >> some are going to grandfather on and some ought to be permanent. we have to figure out how to get in the right direction. there's a lot of talk about an innovation box as the way for the moment having lower tax rates to help keep the income here became the system a little more competitive in the form we getting the comprehensive leader on. so we see the tax reform either as one bigger second 2017 or one now which we can bite off what we chew and get done and make us competitive and then the rest of it is done in 2017.

>> what are some of the ones that should go away? >> it doesn't help getting to the gold country the tax reform to do this on an anecdotal basis outside of shipping the new system you're trying to get to seriously ask everybody that cares about the provisions of the tax code. it is a more progrowth system with lower tax rate that makes us rates that makes us more competitive globally and in the context of that consider the end result and when we go through this anecdotal yesterday said no to that without showing the vision. >> how do you assure them that it's worth thinking of taking the long view when there may be some things are going that are going to go away but they really want. given this congress had given the situation that we haven't much as early as accomplished.

>> i love these people that the leaves and i've been involved in some of these things. so when you win the election you have the obligation and the mandate to do that. and among other big issues come into me this coming up to me this is the biggest priority in the means means in today's committees combined to tax reform is a matter of economic survival and competitiveness. in 1986 the rest of the world followed suit. now we are on the receiving end of that competitive anecdote that we triggered. >> where do you think that the administration is most likely to work with you? we do talk about international conversion and extenders.

how do we get that taken care of? there's also a component of effective you convert from a worldwide system to an exemption system there is a one-time bit of money that comes into the system basically. there's a way to make sure that it doesn't be for any tax reform that we want to do as well. so the discussion is if we can find common ground on a piece which we see as consistent with tax reform we won't do something that we think is number one data policy whenever to come inconsistent or detrimental to the competence of tax reform. >> can you mentioned a balanced interest as you've talked about a lot of people and small businesses because that is always -- >> that is what it's always about. >> we don't have any it in the

administration that sees it that way. they want the high tax rates on individuals and so i do believe and it is better in the political climate which is hopefully in 2017 we will be able to. there are lots of other ideas out there and we want to spend exploring these ideas encouraging big tax reforms. to have it until the fiscal cliff so that we get back down to the parody on the rates and things like that. >> was the timing on this. everyone knows that we are already in the midst of t. 16. we are going to keep exploring the international and then in the fall if we do something we'd have to actually. on the extenders we want to do this as early as possible in the fall and look what happened last year we had to wait until these were extended to see if they

went away in december 31. that's just -- that's not a predictability and uncertainties predictability and uncertainties we want to address that as soon as we can. >> is why it is a very bipartisan. >> what we do have out there right now is that he's had a whole bunch of candidates on both sides talking about major changes can you talk about what is and what are some of the ideas about a totally different kind of tactic?

>> it's what you have to do to the tax law reform and we are building off of the knowledge base of that work and so as we see it in 2017 is at the very least what we do at the garden-variety tax reform which is like you say but in the base and lower the rates we see it should be no higher than 25% of the matter whether you are x. corp. was the court. >> where the highest in the industrialized world should become up with a leap frog plan to show that we have an even superior and more progrowth tax system that's better than the

rest of the world like they did in 1986 and given the size of the government relative to the size of the economy running around 20% of gdp is better meaning smaller than most other countries and surely one would think that we could run with a better system that would not just be middle of the pack that would rival anything else anybody else has you want to sound your company in america and keep your business in america and manufacture your products in america and because of the intellectual property and workforce in the currency, we want to be an american firm and those are the kind of things we think about and so at the very least we are going in a better direction if we can get the kind of government we seek to which is good tax reform that gets us very competitive in some things.

we encourage to put ideas out there. >> and again, anyone that is particular -- >> we are listening in research mode right now. >> it's all out there. >> something people talk about and they put up a big report about that a while ago. >> all of those things we want to encourage a robust conversation on, again it's about america leading and it's about america becoming a place where we could affect economic growth growth and upward mobility and opportunity and one of the biggest drags on the goal is our tax system. >> we are in a very different --.

>> if you can't can you do a tax reform that is aggressive enough to go to -- >> the kind of growth you want but it is, that is a good question and the answer is yes. we improved the modeling capabilities and we are still refining that. that looks at how this response to the tax changes. until this year we never took that into account. now he is macroeconomic scoring which is what i called reality-based scoring so we do that now so not now so that we make smarter decisions. second, the revenue target that has been traditionally used sets

of higher than the law actually is, so we believe in just what we call the current policy revenue target which is the truth. it gets renewed every single year. >> raise taxes on somebody else. >> you have to raise taxes on other hard-working americans to keep them the same for anybody else. it is a comedy. if these are in the credit card section 171 and a 79 that we intend to be permanent and that we've and that we've always extend on an annual basis and we seek a permanent feature of the tax system lets call it what it is and be honest with ourselves and make it that it gives us the kind of revenue target combined with better scorekeeping rules

more reflective of the reality that we think i'll pass right after progrowth legislation than what we have been able to do in the past. >> isn't what you're talking about though somewhat in opposition that you have not just democrats and some republicans now who have embraced the idea that you need to be using the tax code more to reward middle class families more deduction, more so at least on the personal side i know that you know that it goes to the corporate and business side as well. so you are talking about a path of people that are going very much -- >> i believe in limited government i guess i am more libertarian on this issue. the way that these conversations turn out which is we want you to send your money to washington and then if you engage in behavior that we approve of we will let you bring some of it back. i would rather you just keep it in the first place. it comes from the people that earned it.

decide for yourself what you want to do with your money. i believe in a more economic individual tax system because the reason i deleted that is number one for freedom's sake liberty's sake and also growth i believe that is how you get to the most progrowth economic policy at the best way to help families and help people get out of poverty is a faster economic growth and death to me you don't want to leave the growth of the table and that's why the tax driven principles are pro- family growth entrepreneurial and that is kind of the school of thought i generally come from. >> so you have some of the more powerful people what is the corporate community need to help you get this done? >> i would say don't fight for the carveout piece of the exemption or that benefit that might be good for the industry

here. think about the broad goal of getting the rate down and having the company to tax reform. think about the goal of getting america to the more competitive system so that even if you might lose this particular benefit think of the goal that means faster economic growth and it makes it more likely that you want to stay as a united states company instead of being taken over were having temptations from the shareholders. that's what i ask people to think about. >> questions from the audience. >> that is assuming he has one. [laughter] >> we are about to find out. imagine you are a cfo and see an opportunity to purchase a company and it seems to be

located in the usa as a part of the transaction. you can save 100 million or 20% increased or decreased by doing so by accomplishing this. you feel compelled as a fiduciary to get into this on behalf of the shareholders. what would you do, stay patriotic or fulfilled your fiduciary? >> v. dichotomy. >> it gives us a chance to get our political system fixed so we can fix this thing and you will have your cake and eat it too. you will be a company that is enjoying a better tax system because we will will not fix this mess before it gets out of control. we talk about this and they are rock and roll over there. and i think there's a lot of lessons to be learned. please note we are trying to apply these lessons. we do not have the political plans aligned like we need to to fix this. you have to know this is the highest priority and we are moving and misdirection as fast as we possibly can.

so, i would say play again with us and don't go for the instant gratification. >> i would hesitate asking what they might do in this case. beyond the need to reform the federal tax system is an increasing issue related to state taxes. and the need to grow the revenue states are charging or changing the apportionment rules resulting in many instances where we are double packs on the same revenue. is this even on washington's radar? >> vcs but again it is the states are sovereign and they can do these things if they want to. i have long thought that not only do we lead the world like we did in 86 but i think we could also be that the state. that's why i see that states like ours that have done a lot of good and that has a more competitive tax system we want to encourage getting the government means and limited and paid for and that shows you

where it is going to go. >> are you looking at the states for any ideas of what you do that say we should do something like that? >> i talked to the governors quite often and be the states it's about health care and things like that. but on the tax reform because there is an international component is not something that the states are as worried about. it is more something we are discussing. >> are there any more from the audience? explain the basic meaning into the notion of that. the reduction of in the tax rates to the businesses offset or were more than offset and if so, what i described more accurate estimating and accurate revenue target and that benefit you get from lower rates hopefully at the end of the day it ought to make everybody

better off. the current system we have today where you try to move it. the rate still matters. it still affects the decision-making and a lot and so we've got to get that down and we have to broaden the base of income so we don't have a huge revenue loss. it's that simple. you all know what i'm talking about. all i could ask is for the indulgence to know that maybe your finances are rigged around this particular with that particular tax expenditure but know that at the end of the day we just want to get them down in the first place so you don't have to go through this process to get it back by controlling the business tax systems. so you make the business decisions based on what's best

for the business because it is a good business decision and not a step on what the tax law tells me i ought to do. that is the world that we are trying to get to and that's why i say we should all be for that because broadening the base were getting into a different kind of system that is what we should be looking at. >> if they win the white house in 2016, what is the probability of the major tax reform? >> that is a good question. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> do you want to take a guess? >> is a possibility? >> i was involved in a lot of the campaigns. >> i don't think they want a third obama term of the growth below 2% and stuck at 45 million people. but america losing its standing in the world and of the military being weakened and of the

regulatory state pumping out unpredictable regulation after regulation and the rate being flat like it is. i don't think that people want a third term of that and so i am confident we will be able to prevail and get the kind of government we need to get the messianic clean it up and prevent the crisis that is on the horizon and the tax base in place and clean up the regulatory status of the scientifically based and predictable and get this economy out of the ditch that it seemed to get people from welfare to work to the economic mobility which we traditionally think of as the american idea that has been at church he lately. i think that we will invite you not want to go the other direction. >> how did they convince them that lower corporate tax rates are good for them when the corporations are thought of as the big bad wolf?

that is a tough sell and now we are looking at the companies. >> on the economics class envy or class warfare then we won't win but if we take it on and show on a belief in the style of campaign jack kemp was my mentor and that is who taught me the politics so to speak. we will not win if we try to tap into fear and anxiety. we will win if we show people the clear solution based on the principles being applied to the part of the day. we get help investigation and opportunity and if we go and pray on the class warfare thing we shouldn't even bother trying. this is to do more competitive

american economy i think we will be fine. >> is it better to pass the corporate tax reform this year will wait until the new presidency? >> problem that we have is that they do not pay corporate taxes. they pay individual taxes and when you have a white house that will not allow the rates to be lowered you will exacerbate the disparity between the tax treatment between the two kind of firms so that isn't something that we want to see happen. >> i don't think that we will have that done right now so that's why we are spending our time hopefully it will pay off on trying to clean up the international rules and get the tax bills that deal at the end of the year problems extenders that don't with whatever kind of reforms can we do that doesn't involve this nest of rates of

the differentials. >> last unless there's a question from the audience a 50% of taxpayers paid no federal income tax help you convince them to change the tax law? >> people turn and move but don't we want more growth and more jobs? don't we want america to be leading the rest of the world would we want to be following? >> i don't think people want us to be a welfare state which i would argue that trajectory that we are on i think people want to see a vibrancy they want to see growth again. they want to see the have a shot at the american dream which is the condition to determine the outcome of your life. we shouldn't be speaking to people as if they are stuck in their current station in life and put up with it and tolerate

it. that's not what we do in this country. let's talk about how we can make sure everybody can get to where they want to go in life and that we can equip people with the opportunity. >> we be leaving the quality of opportunity not outcome. one speaks to the traditional founding of the country and the principles that built this country, that give the opportunities and a great story. i think people still care about that. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> they found this house for sale and bought it for $8,000 in 1831 and apollyon converted this won't into the first formal writing studio. here he fell in love with fishing and the clarity of his writing and how fast he was producing the work and in fact he knocked out the first rough draft of the farewell to arms in just two weeks when arriving in key west.

he he once had a line that said if you really want to write, start with one truth and. >> each book should be a new beginning. try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> it was known as the great white jail. white jail. he thought he was under everyone's eye and so by coming to key west he could come up with his closest staff and become his hair and sometimes some of the staff would let their beards grow from a couple of days. they certainly could have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. a sportswear company said.

>> president truman war the shirts the first year and organized what they called the loud shirt contest and that was the official uniform of key west. a report of the homeland security inspector general found that 73 tsa employees began work without undergoing the required background checks. a sense of comfort and that the workers are not suspected of ties to terrorism and posed no threat to transportation security. the tsa official made this announcement in the house homeland security subcommittee hearing examining the vetting

process for new hires. this one hour and 15 minute hearing is chaired by the congressman. >> the committee of homeland security transportation security will come to order. the subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on improving the vetting by tsa. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. i would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on how we can improve aviation worker betting. since the start of the congress by subcommittee has actively engaged in examining a number of aspects related to the tsa operations, policies and procedures. through hearings, oversight inquiries and legislation we've been working to get to the bottom of these issues and raise awareness of the urgent need to fix them.

they have the extreme procedures at the tsa. to find released by the homeland inspector general over the last few weeks are indeed alarming. in may and maybe inspector general released a report that found they did not have the appropriate controls in place to ensure screening equipment as necessary maintenance work reformed. a few weeks ago news outlets reported test results showing that they failed to detect prohibited items 96% of the time and just last week we learned that 73 airport employees with potential ties to terrorism were issued credentials which allowed them to get access to secure areas of airports. the security breach by the employees of the major u.s. airports involving the nationwide gun smuggling ring and employee bypassing security

and the firearm using the cited batch. more recently we learned of the drug trafficking ring operating out of the airport in oakland california. all of these findings individually are concerning and in the aggregate while they shape the public's confidence in only further demonstrate the need for the steady leadership of the tsa to work through the many issues that plague this agency. the committee will continue to lead efforts to close security loopholes and ensure the continued safety and security of the nation's aviation system. the purpose of today's hearing is to thoroughly examine the gaps highlighted in the most recent report about aviation worker vetting and finding ways to improve the vetting process to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed into the and the american people can feel safe and secure when traveling. aviation workers are supposed to be thoroughly vetted. due to the continuing access to

sensitive information of airports and perfect before the position of trust in the transportation system. however, as the report has also clearly, there are significant shortfalls in the policies for radiation workers. for example they found that they do not have access to all of the data that they may need to thoroughly check the workers potential ties to terrorism. ..