because the profits in this country are taxed much more than overseas, so in focus and presenting our results on domestic profits of these companies and then the question is well, what share of those profits were paid in tax and one can tell us by looking up just the stat torre numbers because the tax that's paid depends on the deductions and so on that companies will make and how it will affect their tax burden. we were trying to explain here, different cross currents. part of what's going on is that the effective tax rate on domestic profit, which is to say the total amount of money the treasury has collected has pressed as a ratio to domestic profits that fell during the recession the last few years in a way we can't explain. and part of the reason we can't explain is because of the last few years, the total amounts, the details within the corporate

tax returns will help unravel this puzzle, but only b available to some -- so the last few years, we've seen this tax rate really defined as the tax collection divided by profit has been low. we think there will be some recovery in that for the longer term average because we are making an edgeucated guess that's what's happened in the last few years is because of circumstanceses of the last few years, so there will be rebound over the next few years. the same time, there's a different thing going on which is that companies are trying to find ways to reduce the corporate taxes they pay. some of what they're doing inviolas them moving business income from the corporate sector to the noncorporate sector. out of c corporations and into s corporations. we've written about that before. there's been an ongoing downward trend in the share of business income that's taxed at the corporate level.

we think that will continue. the second factor we described with a set of efforts by companies to increase the amount of corporate income shifted out of the country. recorded as having it earned as a different country and subject to much less u.s. tack. there are various ways to do that. we talk about transfer pricing and inversions. corporate inversions are part of the half of the erosion of corporate pace and that factor is at work in reducing receipts over the coming decade. but that is off set in part over the next few years by an increase in the rebound in the tax rate. there are other factors that we don't have firm handle on because we don't have the detailed tax statement. more over, we have all of that that corporate profits will decline as a share of income linger in the decade because rising interest rates will increase their interest payments and because faster compensation growth pushes up the labor share

of income will push down the corporate share and that factor, which affects the denominator, the economic profits, we think that, those factors will push economic profits down to gdp and that will also push county corporate tax revenue. i will check with focuses who are experts to make sure i got that right or right enough. okay. other questions.

where the ceiling was before it was suspended, since the issue before it was suspended. so when this happens in mid march, the debt ceiling will be set dwaul to the outstanding limb. the treasury will immediate lyly in mid march be unable to increase its net borrowing. then at that point we presume it will deploy its customary set of quote explosion nar measures to obtain funds. and we think those measures will be effective through september or october. of this year. and at which point, we think they will have exhausted their extraordinary measures. shortly after that, then the treasury will have run down its cash balance and be unable to meet all of its obligations in a timely way unless some other action is taken.

that projection in september or october is of course uncertain. it depends on in flows and outflows of money over the next eight or nine months. as you know from previous rounds of this, projecting the cash flows is a very uncertain business, so we will continue to keep the congress apprised, but we're not likely to know more precisely when the treasury will run out of extraordinary measures or out of cash until we get close to those events occurring. >> you go over the major factors causing the debts so fall over the next couple of years then start rising again. >> the deficits? >> the deficit.

>> so talk about the patterns. so, we think that the dollar amount of the federal deficits will be as i said, $468 billion this year $467 blg next fiscal year and will then start to rise. expressed as a share of gdp. the deficit will remain about 2.5%. through 2018 is. and will then rise beyond that. rising from about 2.5% in 2018 to 3% in 2019 and then 4% by 20 2025. that results from a combination of factors i talked about earlier on. part of what happens is the tax revenues rise a good deal in 2016, 2015. because of the expiration of some tax provisions in the improving economy. so, tax revenues that we think will be 17.7% in gdp this year

we project to be 18.4% of gdp next year, so there's an increase in tax revenues, market increase, even relative to the size of economy. but after 2016 tax revenues remain about the same relative to the size of the economy nrt rest of the decade, so the attached revenues move up quickly in 2016 but then are about flat to the share of gdp. on the outerly side, there are these various cross currents. retirement of baby boomers is xersing this tremendous upward pressure on spending for social security and medicare and medicaid throughout the decade. they'll be more than one-third more people receiving medicare and social security benefits at the end of the decade than receiving it today. that goes on all the time and pushes up total spending by the federal government. but at the same time, there are, well, the other thing pushing

spending up is rising interest payments. we think interest rates will move up a fair bit over the next few years but the government's interest costs respond slowly to that because the government doesn't roll over all of its debt in any one year. so, the average interest rate that's paid on treasury debt responds gradually to market interest rates. we actually report in table 1.3 on some page of the report, i don't have the page number, the average interest rate and debt held by the public, which rises throughout the decade, so we have these ageing baby boomers rising health care costs per person the expansion health care subsidy all those things are pushing spending up throughout the decade, but the other hand there are declines in spending relative to gdp for defense purposes. and for all other nondefense purposes. nondefense discretionary

spending like highway infrastructure rnd support education and training support health research and many other things and in the nonsocial security programs like snap and ssi and so on. so the specific pattern that was from year to year results in this whole combination of factors. the underlying thing is that we have a handful of very large programs that provide benefits to older americans. with a rising number of older americans and rising cost of health care look for them to be much more expensive. so, by 2025 one quarter of total projected spending and so

the other biggest pieces are made care, interest payments just those four things alone. social security, medicare interest payments on the debt and defense spending those four items together represent two-thirds of federal, total federal spending in 2025. so, the growth of federal spending is isnot coming from a growth across the board. it's really coming from growth in a handful of very large programs. but the other parts of the budget as i said earlier and we show in a report are getting small besides the gdp and that dance some of the effects of the growing spending on those items i just highlighted. so, the combination of these factors, but the trend is for rising deficits for reasons that are very well understood and have been predicted by analysts. literally for decades. yes. >> with reuters, just wondering

if you could clarify your status here. are you a contender bringing this down with -- >> my current status is to be the director of cbo. my the term ended on january 3rd, but under the budget act of 1974 directors can continue to serve until after their terms have expired until new directors are appointed and i like the job a lot, so i'm continuing to serve and i expect to do that. unless and until a new director is appointed and whether a different director will be appointed and if so o, who that will be and when that will occur, i don't know. and i'm not going to be the first person to know or the first person to tell you. i think that's, that decision rests with budget committees and leadership of the house and senate.

i think they will spaek to the matter when they want to speak to them. >> liz farmer. can you talk about your estimate that by 2039, public debt will exceed 30% of gdp and you said the last time that happened was just after world war ii. can you talk about that concern? ? >> this is a projection of our from last summer. when we look out 25 years in some senses, then even longer. we said that we thought that under current laws that debt would exceed 100% of gdp. the projection in this report of debt relative to gdp at the end of the decade is quite close to the projection we used last summer in building a longer the term projections. so, we have not ruled anything since last summer that would

change your view that unless some significant changes are made or tax policies or both, that debt will exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years and be on an upward trajectory at that point in time. the only time before in our history where our publicly held debt has been around 100% of gdp was right at the end of the second world war. what was different then was that the debt ran up sharply during the second world war. but then starteded to come down relative to gdp. that was not particularly because of find that picture, not particularly because of large surpluses were run, but because as you mentioned, gdp grew rapidly and the budget was close to being in balance. the reason for the run up in

debt was a particular one time event,s cost of fighting the war. the run up we've seen over the past half dozen years is heavily because of the financial crisis and recession. so, those are we hope one-time events, but but behind that is this ongoing and highly anticipated event of the retirement of the baby boom generation and moving into the large number of americans to an age where where the federal government provides significant benefits and also underlying this is the rising cost of health care per person, which has been less over the past half dozen years and had been projected before that, but none is less, we think best projection is continued growth in health care cost for beneficiary, so, with many more people for social security and

medicare and certain benefits in medicaid as time goes on and with the cost of health care benefits rising, we now face a structural of long-term structural challenge that is quite different from situations facing the end of the second world war and the fact that debt doesn't rise very much relative to gdp over the next decade does not mean it doesn't, that this doesn't have significant costs. it does. with debt this high relative to the size of the economy, there will be significant interest payments when interest rates rebound. there will be crowding out of capital investment as time goes on. there was a reduced flexibility for policymakers to respond to future financial crisis or recessions or international events and there's a heightened

risk of a fiscal crisis. so even if date were stable at 70% in gdp, there would be significant costs. more over, because of these underlying force we don't think the debt will be stable. another point worth emphasize, even the reason that debt only rises a little bit relative to size of the economy over the coming decade, despite the demographic changes and rising health care costs is really because there is set now into current law a very sharp reduction in spending for everything apart from social security and major health care programs compared to the historical experience. nondefense discretionary spending, whole collection of programs proepuates money each year is is about the same percentage of gdp this year than it was 50 years ago and this spending has fluctuated relative to the size of the economy over time, but is showing no trend over 50 years.

but under current law, given the caps on discretionary funding it will fall to a lower percentage of gdp than we have seen and turns out those are available that way before 50 years ago. defense spending is a little more complicated. it has trended down relative to the size of the economy over the last 50 years, although not over the last 20. it fell a fair bit. in the end of the '80s or '90s or 2000s. but it has really stabilized this year of gdp over the last 20 years. what you think the need for that spending will be going forward depends on what world you think you should play in international events. but defense spending is on track to fall to a lower small number relative to the size of the economy than it has been at any point which we have the data. so there's this sharp shift

underway under current law in what the federal government spends its money on and because of the appripriations process occurs one year at a time, the caps have been set without any decisions being made about exactly which programs or which services won't be provided in the future that would have been provided under the historical experience with those government programs. and we highlight that issue in our report. as a risk going forward. that the caps have been set, that the decisions about what will be cut and not be cut, have not yet been made. other questions? >> can you go back and just talk a little bit more about interest spending projections, although it's lower than in the past

higher than it is today and just wondering whether you consider the possibility that interest rates have declined. and are going to be lower in the future than anybody would have predicted four or five years ago, today, what that should be. >> as i mentioned, we expect interest rates will rise considerably from the current levels, but we don't think they will rise up to the levels they were at. over the past few decades. a rekha pitchlation of these arts in the argument. we've done this thinking about what would be relative in the future, during a period of reasonable stability in the economy and relative to that period, we think that inflation

adjusted treasury interest rates will be about three quarters of a percentage point lower in the future than they've been in the past and that three quarter of a percentage point difference is pretty substantial. we project that nominal ten-year treasury note rates will be 4.6% by the end of the decade. with c p pi inflation of 2.4% that means an inflation adjusted ten-year rate of 2.2%. that compares to about 3% for real treasury tenure rate from 1990 to 2007 period. so we've made a substantial downward adjustment and that adjustment is the next effect of a number of factors. we list four going in different directions. the four we list pushing down interest rates relative to the history are number one slower froet of the labor force. two, slower growth of

productivity. and both of those factors we think lower interest rates because they basically effect larger product of capital in the production process. we think that the greater income quality is pushing you have saving, which tendses to lower interest rates and we think there will be a greater risk premium on private securities, which is to say they'll be held down because of a greater demand for safe assets. those four factors alone would have argued for a larger reduction. on the other side, four other factors we think will push up interest rates one of those is greater federal debt. another one is slightly smaller capital inflows from overseas. third is fewer people in their prime saving years. just another way of saying baby boomers are moving to oler ages.

so fewer people in their prime saving years. and fourth, a higher capital share of income argues for higher return to capital that compete with capital for investors. so, as best we can judge the four factors pushing down rates relative to this experience will be more powerful than those pushing up rates by a good deal. that's why we've made this a downward revision relative to history, but none the less we think rates will move up a good deal from now. and that is consistent we think with what expectations of participants and financial markets and consistent with our own modeling of demand for funds as the economy strengthens. so, and again, these are changes we made last summer and the budget outlook and incorporated into is our august projections. we made a further projection

basically because of a decline in interest rates in other countries. that makes u.s. assets a little bit more attractive and we think pulls more money into this country. this is no doubt one of the sources of great uncertainty in our projections and we offer an appendic appendix to the report rules of them to how it would be different if economic projections were different. rules of thumb for faster or slow slower growth of real gdp, for higher or lower inflation and interest rates and not surprisingly surprisingly, budget outcomes are quite sensitive to interest rates. that's more true than say a decade ago because debt is is so much larger than it was a decade ago, so i think we have balanced the risks in this projection. but the risks on both sides are considerable.

>> talk about health care for a second, trying to get a better handle on it. about subsidies for people in the exchanges and reduced a little bit of your outlook for that. i guess based on one year of experience of actual hard experience on that front. now, i guess given times past given the passage of -- how confident do you feel about your original score and things like the subsidies and to that extent about the cadillac taxes. still has yet to be -- >> you're absolutely right. to say that we've only observed exchange enrollment exchange subsidies, increment the to medicaid enrollment for people

newly eligible for a year. i think we'll learn a good deal more in years to come. on the other hand, the source of, sources of the revisions to the projection we made since 2010 i think have more foundation than just looking at last year would suggest. because part of what we've done to take on information about private health insurance premiums over the five years since we did these estimates in 2010. and it is true that insurance premiums, private insurance premiums could jump up next year. they could fall, rise by a small amount next year. there is a lot of uncertainty about that, but we have seen now a number of years of significantly slower growth and private health insurance premiums than we expected in 2010 and that including the

premiums that were paid in the insurance exchanges. last year. and the premiums that we see for coverage in 2015. so, i think we have a strong basis for making a significant downward provision of costs for insurance exchanges while we have that amount right now. which we don't know and i think similarly for medicaid we have now seen a number of years of slower growth in medicaid costs per beneficiary than we had expected in 2010 so those are particular aspects of the affordable care act. we've observed a slower growth in medicaid spending for some time, so again i think we have a much stronger foundation for this set of downward revisions to the cost of the medicaid part of the aca expansion than just from looking at last year's data, although once again, they are considerable uncertainty

remains. >> and on the cadillac tax, about how much, how important that is. >> well, as you know, the excise tax on high premium insurance plans has not yet taken effect. so, it's particularly hard to, we don't seem to have the one year in that sense. there's an ek doe tall evidence people report on making adjustments to their plans to keep premiums on a trajectory below what they think will be sukt but those are just anecdotes. i continue to expect that most of there will be a significant adjustment by employers to try to keep premiums for plans below the thresholds that will subject them to this tax so of the total revenue we show occurring because of this tax i think

only a quarter of it we ek pecht will come in excised tax receipts. because of employers hold down premiums and therefore, pay more in cash compensation. to employees because they're paying less than they would in this nontaxed health insurance, so the extra cash composition will yield higher revenues, so three quarters will never show up. they will none the less occur because the tax. so we don't know that would yield and it is while it is true that premiums in the economy as a whole, may make it easier for firms to stay below these thresholds but not equal while

this is going on and we incorporate all those factors while making our projections. >> you popularize the term but you wanted to or not, actually, your predecessor, bending the survey v. you're at five years now. how good of a job do you think aca has done of bending the curve of national health expenditures. >> we don't know. the reason that we shied away from using the term bending the curve is because we think people tend to view it as a permanent state of affairs. what we know is that the curve, meaning both federal health costs and national health costs has been flattered over next several years and we anticipated five years ago or ten years ago, so the curve has flattened. whether it has flattened and we think it will stay flatter for a

little while than we thought before. we think dlb a faster growth in health care costs again later in the decade. but we don't know. we know the risks of putting too much weight op a phenomenon that's gone on for a little while or putting too little weight on something that's gone on for a little while. given that these curves have been flatter, how much is attributable to the affordable care act and we just don't know. there are some specifics to the corporate care act that matter here, so the slower growth of payments to a number of providers in medicare is a specific aspect of the corporate care act that we thought would lower medicare spending. relative to the pre aca world and we think has.

but whether other provisions of the act have had more indirect effects on federal health care spending or national health care spebd spending we just don't know. anything else? okay. it's been great to have you here. thank you very much. screeria -- nigeria. -

with live coverage of the u.s. house on cspan, here on cspan 3, we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affairs events and on weekends cspan 3 is the home to american history tv with six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring historic sites to discover what artifacts mean about america's past. history book shelf. the presidency, look at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors and our new series, real america, featuring archiveal films from the '30s to the '70s. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your o local cable tv or satellite provird.

. some live programming to tell you about on our companion network. at 11:45 a.m. eastern president obama unveils his 2016 budget question. then at 12:45 eastern, shaun donovan will discuss the president's budget request and at 1:30, the pentagon will hold a series of briefings throughout the day. you can watch these programs live on cspan 2. at this year's world economic forum, german chancellor angela merkel talked about the state of the european economy. she mentioned the central bank's efforts to provide relief to the ur ozone, the conflict between ukraine and russia and whether

greece will stay in the euro zone. this is about half an hour. >> this way will be one of the most important messages that we need to bring to our citizens that we need to discuss with our citizens citizens, this vibrant principle of democracy must be our answer to antiterrorism, but it is not something that can be imposed from above. it has to be filled with life. so freedoms that the citizens have because citizens freedom does not been freeing free of something, but to be free to do something. each and every one where he or she stands and in this 25th year of german unity, that is something that is particularly important to us. we will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the german unity this year and we will not only pay lip service to this, we will

try to fill this principle with life. last year, we were confronted in quite a different way with problems that we had not actually expected to quite this extent. the conflict between russia and ukraine, you had the ukrainian president here, he addressed you. he explained how he sees the situation from his advantage point and on behalf of my government, there is one thing that we hold very important. namely the fact that this here elementary principles of the european peaceful order were violated of crimea it's not just any kind of annexation, but it is a clear and flagrant violation of what has made us live peacefully and coexist peacefully together. respect of our borders and respect of the territorial integrity of our partner countries and this is so important because ukraine gave

up its -- because there was a budapest memorandum such as uk russia and the united states stood for the territorial integ oi of ukraine, which other country would then fol lea that example if it has that example before its very eyes, if you give that up, then you are making yourself weaker and more vulnerable to this kind of attack, but we've also learned from the world wars here in europe that a military response to such a challenge cannot be successful there is no military solution to this and this is why sanctions were unavailable. they are not an end to themselves and can be lifts for reasons. but we're not there yet. i would like to underline here that the whole europe particularly we in germany time and again together with the

french president try in the format to bring about a diplomatic solution. the foreign ministers met yesterday. there are certain small steps towards progress. we try to find a solution. ladies and gentlemen, apart from these global challenges, there are also challenges of an economic nature. and challenges to our societies as a whole. this year, germany is in the chair of the ag 7. those who we consider to be of prime importance to the long-term and sustainable development of our world. and also i take this issue particularly to heart empowerment of women to set up their own businesses.

what is also important is is to make the world stronger economically speaking. europe continues to be confronted by great challenges. we quite often talk about the debt crisis, about the crisis in the rural area. we have this somewhat under control. more essentially hasn't really regained sufficient trust, sufficient come pettiveness. i am always for not guilty pabting matters in black and white. quite often so-called austerity is pitted against so-called growth model. i think this is totally wrong. we need a growth oriented sound fiscal policy. we need investments. we need investments by the sate. but we first and foremost need an environment which encourages private investors.

today, in these very minutes, we expect a decision by the european central bank and this will be a decision that will be taken totally independent. let me state this clearly. we in germany as you know have this long tradition of time and again stressing that the ecb is independent and should be independent, but as a politician, no matter what i would say no matter what sort of decision the ecb will take we should not become diverted by from the fact that we need to put as politicians are necessary conditions in place. for recovery. and we have progress in quite a number of countries. particularly program countries. we have clear reform efforts. for example, also in italy. finally, we have the italian prime minister here addressing you. these are very important signs. in france, there is a new course that is clearly growth oriented,

which is a very good message and good news, but time is of the essence, because every day these adjustments mechanisms we need jobs and these jobs have cob created this nose areas which promise long-term highly qualified employment, so, dinlgtization and how we react in europe to dinlgtization and this phenomenon will be essential. germany pleased that it is our commissioner. the german commissioner is responsible for this particular industry and it is i think a very good sign, but the european commission has not only launched an investment program, but is is looking at the political frame work conditions, but a look at

the digital agenda of europe and the role of the united states and also of a number of asian countries shows we lag behind. we have to try to close leading the development here so we need to put the political framework condition in place as i said. we need to find the right mix and plants, but also freedom to use those data to develop new products an as german federal chancellor, i want a strong german economy to be able to and the digital economy to what is commonly called -- because we'll lose our competition. we haven't yet won that.

with this single market we have but europe must become more rapid. must become faster, more competitive and less regulated. i am pleased this commission has set itself a goal to do that for the first time we have this tri -- between the european condition, the parliament and if we work on this basis off this new agenda, we have a very good opportunity, very good chance of getting stronger out of this crisis. than we went in. the examples of spain, portugal of ireland and in parts of greece show that actually reforms are well worth your while. they are efficient and growth can return. what does germany do? in this competition germany wants to play responsible. i think we've shown that growth

oriented sound fiscal consolation is possible. in 2014 for the first time for 40 years. we have not released a new -- in our budget. some accuse us of being too tight with our money as it were. but let me remind you that germany has a massive demographic challenge and probably no other european country as more than 6 million people will be lost to our market who are now gainfully employed because they're retired. if we're not solid and try to keep our debts down, then we will leave a heavy burden to the next generation. they will not have the necessary brooelting space and i think this will be irresponsible. one of the few that spends 3%

were attractive to others because of that for research and development. product consumption has increased. it is carrying and boosting economic growth. the growth has been 1.5%. which may be compared to the u.s. is somewhat modest but for us, it is quite respectable. we want to continue this course. we also want to continue this course of increasing employment. we have as many people in jobs gainfully employment as we've had during our history. and those are very, very good figures that we have in this area. 43 million people in gainful employment and we want to remain as stable and anchor in europe. we all know we cannot shut ourselves off against the rest of the world and we shouldn't do

this. so, let me plead for the european union being an open minded place for agrees on free trade investments. for example, the free trade agreement with canada is almost there. it needs to be finalized. tee tip is currently under investigation, the american president has committed himself to these associations and i think that is a unique chance for europe and it should seize opportunities for growth. can in this way, be speeded up through less obstacles in transatlantic trade but what's also important is that we have higher standards in consumer protection and industrial protection as well. so, we could do something in order to be set rs globally and only do that if we do it together with the united states and this is why it will come out very strongly in favor of this.

and we'll work for it. ladies and gentlemen, we're challenged. not only economically speaking, but also as regards standing up for our values. the digital world creates a situation where there are no secrets anymore. no unchartered waters. simple societies want to know what's happening. they want to know how the world is governed. they want transparency and we are looking forward to this kind of challenge. we don't always want to talk about the risks as so many do. we want to be a good partner in europe and the world. thank you very much. >> a warm thank you. >> i may come back briefly to the key parts of your

presentation you spoke about the conflicts, conflict situations that are prevailing and if i could just touch upon the ukraine. i'd say that the first objective must be to implement the agreement or protocall, but what do you think is the long-term outlook you are in contact permanently, so with the main tack ors. what is the way out of this conflict? because the longer it lasts, the more it will cost for everyone involved. what is the way out of this conflict? well, in order to solve a conflict, you need two. and let me assure you that we shall not be lent in our efforts to bring this conflict to a solution. our objective is to youp hold the territory of ukraine. it needs to be restored.

short-term first in the don es k area, but crimea is not forgotten, but they are very urgent, very pressing. our demand, that is something that was a positive experience for our country that a country needs to be able to determine freely where it wants to go, but there are close linkages particularly in the economic area, so it would be desirable on the bases of the agreement to first restore some kind of stability and then later on in the bigger in the bigger picture, try to explore possibilities of cooperation in an economic area that called from lisbon and to cooperate because that needs to be our objective. i hope that opportunities will

present themselves and i think maybe once we have that, then these discussions about association of difficulties between russia and the ukraine may well be solved. and also, the ewe, sorry in ukraine, but we are ready to do that. but we have to have a cease fire, we have to have a regaining of control. of ukraine at the border with russia and this process has to be initiated. there are too many lives that have been lost. >> when the war came down, enough was said about these common european house, is this principle still valid? >> of course it is still valid. you see -- we have actually created quite a lot of avenues for corporations.

there's this nato russia founding act, there are economic ties between the european union and russia. russia through this eurasiaen union wants those to berussia. they want this to be extended to the theure asian unit and the economy. and there were very good efforts and also in the first coalition we had worked together with the german prime minister as probably the only voice in europe that we don't want too hasty of georgia and ukraine and we know about the certainty of russia and we know this might well be difficult for them. i now am in a way being accused

of that and people tells that to me and now i'm again saying don't cut off the bridges that we built. we have good will but you will understand a continent that in its history has been known so many shifting of borders cannot skip over the violation of the borders. >> and what is the understanding of that. >> and the question is what are we ready to do to put on the table because when people are talking about imposing of sanctions and making them stronger and then they say we have disadvantages but i say yes but the legal center is not there. >> one has to defend ones convictions. this brings me to the second point of your speech and that is we have the feeling in the last

few months that there were like two different schools of thought and two religions and you touched upon this, the ecb will take a decision today but we don't know what the decision will be, but we think one theme of thought or school will be one but you were indicating that both could be defined but now the doors seem to be wide opened. >> i think our life experience tells us there is very rarely a black and white solution. and i always say to my people that a process and theure ocrisis has been going on for quite a while and never to look at it as a crisis. i remember when the spreads for bonds were beyond 4% and 5% and

debt rates of 80% or 90% and that gets into an unpleasant situation for a country. at the time we thought it may well be a message of trust to the financial markets when we say that this german debt needs to be drawn down step by step and what we said was that needs to be drown down but we need to draw growth. and how does one draw growth. people talk about the state needs to do more and draw more but it is not crucial when you don't have at the same time the matching investment. there is so much liquidity in the market i'm upset that the state bonds cannot be dramatically cheaper. so if you are not able to remain within the bounds of your budget

and have 3-4% deficit i don't know what will happen once the spreads of the deficit goes up again. now is the time to do your homework, your fiscal consolidation to these times of very low interest. the ecb, let me underline this again, is an independent organization because people mix so many things. i think it is most important that we are even more stringent in the way we do business than allowing ourselves to be tempted to buy time and not do structural reforms. let me say yet again, italy is doing very ambitious reforms france is on the way to do that and others are on the way to do it. >> of course it is a

controversial debate in the ecb. i'm not surprised about that. because there is a high level of liquidity at its disposal and the high level of liquidity and a little bit is sort of a smoke screen so you don't know who is competitive and who is not. you don't get a true picture of the capacity and the true economic strength and at some point in time when the smoke screen is lifted it will be apparent again. we saw that in the swiss and central bank. all of a sudden there is a difference a marked difference between the swiss bank and then we can be prepared and we can't say we didn't know about that. that is the only point i try to say to people, people, we don't as yet have as positive as an

environment for example in a digital area and there is a broadband discussion here of divorce and we should be better prepared for this innovation. >> madam chancellor, at the end of this week there will be elections in greece and there have been a lot of talk and worry about the so-called greec-exit and perhaps you would like to say something about this. >> the elections are going to take place on sunday so i will not preempt that result but greece would like to be in the area and ever since the crisis started i said that everything we do politically is oriented

with greece remaining part of the euro area and we need to continue so show solidarity coupled with the readiness to show the one oez's responsibility and what happens after the elections is something we will discuss then. and that is the experience of the european policy and that crisis before was found with a european solution and always based on the two matching signs of the coin. solidarity and responsibility. >> madam chancellor, let me put a more plausible question we've spoken a lot here about the lack of confidence which is linked to the fact that there may not be much leadership.

where leadership weakens in the world of politics in general of course there are exceptions and i will name no names but this means that the great erer pressure on you and weigh on german and how do you see that? >> i think if you look at the european union as a whole, there are 28 member states 19 of them now members of the euro zone and the level of government we can only take unanimous decisions so no matter whether i'm a small country or a big country or more important or less important in the end, each has to be confident of the same thing and sometimes under pressure and sometimes too slow and not always in a perfect way, we've

always been able to do that. it is a very convincing statement. i think she was using the english term statement that speaks to our strength. so i think we are quite a good institution compared to others in the world. let's say if we were able to do a bit more to be a bit more curious as compared to other parts of the world, a little less gazing and per oakial, and i'm pleased and to be proud of the european union. >> i too, i too. but madam chancellor, for strong leadership you also need coordination, vision, and within this meaning i would like to congratulate you for this digital europe.

we have to play the role that we can and that is within the possibilities of the means of europe. i'm sure you have the opportunity of talking about this later on today. thank you so much for having joined us today. i would also like to include in my thanks the members of your cabinet and on behalf of all of the participants here i would like to wish you all auck ses-- all success for everything you are doing here and for the presidency of the g-7. and may i -- may i also invite you to stay seated. we have a very small celebration now which will take about five minutes. so please remain seated.

[ applause ] with the fcc focusing on net neutrality in february, we spoke with two executives at the consumer show in vegas. >> we believe at the end of the day, the internet needs strong enforceable effective rules for neutrality on the web, including nondiscrimination, no blocking subject to network management and they need to be effectively enforceable. >> the problem we have now with where the net neutrality issue has gone is it is not focused on the substance of the rules which i think there is a lot of consensus around but focused on the fcc legal rules to adopt and

which jurisdictional authority they should use and our theory is they are going to undo a regulatory status that has existed now for over a decade. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on cspan 2. live now to the bipartisan policy center in washington, d.c. for remarks but newly elected senator thom tillis he'll talk about lessons he's learned from working in state government. this is the centers first of the new agenda-setter series.

>> just waiting for senator thom tillis's remarks talking about the lessons he's learned working in state government. while we wait for his comments here at the bipartisan policy center. we'll look at president obama's budget submitted to congress, a conversation from today's washington's journal. >> a staff writer from roll call. neils, republicans have been panning information that came out about the things in it.

is this budget dead on arrival when it arrives this morning? >> the budget is dead on arrival just as it is in the same sense it is most years on capitol hill particularly whenever you have divided government. what the budget is used for by the white house regardless of party is to lay out its vision for how in an idealized world it would restructure parts of the government and the tax code and where the executive branch would prioritize investments if it were left to its own devices. but since it is divided government, what really happens is you'll see law enforcementmakers in both parties try to go through this document, pan things and you've

seen that from republicans -- >> good morning, everyone -- i guess it is good afternoon now. welcome to the bipartisan center i'm bill hoagland senior vice president and it is my pleasure to welcome you this afternoon to kick off the new agenda-setters series. for those of you not familiar with the bipartisan policy center we were established in 2007 by four former majority leaders of the united states senate, senator bob dole the late howard baker, senator tom dashel and senator george mitchell. and i had the pleasure and honor of working with all of those over my career in the united states senate as a staffer. we're launching this series today at the beginning of the new 114th congress. our goal is to explore timely and compelling and impactful

issues in policy making and politics in 2015. each event will highlight policymakers in decision-making roles and only some like today only been put forward in those roles and critical thinking and challenging the world today. we are pleased to have senator tillis in this event. he have his bio. elected in november. he is the junior senator from north carolina. he is being joined by my boss, the president of the bipartisan senator so join me in clming senator -- in welcoming senator tillis. >> thank you, jason. and welcome to our

agenda-setting series. and senator i'm confident you will be one of the most influential members of the class of 2015 and we'll have an opportunity today to talk about your policy and the ideas and commitments you bring to this work. there is a lot of discussion today about opportunity and the challenges of opportunity in this country and i think there is nobody who i'm aware of who has been elected in the last cycle who really embodies the possibility of this country more than you. and i'm not sure most people know this but senator tillis graduated from high school and immediately went to work in a warehouse as a records clerk to begin to earn the resources to get a college education. put himself through college. while he was doing that, he worked at a number of esteemed institutions. in mid 30s he was an executive at price cooper and ibm.

so i think the spirit of hard work in this country is something you can speak of not just in theory but through experience. the senator's public service career has followed that deliberate path. started out at pta. then joined the -- >> eight years ago. >> and then joined the cornelius cornelius, and then chosen to be the speaker of the north carolina house and served until 2014. so there is a passion for public service and an ambition that the country greatly needs so we welcome you here to the bipartisan policy center. i'm going to spend 20 minutes and then we'll turn over the audience and i would like to get started with about an issue you spoke about in your campaign and that is what you hope to get into and there is an

obstructionism here in washington standing in the way of the public interest. you were a management consultant so how would you turn this place around. >> i guess the thing i can look back to is what i've done as speaker of the house and when i came in as a freshman in 2007. i ran against a two-term incumbent in 2006 who was the award getter of all of the conservative organizations in the state but the fact of the matter he wasn't effective and that is why i decided to run against him. it wasn't the people that got the ribbons it was the people that got the results. so going into the legislature, i spent my freshman year. i spent time being irrelevant. because you can spend time just finding your way around. and that is what i'm doing now. and trying to build relationships that i think will be helpful on both sides of the

aisle. i was mentioning to you, that i spent most of my time reaching out to members of the democratic caucus and meeting with them one-on-one. i met with seven or eight now to speak with them. i do the necessary research to know where they are on policy issues. i had a great breakfast with one of the members this week and i said i read your back ground and history and i said that on 80% of the issues you and i are going to be on disagreement but i think there were some things that i thought could provide a basis and start having those relationships and don't mince words when you have different objectives. i think right now i'm trying to get back and forth to the capitol without getting lost and i'm doing that better now and

just understanding the process and finding ways to help my leadership who is absolutely committed to regular order and to getting the senate functioning again. if anybody doubts it take a look at the number of votes over the past month. and that is good from both sides. even among members of the minority. many senators are glad to get out and vote. even if the amendments will be defeated, that they get the opportunity to put them forth is healthy. i want to be part of the group coming in that is getting the senate to move again and beginning to function because we'll never go as quickly as i would like to go and as quickly as i did in the house. but i think we can make great progress and a lot of that is on a bipartisan basis. >> you made a number of points but during the one issue of the keystone pipeline, no matter what anybody thinks of the importance of that issue you had an opportunity to

participate in three times as many role call vote ss, and tell me what that means of the chemistry of the place you are on the floor voting, and there were harsh exchanges, but how important was that to start to build this camaraderie. >> i think it is enormously important. because if you think about it and you are in the minority if you know that you are going to have an opportunity to have things heard then you will be more likely to check your partisan tendencies into the interest of moving these things further along. so i think that the sense that i'm getting from the members that i met with on the other side of the aisle is they are optimistic about getting work done and they will have a meaningful role with, senator

franken and senator white house and campen and i think they believe they can get more done under leader mcconnell than under senator reid over the last couple of years and i believe that to be true. and i think that serves as a basis for us moving along. there are a lot of things that we can do here if you want to make bipartisan but you can maybe get things done. not as much as i want to get done, but we can make progress. >> and touch on the issues where there is potential to build momentum, both with your colleagues across the caucus and also with the administration. >> i think if you go down -- my bias is toward regulatory reform. we talk about tax reform and other things we want to do but if we go back and examine some of the problems that we have with regulatory overreach and

really expose some of these areas, whether it is epa or labor or any number of areas in a very focused way, then you can sit down and say these regulations may have made sense in a vacuum but they do not make sense in the context of how they work with businesses these days. so let's clarify regulations that we know will help businesses expand. and if we can do that and start having a more positive effect on sustainability, it makes other things that we are going to do that will have bases in our ideology we'll have better chances of going there like tax reform. and if you look at sequestration, i think most people realize it was probably a bad idea.

and we have to remember we thought it wasn't going to happen. >> it was described -- designed to be a bad idea. >> and now it has become commonplace. i have not looked at the president's budget. i don't necessarily know if his path forward is the path forward that we'll embrace. but i think there are a number of people on the other side of the aisle that think we have to do a better job of budgeting and sequestration is something we get rid of and get to the task of responsible budgeting. >> so let's talk about committees. you are on agriculture armed services. you are a aa member. one is a strong defense and strong commitment to national security and another is to

budget. and how do you see that playing out through armed services? >> i think it may make for an interesting mix in terms of the strategy going forward. i think you'll see people at the extremes of the ideological spectrum be opposed to things that senator wright -- or center right may be on the extremes of either one of our caucuses so we have to get into the middle. we have to be realistic about numbers and that we don't have a veto override. if we have a supermajority, we would do things differently. at the end of the day, we have to look at what it takes to send things to the president's desk that can with stand a veto and

also things that the american people want to see. we're looking to get 60-plus votes and to do that we're going to have to be very patient in our approach. and i think that we have so much pent up demand on the part of the people that voted for us, excited people at home that are calling me about a thousand times a week already to try to figure out how to prioritize, but we are worried more about foreign policy issues and worried about nuclear iran and all of those things moving at the same time and i don't yet know how they fit together and create coalitions or significant differences between the two conferences. >> so a tough issue on defense budget. north carolina a very

significant presence for the military and i believe there is a hearing tomorrow at armed services looking at military pay and pensions. it has been said by some that our military has become a pension benefit health care company that occasionally fights a war and the current trends are such that we'll have to address those personnel issues which obviously people feel very passionate about based on the great appreciation for our veterans and folks in active service. do you see room on that? how do you see engaging that? >> i think you have to go back to the bigger issue of overall spending. and we had a panel of generals and one admiral last week and we were talking about sequestration and the need to repeal it. and i said i believe that we need to do that. because in my day job as a

partner of price waterhouse and i would never go into an organization and implement anything remotely close to sequestration to dim spending. so it was a devastating impact on our armed services. i said let's sequestration from the fundamental policy. do you believe our armed services are operating at 100% efficiency and the answer is no. so the question becomes how do we reach a point where some of the things that we are talking about that some things are better and higher use of funds. we have to be more systematic of whether it is spending to its best and highest use. understanding it is political

decisions that are being made but i don't think that is a question being asked, whether it is acquisition or procurement form. those are things we need to look at to create the curency to address pension issues where we see them or any other issues of government. i don't think we've done that. we've been operating on 12-month cycles for budgeting. i think we have to be sophisticated and more long-term thinking. >> the bipartisan policy center agrees with that view. >> i didn't read the background either so i'm glad to hear that. >> on ag and judiciary. do you have some ideas you hope to get into this year. >> i believe i'm the first

senator from north carolina to be on the ag commission since a while. and we hope to conduct research and get more productivity out of the agriculture center. and i hate to sound like a broken record but regulatory reform is first and foremost one of the things we need to deal with. if you go out and talk to these formers -- farmers they will give you a litany of nonsensical regulations that do not provide the value commensurate to the cost of the farmers and on trade. we have to get trade right and expand opportunities for agriculture and exports and because our farmers are trying to do it and some are making headway and some don't realize

how north carolina has exports sweet potatoes. we have about 120% increase in sweet potatoes to the u.k. and europe is opening up as a market and we have to figure out how do we provide them access to more markets and eliminate the regulations that literally make no sense. and it is not just environment regulations, it is workplace regulations and immigration regulations and we need to short list and systematically remove them. on judiciary, enormous oversight. we had conversations with mrs. lynch last week and we are trying to sort out how i will personally use that as a vehicle for certain things that i think need to be looked at within the

department of justice. >> on your sweet potatoes anything you can boil is a sure thing in the u.k. so think about some other options. >> down in the south it is anything you can fry. >> so challenging issue that the congress has been working on quite a bit is immigration. you mentioned it and the nexis between judiciary and ago and now it has unraveled and we are years back into angry rhetoric on both sides but do you see anything that can bring the debate back together? >> i think the problem is that at least from afar, when senators are -- or members of congress have tried to get together on immigration reform, they let it go beyond a scope that i think keeps enough people on board. i personally believe we should

focus first on border security. and the reason that i believe that is that if we can come up with a credible way to reduce the growth of the illegal present population. first we establish credibility with the american people but stabilize the problem that we need to go back and systematically address and when we go about doing that it will put people out of their comfort zone on both sides of the aisle but we have to be realistic about immigration reform that doesn't embrace either of the extremes of the points of view that are out there right now. and i think you do it in an interim fashion. the biggest problem is people think one single legislative matter will solve the illegal immigration problem in this country but there is a very long, well-documented bipartisan history of failure when they've

tried to do that. so now i think we need to do it in a more systematic way. start with sealing the border and then look at the present population and determine how you come to some sort of closure on it. it is not going to be done in a bill or in a year. but i think you can map out a strategy and then start explaining to the american people, my supporters and detractors how you go about doing it. but first and foremost you take the issue out if you draw up the security issue by securing the border and not necessarily through just sealing the southern border, but i think it is through mexico and sealing the border. 80% of the people coming across the border are not from mexico. that should give you creative thinking about how you go about sealing it and then once you do that, you build on the credibility of the population that is here. >> so i'm going to does one more

question so you can think about how you might jump in and that is reflecting back on your campaign which was remarkable, not only your success but you know this and i don't know if anyone else does, the most expensive senate campaign in history. my understanding is about 115 dollars to $120 million. so we have a lot riding on you. you are a heavily invested individual. >> well two thirds of it was riding on the other individual. >> fair point. >> i'm sorry. >> of the overall resources, i think $90 million of the $120 million came from resources and coming from money and speech and the limitations, any thoughts? assuming you are doing this

again in six years, how you can improve upon the system? >> i -- i think that -- that third party money is a reality. i do think there is something to be said for some level of increased transparency and disclosure. i know that gets people nervous on both sides. i was having this discussion with senator white house last week. but in a strange way, the fact that $80 million of the $115 was against me ultimately worked against my opponent and i think that people absolutely got burnt out. i woke up on wednesday morning the day after the election and i got misty-eyed when i saw a toothpaste commercial. because, i mean, for a year the first negative attack ad run

against me was in thanksgiving in 2013. $7.5 million by third parties on the other side of the aisle before the primary. but i think it is a reality. i think we ought to do probably more to disclose the sources. but i'm not one who says it all needs to be shut down. i think the supreme court has spoken. and now you figure out how through disclosure the way they go about communicating things because there is some ugly stuff out there. and there were things done by third parties who were supporting us that i was uncomfortable with. but i do believe that at the end of the day north carolina is a microcosm of the u.s. electorate. it is a center right state, center left state depending on the issue. i think that the unaffiliated

which are the growing segment of the voting population get turned off by that so the third parties who use it as a tool might find, as in north carolina, may work against them. >> and we have about 15 minutes. and we have shy audiences here and raise your hand and we have a few microphones coming around and we have one here and one here and there is a mic. >> good afternoon. patrick wilson for the babcock and wilcox company. good to see you senator. one of the questions that the president got today, i'll pitch to you because it is topical and timely. what do we do about tax reform. i know you talked about this during the campaign and given what you said about the regulatory burden on american business certainly having businesses burdened by the highest tax percentage making it

hard to sell, i'm wondering what you think about this? >> i think the challenge here are two very different perspectives on tax reform between the president and the current leadership of the congress. we did tax reform in north carolina, not in our first term but in the second term. we simplified it. we went from 44th to 16th. a lot of that was through sim simplification, and it is not just changing the way the tax code works and i think people think there is a reduction in the tax burden, what i've heard from the president, i've not read his budget proposal sounds more -- as much focused on how to derive more revenue from a economy that needs to have more money moving throughsector. that is why i feel strongly we

need to work more on policies that can improve economic activity and then make tax reform an easier thing to deal with. never going to be simple. as i told everybody in north carolina. everybody is for tax reform and broadening the base and lowering the rate. except for everyone wanting that one exception that is righteous for the sector they happen to represent. it is almost impossible to do without bipartisan support or supermajorities and both people in charge of both ends of the street. i think sweeping tax reform this year, i'm not speaking for the leadership, i've not had a discussion with them but it seems unlikely to me because of those challenges and because the president is coming at this from a very different perspective

that lazes revenue -- raises revenue. and i still believe we have a debt to deal with. and if we reduce revenue, we have to come up with a way to retire the debt. so even if you reduce spending, it raises a question of how much of that would reduce into a reduced tax burden. we have to spend time figuring that out and we have to find out if we have similar philosophies in the house and the senate and then the caucus to get it through. and the other problem you have is a political one. the tax reform to me is something that has to be implemented at least a year before an election. the reason for that, when we did a tax reform, we have a 6, 7 and 7.5 personal income tax in north

carolina and we simplified it and brought it down to 5.75 and lowered the tax sales by a penny if you look at the base. and we knew if we implemented that into a tax year people wouldn't believe you would have not had a reduced tax burden and exposing taxes. and people saw that their with holding was lower or the refund was larger. and you can't implement something in january of this year or july of next year and go through a cycle where the american people would absolutely be able to see that it benefited them. so you have to work on timing as well. >> another question in the back. and the mic is being run to you. hence the work mic-runner.

>> i'm joann lynn from the center or elder care and you are on the senate committee of elder care. we face elder care, one of the biggest in the country and north carolina has interesting experiments with elder care and pharmacy and on the other hand our dependence on families is becoming thin as families are smaller and more disbursed and poorer. so what are your services for your committee of aging. >> i'm excited to be on the committee and excited to follow the lead of senator collins as the chair. i have not spent a lot of time talking.

we had our first committee meeting last week. the fastest meeting i've had. we talked about some things and got back to votes. i think we can provide more resources. i, for one have a personal interest in alzheimer's and dementia because i personally experienced that and i went back and took some courses on it to become a better care giver for my grandmother who was diagnosed at a relatively young age. but investing in research so things that are providing the cost to care for elders higher than it should be is something i'm more interested in in finding out how wages get into that. and i think when you discuss entitlement reforms and i had a lady come up to me in western

north carolina and they said i couldn't support you because you are going to end medicare and i said well ma'am, i talked to my mom about it and she said i couldn't do it. and i think a part of what we need to do is realize there is a promise out there and it goes back to the discussion on mention reform -- pension reform and other things, how do you fulfill the promise you made and give the next generation of people more time to deal with a new more sustainable model. and more reasonable people, if you communicated -- i'm 54. so i would be part of that group that may have to look at medicare and social security a little bit differently than people in four or five years away for possibly qualifying for one program or another. but i think we have to look at that so that first we can reduce

the fear among the seniors population and there are people out there because of the third party money being spent that think it will be taken away and i think we have to go and tackle that and there are a number of other committees that would fall under that jurisdiction but i do think that entitlement reform is something we should look at because there are some things we can't keep at current form and speed and seniors view it as critical to their lives and i look forward to looking into it -- the committee, i guess. >> a couple of more questions on this side. >> thank you. ramon buehler from the madison coalition. i believe you may be unique and correct me if i'm wrong. you may be the only former speaker of the house who was just elected to the senate and

that gives you unique perspective. and i wonder what you think of the idea that sometimes bipartisan cooperation is easier to achieve is a mong speakers and senate presidents of different states than it is among members of the house and senate in washington and that you talked about this problem of regulatory reform two to one voters don't like what they see. what do you think of the idea that in the same way that states got congress to propose the bill of rights to limit federal power, that states could do what five state legislative chambers have already done, which is to urge congress to propose the regulation freedom amendment that require that congress approve major federal regulation

instead of them being decided by bureaucratics from washington. >> i think we're trying to be consistent with what we did in north carolina. when we came in the first pass of regulatory reform was to require a business case for regulation whether it is taxpayer cost or cost for an industry to be commensurate, whether it is workplace benefits or whatever it is, and in many cases it has to be developed and there has to be a talk with the legislation in nb so it is consistent with what you are talking about. and i think that until that could potentially be put into place at the federal level you can kind of use that as a way to go back to fair thinking members

and say let's talk about how these regulations are affecting your state yu constituents for no great gain and use that for bipartisan support to repeal the regulations that have simply gone too far. but it was worked in north carolina. i don't believe it is any coincidence over the last four years that north carolina's economy is ahead of south carolina on unemployment. i think it was through the systematic approach that we've used for responsible regulatory reform. and it is not just clawing it all back. it is in a reasonable formation. we are the first to tackle coal ash and putting forth the regulatory framework to do it. and we got the investor owned

utilities and other power companies and we balanced the regulations and there were people that were concerned because we had the coal ash bill on the dan river that we would just overreach and i refused to let that happen and we've used the same framework to solve the same pressure from certain special interest groups and we got to a good policy and i believe that regulatory policy will be adopted by other states. >> a question right here. >> senator i was curious about your views on [ inaudible ]. last year we asked the government for some documents and they said no to foyer the documents and then the

government said now you have to pay for them and they said you said we have to foyer them. and this doesn't make any sense, especially for for the pressure you have to put on us. what can be done for the transparency of documents for the business industry? >> i think we have to do a lot. but we have to be mindful out there that there are people out there who abuse these requests as well. and so you have balance -- it is very difficult to do. we dealt with this in north carolina. after i became speaker we had -- or we had document requests for just an unbelievable number of areas that we had little or nothing to do with. so they seem like they were part of a chess game being made versus a legitimate request for

transparency. what sort of oversight or maybe even independent review of requests to try and -- try and get to what the motives are. and then if somebody wants the documents, get it to them but there may have to be a cost. a lot of times legitimate questions that may be very reeling get clogged up in all of the other ones going through the cycle. i don't have an answer for it and i do think it is a problem and even congress can't do the documents they can. i was just watching cspan and saw a house member complaining about getting documents that they want. so i think it is important to get documents that they can't get. >> and the final question right over here.

and the senator will be in town for the next six years. >> my name is michelle demauer. i'm from the u.k. embassy. and so we appreciate your sweet potatoes in the u.k. and i wanted to ask you about your trade reviews and the trans-pacific partnership and the european views. >> i think the tpa i think the president mentioning that got more of a reaction from our side of the room than anything. i think the tpp trade is important, particularly for agriculture. the world likes american

products. i think it is the safest things they can have. i think they plan to grow the agriculture from $120 if we were able to have access to other markets and i would support the tpa. >> so i want to thank all of you for joining us. i think you have a sense that we have a new senator in this town that is eloquent and substantive. usually you can get one or the other. it is nice when you have it in one package. >> can i share one thing. my bias when it comes to regulatory reform. this is when i was a minority whip around 2010, and i was having a discussion because i really do believe that you can get regulations to a point where

you preserve the environment and keep the workplace safe. we want to. and i hope there is no republican or democrat here to destroy the environment or don't want their children to drink clean water. and i was having a discussion with someone at a star buck's in my district and we talked about certain regulations where you should let businesses opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure through advertising or whatever that there are a level of regulations pain on the books but maybe you can make a market-based decision that maybe they apply to you. and at that time we were sitting

near the restrooms and she came out and said for example, don't you believe that this gentleman should have to wash his hands before he goes back to work. i don't have any problem with any signs saying we don't wash our hands after we leave the restroom the market will regulate that. and that is the sort of mentality we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country. we are one of the most regulated nations on the history of the planet. and if we go about it in that

way, it makes some of the problems easier to solve. >> well i'm not sure i'm going to shake you hand. i do want to express our appreciation toward senator tillis today. thank you. [ applause ] . and a reminder if you missed any of this event you can see it in our video line at cspan.org. and more live coverage coming up here on cspan3. the house rules committee is meeting to discuss procedures for a bill that comes for the repeal of the president's health care law. that responsored by -- sponsored

by bradley byrne of wisconsin. we'll bring you that meeting of the rules committee starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on cspan3. and president obama released his 2016 budget request this year. the republican post writing that it features an ambitious public works program and a profit kept overseas and tax credits for middle class americans and a 1.6% pay raise for troops and for what the president calls middle class economics and republicans call it a design to forth a new spending year. and we've linked this owlall on

cspan.org. the political landscape has changed with the 114th new congress. not only are senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle payable has voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span 2 c-span radio and c-span.org. the u.s. commission on civil rights hosted a series of panels to examine immigration facilities. in the next panel officials from several federal agencies discussed how centers are created and ultimately maintain. the agencies represented were homeland security customs and

border control, immigration and customs enforcement and health and human services. >> going to call the meeting to order. good morning everyone. welcome. i'm chairman marty castro on u.s. commission on civil rights. i really would like to welcome everyone with us today those testifying members of the audience as well as those joining us via audio link as well as first time ever live streaming by the commission of a hearing or briefing on one of our civil rights topics. this is an effort by us to make our work more transparent and open to the public. we hope to continue to grow how we use technology to allow americans across the nation or anywhere else they might be in the world to access us using technology skills and capabilities. today we are going to be conducting a briefing on the state of civil rights at

immigration detention centers as well as the condition of the border children who arrived this summer at our borders. today i'm being joined by commission vice chair and new vice chair patricia tim ons goodson as well as commissioners nar saki heriot, yaki. commissioner joining us by phone. the purpose of the hearingish as i indicated, is going to be to examine equal protection concerns we have raised with department of homeland security and immigration customs and enforcement over treatment of adult and minor detainees in representative detention centers across the country held under federal law. experts you'll see at the course of this briefing are going to talk to us about both the issues that they face from the government perspective as well as ngo perspective and other activists and individuals who have information to share with us on this important topic.

from a personal perspective i want to once again reiterate a thanks to all of my colleagues for approving this hearing. this is an issue that's been important not only to me but to the commission. the commission has looked at the issue of immigration for many years starting in 1980 with our seminal report on tarnished golden door. again in 2003, we looked at civil rights of migrant communities. in addition state advisory communities also looked at this topic. we have been committed to ensuring all individuals in this country including immigrants documented and undocumented have their rights enforced and due process concerns addressed. under my chairmanship, i'm proud and pleased to say this is not the first time we've addressed the issue of civil rights and immigration. we went down to alabama for the first time a field hearing in many years to bring forward those individuals who were in favor of as well as opposed to,

the state enforcement laws that were sb 1070 types from alabama from south carolina georgia, utah, and were able to talk not only to advocates but individuals proposing these laws and dig deep down and find issues and implications these laws had. discrimination, on hate crimes, on bullying and lack of access to educational opportunities for immigrants. that report will be coming out this fiscal year. we also wrote to the president and director of homeland security on the occasion of the border children, the refugee children coming this summer stressing our concerns not only about the due process that should be afforded to these children but also based on allegations and reports and complaints such as this justice center national immigrant justice center and aclu and others detailing allegations of sexual and physical abuse of these children. in addition, when president

obama announced deferred action, executive action jordan commended him for this action. that will certainly affect civil rights not only of immigrant families but mixed families of immigrants and u.s. citizens. finally our state advisories remain active. illinois state advisory issued a report in december on the implications of comprehensive immigration reform to immigrant communities in illinois. so this hearing today is extremely important in the history of our commitment to examining issues of civil rights and immigration. as the son and grandson of mexican immigrant, this is a particular important topic to me. while the individuals who are in custody and detention are as diverse as the world, parts of the world in which they come it is clear many of them, majority are latinos. as first latino chair of the commission on civil rights i feel a personal commitment to look at this issue.

it is broader than that. as a nation built on immigrants, every one of us is a few generations away from a family member who came somewhere else. we have a commitment to freedom and liberty. we have to ensure when individuals are in our care and custody, the best of our ability as a nation we have to ensure civil rights and civil liberties are enforced. we can't allow this to be outsourced. we do know there's opportunities when our prison system contracted out to private entities that does not allow our government or people to outsource and contract out our commitment to civil rights. today we're going to look closely at that issue as well. ultimately this is an issue that affects all americans. and so as we proceed today, i want to thank those of you who are participating today. we want to a robust issue. we also want to be mindful of

opportunities where we can explore innovation. we want to ultimately prevent to commission and congress a report we gather here today to recommend to president and congress how we can better improve opportunities to care for those individuals in our care and custody. we do not want to see more people being held in solitary confinement. we don't want to see further reports of abuse and trauma some children ald occurred to them. today we want to find out from you what is being done to address those in the future so that a year from now the system that we have in place is better and stronger and fairer as a result of the work of this commission in collaboration with each and every one of your agencies and organizations. with that said, i'm going to allow one of our commissioners to make a disclaimer of her participation here and then i'll go through housekeeping how they

occur. commissioner nar saki. >> i applaud for suggesting briefing on civil rights at immigration facilities. this is an extremely important and timely topic particularly in light of the plans of some in congress to continue to mandate a detention bed quota and detention bed expansion of families with children. last year's temporary but dramatic flow of unaccompanied minors from central america fleeing harm and seeking asylum in the u.s. splits the need for government agencies to be extremely thoughtful about how is detained and how we can better employ alternatives to detention particularly when women, children and families are involved. it also added government doing everything they can to oversee detention facilities so

conditions of detention are consistent with international human rights standards federal and state laws and our highest values of compassion as americans. i would like to thank everyone who will be testifying today as well as those who are planning to submit written testimony through the commission's website. i would like to hang the staff for their excellent preparation of today's hearing. even though i can't ask questions, i did read everything. unfortunately because of federal rules i have to recuse myself from today's hearing because of my relatively recent work on behalf of civil rights, human rights and immigrant rights group working to limit immigration detention. prior to becoming a commissioner last july when i was appointed by president obama. while i can't ask questions, i do look forward to hearing everyone's testimony about such a great issue facing our nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you commissioner. today's briefing is going to

feature 14 distinguished speakers. they are going to provide points of view on this topic. we've asked each speaker to allow us to break it up into panels. federal one consist of agencies. guidelines and standards will be reviewed there in terms of care provided to the detainees. panel two is going to consist of private detention facilities invoke questions of standards of care there. panel three will touch on legal challenges associated with immigration detention facilities and panel four will conclude with civil rights associated with immigration detention centers. during the briefing each panelist will have seven minutes to speak. after panelists make their presentations, commissioner will have an opportunity to ask questions. in order to maximize the amount of time we ask everyone to be as brief as possible including my fellow commissioners. you're going to notice speakers there's a system of warning lights here. when the light