it's very simple. cause of weight loss more than two pounds per week, weight loss the matter how much you eat, permanent weight loss, busting you look at those seven and you spend time on your show telling people these are the seven things you should know, there is not magic inamed wattle -- magic in a bottle. root thatof magic will make it not matter you are not moving in eating a lot of sugar and carbohydrates. do you disagree with any of the seven? crocs senator, i know the seven. i say those things on the show all the time. >> then why would you say something is a miracle in a bottle? >> my job on the show is to be a cheerleader. when they don't feel they can have it happen, i want to look

-- and i look everywhere, for any evidence that might be supportive. with the amount of information, i am comfortable telling folks that if you can buy a reputable version of it -- i don't sell it, and these are not for long-term use. it is one pound over the duration of the different trials. that was the amount of weight loss by the hundred or so folks on the show that came on. they got fake pills and we gave real pills to the other half. if you can lose a pound a week more than you would have lost doing the things you should have done already, you can sprinkle it on kielbasa and expected to work. but if you get a few pounds off, a jumpstart you and gives you confidence. and then you follow the things we talk about. i think it makes sense. >> i'm willing to give time to

my colleagues. , i know you feel you are a victim. onduct invitesc being a victim. mentionedopics you are over two years old. i have not been talking about products and that way for two years. it is not changed at all what i'm seeing on the internet. frankly, it is getting worse. i heed your commentary. i realize, to my cotton dust my colleagues at the fda, i have made their job more difficult. but taking away the words doesn't change the problem. >>

i asked the students who you were. be really clear. do believe there is a miracle pill out there? isthere's not a pill that going to help you long, lose weight, and lose the bet does live the best life without diet and exercise. >> do you believe there's a magic cure? looks -- >> if you are selling something because it is magical, no. if you argue it is going to be like magic, that is a truthful statement. it is true that most people cutting out carbs will loose weight. >> what works for most people? >> i dieted based on real food that comes out of the ground. not processed. with some physical activity. most weight loss is about the food choices you make and keeping your weight low is about physical activity.

>> you do not endorse any products or receive evening money -- any money. >> that is true. >> you worked to stop advertisers from using your names and likeness. you addressed online advertisements. what would you like to see done? >> three ideas. i think the private sector can help by creating a reference registry that are connected -- of celebrities connected to products. dust the list -- the list of scam celebrities go on. that would make it easier for web hosting services. have whistleblower systems workplace safety and

financial services. i think honest employees deserve theynsation and reward if report illegal behaviors. we have to incentivize whistleblowers. the scam artists in san diego, there were people who knew what they were doing was wrong and might have come forward. thirdly, i think we can create a private sector bounty that can help getting bounty hunters effectively on the web to engage and go after some of these folks. the people who are victims of these, myself included, would love to do anything we can to empower habit citizens to shut down scammers. , think it might be worthwhile a bounty system funded by the private sector. we are not looking for new laws or government funding. >> what is your organization doing to stop these third parties from placing ads on websites? again, as i pointed out, our

companies are deeply incentivize to make sure these ads offer platforms. i think having user trust in the advertisements is imperative to making sure the internet economy, the vibrant advertising system survives. veryompanies have sophisticated automated filtering systems that look for this kind of stuff. when we do find these kinds of ads, they are automatically removed. even from our system. in most cases, long before they are seen by users. at the same time, as we are notified and seabed as on our bad ads onand see

our platform, they are removed. >> senator rick crooks think you very much. -- >> senator. >> thank you very much. 's actionsthe ftc against green copy marketers, green coffee is still a product in the top 20 selling. ie rest are currently -- understand was featured on your show, dr. oz. it was also highlighted as a scam consumers. when it was on your show, did you talk about the side effects are you about this. he said it was years ago. you are not making these claims anymore. did you talk about the side effects then? did the deceptive act assist

change how you have conducted your show? >> i wrote transcripts of these difference joe's -- i brought to transcripts of these different shows. we would have an expert who spend their life dealing with dietary supplements talk about the products. they review pluses and minuses. i rip -- leafed through a few of these scripts. example, i don't sell the stuff. i will not mention any brand. , becausehat up elsewhere in the segment, i talked specifically about the fact that if you don't exercise any diet -- exercise and diet, it is not going to work. it is just a pill. together with the normal

things we tell you to do, healthy lifestyle, etc. -- toiggest service services not the flowery language. it is that i never told them where to go to buy the products. i wanted to stay above the fray. i felt in my own mind that if i talked about specific duties --ling high-quality products specific company selling it wouldity products, be as if i was endorsing them. so that open up a market for people to use my name to sell. if i call it a miracle -- it is not a miracle that will work for everybody -- but it is miraculous. if i had told him coming up -- uy these four b

companies -- >> what stopped you? >> a doctor shouldn't sell products. you wouldn't trust me if you said to take your own version of a cream. in the internet age, taking a bricks and mortar approach does not work. i should have been savvy enough company's i are the trust. go buy their products. they are not going to scam you or make you giggle claims. if -- illegal claims. what i said,anges it is like what i said. it hurts me. this is a huge problem for me. >> as someone who has seen the ads, they are very seductive

when you are looking through things and trying to figure out what a good diet plan is. you will have two choices. either you don't talk about these things at all that are going to be susceptible to this kind of scam, or you going to have to be more specific. you are not the only celebrity that has had this happen to them. i would go back to you on this. whether or not you think you have enough resources to go after this. the idea that you should just be focused on fly-by-night, or what do we need to do to get a handle on this? does put a lot of our weight-loss fraud enforcement efforts. we pursue both fly-by-night and more savage companies. i mentioned was pretty much a fly-by-night company. we also pursued 11 different companies that were selling acai

berry products. over thenet -- internet. we look across the board. there are a lot of players in this space. time intensivee to investigate. we look at the studies out there and hire experts. defendants will hire experts. we don't -- we want to be sure where the science is. we don't want to challenge something as false or misleading. intensive.re time it we are trying to bring as many of them as possible and it's much money back for consumers as possible. get as much money back for consumers. >> i know we have had some votes on this and discussed this in congress. >> i certainly can't speak for

the fda. i understand they have their the case ofith, in dietary supplements, with adulterated products. they take a number of products against weight loss process -- products that contain prescription drugs. >> do we need a bigger approach than just a celebrity list? people are relying on false claims that are not true. thet would be helpful -- approach taken by the truth in ads.org organization is helpful. if the media could do a better job of screening that these false claims -- we are helpful toy were work with us disseminate that. that can help illuminate some of these ads from running. >> thank you. engle, i know you have

taken a lot of actions against various companies. some of them a fly-by-night. what about the media outlets that run these ads? you all have never gone there. talk about that. is that an approach you have considered? when that you have authority to do? if you have a media outlet that is particularly using a lot of fraudulent, but they are not bringing them out, why no enforcement action? >> the media enjoys first amendment protections. there are those issues if we were to attempt to sue a media company for running a deceptive ad. acts does of the ftc give us authority to pursue any entity that pursuit -- disseminating false or misleading ad.

thought it really would make more sense to work with the media voluntarily among this gutly, issuing -- we call that red flags. we have renamed it. we have had -- we had good success at that time getting them to stop running ads seven falsehese claims. it makes more sense to work voluntarily with the media. said someyou have media have done a sophisticated job screening and some have not. who is doing a good job and who is doing a bad job? >> and largely varies by the size of the media. the national bad cast -- broadcast media have had rigorous at screening programs. you would not have the types of

ads you have seen today on the national advertising part of the media. the interesting thing is those national broadcasting companies own a lot of the cable stations that these ads are appearing on. same ownership. >> in the screening that is done for the affiliates and the cable channels very -- vary. when you get down to smaller media, and radio is a good example, a local media. the advertising staffs are small. that is where something like what the ftc has done with the seven claims, even an ad buyer and a small media could just sit and look at the seven claims and say, yes for this. no for that. claim that you will never have to diet again or you can eat all you want and take this pill, those claims we still see.

they should not be getting on the media. >> satellite radio is not local. they are all over satellite radio. >> there have been a number of changes in the technology that the industry needs to catch up with, you are right. >> you didn't want to say satellite radio, you waited for me to say it. i do think there's a problem there. if there are two things to look at in media screening. one is the traditional type of media screening that the broadcast networks do. the second is the program mr. haraldson talked about. trying to translate that to the new media. onking at face claims algorithmic basis. that is an area that has a lot of promise for real progress.

talk about the fly-by-night's. aftereasier to go companies that you can find that have the liens and are actually manufacturing something -- that have buildings and are actually manufacturing something. that is one of our conundrums in consumer election -- protection. so many hearings we have had, finding the po box or ip address and taking action against those responsible is, located in this world. is complicated in this world. ptolemy about what kind of resources you may need or do not have to do a better job. works you are absolutely right. when you see an ad on the

internet, for us, the first thing is to figure out who is he hiding the. it is not actually easy to do. what we are seeing a lot nowadays is some company will be working with a number of affiliate markers through -- marketers through an affiliate network. there are a host of companies that are placed in the little ads you see. when the consumer clicks on it, one weird old trick to lose weight, the consumer clicks on thatd buys the product, affiliate gets paid. but that is not the company selling the product. another is behind the product. that requires us to send out alterable rounds of subpoenas to web posters and networks to figure out who is behind this. acaiis what we did in the berry sweet.

it takes resources. can subpoena this information. it is time-consuming. >> what about the marketers. the middleman. have you gone after the middleman? the ones who are the affiliates you talk about that are the ones that are moving these ads around they are a conduit to the actual product company that is behind the curtain? have you taken action against those folks that are actually placing the secret to get rid of your belly fat? ask we have -- >> we have. we have on after large affiliates. one of the issues is, when we in, big the company is. we have gone after every player in the ecosystem. frauds, the system

with 100 offices gets about one million complaints. service we you can go and check and see what kind of complaints they are getting. as a set of my testimony, very -- as i said in my testimony, very often these are refundnied by bad policies and refund -- shipping policies. to, befores will go website, it the bbb will help. it will help protect them. >> thank you. le, i want to know more about your orders. now barring

defendants from making claims unless they have at least two adequate and well controlled human studies. is that adequate accurate -- is that accurate? are thethe requirements companies have too well controlled studies going forward. >> agency is trying to apply that elsewhere. even though there are current determiningbout whether evidence exists -- the question is whether you are applying this new standard elsewhere. is there a conflict in some of the regulations you are trying to enforce? >> i don't see any conflict. the basic law is companies must have a reasonable basis for the advertising claims they make at the time they make those claims.

what constitutes a reasonable basis will depend on the product and the claim. promisedse of rx that health benefits, the commission has required competent and scientific evidence. what constitutes this will vary depending on the claims. the claim that a product will prevent cancer or treat cancer will require a higher level of evidence than a claim that it will smooth dry skin. it in the case of weight loss products, aced on the factors we consider and consultation with thatts, we have determined randomized controlled clinical studies are needed to substantiate a claim that a given product will cause weight loss. required twon has of the studies in its orders. i'm not saying if a company came to us with one good study on claim is notthat

substantiated. once we have determined they have made unsubstantiated claims , we have put in a requirement that going forward they should have two studies. these kinds of studies for weight loss do not knew deep -- do not need to be particularly expensive relative to the amount of money that can be made for these products. fraud we havel of seen in this area, it is important to have the extra assurance of a second study to thise this is a result -- is a real result and was not due to a fluke or something like that. your dietary about supplement guidelines. we have not revised that. or repudiated some of those guidelines. even though there are parts of those guidelines that appear to be inconsistent.

you see it that way? >> i do not see a conflict. the dietary supplement guidelines are written to cover the full range of supplements that may be offered in the full range of claims. the guidance is written more broadly. again, in the context of a specific case and investigation, we know what claims were made for them and what the ingredients are. then we have a record on which order requirements going forward. >> any intentions of modifying those guidelines? >> there has been discussion of looking at them. they are 13 years old now. need to behey freshened up. again, i don't think there's a conflict between what they say and what we are doing in our orders. >> senator? >> thank you. i want to talk to a little about

the work you are doing. i was looking at my twitter account. i canny cups of coffee drink to lose two pounds. that was good various other things. fat melting and other things. i understand your member adpanies permanently suspend accounts if the violation of the ad policy is high. what does that mean? how many accounts have been suspended? are there temporary suspensions? >> every company has different approaches and policies in place. however, it depends on the severity of the violation. or if there are multiple violations. there are options where member companies may, for example, work with the advertiser to fix the ad and make sure it is in compliance.

there is an option to remove those ads. the third option, for egregious violations, is to suspend the advertiser account. enough, some of the sophisticated scammers will immediately try to open new accounts. try to push their ads through the filtering systems. it becomes a little bit of a cat and mouse game. >> when you say it is easier to target vulnerable populations through online advertising, you think more online companies are going to be -- sometimes they think it is a personal message to them. often just from people. attract types of scams the largest constituencies. be it weight loss, hair loss, whatever you -- whatever. we are seeing these types of ads across the board. both in print media and online.

the protection of data? more and more, we are using data of course, things -- people are getting all their data collected through this. i think it is a pretty interesting way to use self-motivation to get yourself to exercise and other things. protectinges consumer data to make sure it does not fall into the hands of scammers? what is going on in that front? if itm not familiar with bit collects the data on your wrist. can you repeat a question? >> the question is about more and more the data going online. people injuring things in. in.ntering things has there been an effort to protect the data?

knowledge, imy don't believe our member numbers -- companies are collecting dirt party data. but i am happy -- >> another issue is the pop-up ad you get when you start using products. some of them are collecting in formation. there is a fairly broad coalition called the digital advertising alliance looking at the question of collection of data across sites. doing some pretty significant pioneering work. the organization was formed at the request of the federal trade commission to look at those issues. you areific issue talking about is one of the

things still under development. that is a fairly tricky issue to get everybody in the industry on board with. that is an organization has been formed, working effectively and looking at those issues. all thepicking about new money spent on these products. people desperately looking at ways to lose weight. but obesity has more than doubled leading to health care challenges for our country. we know some of the diets are legitimate and will researched. some are not. al we saw at time, leveling out for kids. with the work of the first lady and the school lunch programs, which we should not be rolling back -- that is another topic -- what do you

think we should be doing to get people being able to spend their money on what works and what does not? we have to admit we have a major problem when people are spending more money and gaining more and more weight. -- the is precisely advertisers that sell and market products that do work. -- sells that ms. clement sells fitness equipment. it is clear you have a dedicated regime and stick with it. they lose their sales to these fraudulent products because people say, why would i exercise for 45 minutes if i can just take a pill? >> your answer would be to be more intense about going after the fraudulent. that is what i keep going back to. the fda. getting some of them off the

market. >> there is a big role that the types of self-regulatory programs that the table is can supplement the resources the government has. we see a lot of cases where we contact the advertiser and may change the claim. >> if it would be possible for me to add, one of the things that makes it difficult is it is not illegal to sell the products. it becomes illegal when you're selling it under false claims. for our companies, some of these claims are fraudulent -- in makes it difficult to substantiate the good advertisers versus the bad advertisers.

because of the sophistication in some of the scammers in the language they're using anyways they are trying to circumvent adssystems to get their served online. >> we need more standards and resources. we appreciate your efforts. thank you. >> summoner blumenthal -- senator blumenthal. question to pursue a that the senator raised. i understand it is not your policy to support any particular brand and you feel that perhaps is a mistake. i am wondering if you would consider creating a master list of brands that would be helpful to consumers? because you have the immense power of your voice and credibility that would be helpful to consumers if you created such a master list of

and areou feel do work helpful? >> i would love to do that. i have been speaking to people who i trust in the industry about how to go about it. my best estimate is 80% of the products made by 20% of the companies are high quality, reputable products made by people who do their homework. they are audited in many different ways. 20% of the products are made by a lot of the companies who really aren't that good. they are fly-by-night. he quality issues are a major concern. the po box example is a good example. i busted these folks in san diego and went to their list to address, it is a po box. you could never find anybody. i have been actively looking at that. -- i think ion will do it. it will do a lot to drain the

swamp that we have created around this area. >> i would encourage you to do it. drain the swap is very important. draining the swamp is very important. as many of you know, i get a lot of work in this area. a --ere is any area wears where consumers are most susceptible to multiple, i think it is this one. their hopes are so high. their needs often are so great. i think that would be a welcome development. i introduced a measure called supplement labeling act, along with senator durbin, last august. this bill would require dietary supplement manufacturers to register their products with the fda and disclose the known risks of their ingredients on a product label.

i think this kind of measure is crucial to providing information to consumers regarding dietary supplements. help the fda identify potential health concerns. list of celebrity endorsements might be helpful to identify violators. this bill would create a master list of supplements. similar to that one, which could help consumers understand the risks. what are your thoughts on that legislation? place tok it is a wise invest resources. some of these supplements, especially the ones that are signatory supplements, raise concerns. they are often adulterated, even though they claim they are not working in that way. an amphetamine type product, it will work for weight loss, but the side effects are too great for us to tolerate as a population. >> that type of weight loss may

be unhelpful. it was proven to be unhelpful, fda has pullede those products. we have hadng to -- very few for many years. as we get better prescription products that will be effective, more medicine will turn in that direction. thebct means we know -- basic techniques we know work, people don't want to go that far. even though if you are 100 pounds overweight at age 50, you have the same mortality rate as cancer. these are desperate problems with people looking for solutions. i support they need to look at whether the products are safe or not. the equatione of is trying to give people ideas to jumpstart their way back. le, with the fda find

that list helpful? >> the commission itself has not taken a position on the legislation. speaking for myself, i could get could be helpful. providing consumers with useful information. >> thank you. thank you all for being here and for your great work. >> i just want to briefly follow-up. i don't know if anyone else has another follow-up. that we havedr. oz covered a lot of ground this morning. a significant part of that was your language you have used in association with some of these products on your show. the shows were a couple of years ago. you, iteks ago, i quote literally flushes fat from your system. every time you cheat on your

diet, i want you to grab one of these pills. this tablet can push a lot of fat out of your billy -- b elly. people want to believe they can toe a pill out of your -- lose weight. it seems to me if you had said, i want you to take a walk. that would eliminate the problem that is at the root of the hearing. your credibility is being andgned by fraudsters frankly, being threatened by a notion that anybody can take a small pill to flush fat out of their system. called a product of lightning in a bottle. a miracle flower to fight that. that was in january.

i know you know how much power you have. i know you know that. you are very powerful. power comes with responsibility. i know you take it seriously and i know you care about your listening audience and viewing audience. i know you care about america's health. you are being made an example of today because of the power you have in this space. we can call this hearing to beat up on you. we did call this hearing to talk about a real crisis and consumer protection. you can either be part of the police here are part of the problem. we are hopeful you will do a better job at being part of the solution. >> i came here because i want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. you mentioned a supplement that is a fiber. when takent fiber, correctly, has been an effective tool for weight loss.

your comments about the language i used are well heard. i appreciate it. i hosted a daytime television show where i fill a need to bring passion to people's lies about what they can do. i am very respectful that when it is used as a way of defrauding people, it is harmful. i appreciate the words about the power i have. i am second guessing every word i use on the show now. this product is used by my family. i do think it is important. i think if you cheat, it is worth including some fiber. that is why we tell people to eat vegetables. i have things that i think work for people and i want them to try it to read to help them feel better so they can do other things we spend every day on the show talking about. host of al, as the

show, that i can't use words that are flowery or exalted ltatory, i feel disenfranchised. you don't want to be on a pulpit talking how passionate you are and thinking, if i use that word, it will be voted back to me. i am very respectful. i have heard the message. i have told my colleagues, i get it. >> i want to see that passionate theflowering us about beauty of a walk at sunset. >> touché. tono one is telling you not use passion. passion in connection with the word miracle pill and weight loss is a recipe for disaster in this environment. in terms of people who are looking for an easy fix. sometimes getting delusional about whether or not an easy fix

is going to be there for them. i appreciate everybody being there. does anybody have anything else? experience the failing that anywhere that can be taken out of context -- at the same being a addition to celebrity, you are a doctor. i believe doctors have the duty, as we believe we have, to give them the best evidence. when thing is -- things are being taken out of context, and you admitted making mistakes, you have a duty to correct that record. you can use your knowledge and celebrity status to do good things. right now, it seems like we are going the opposite direction to read >> senator, i can, i don't want to rehash this. how did a whole show about the extract was not the correct

way to do it. i brought audience members into not.whether it worked or it has no impact. the things i have said continue to be used as weapons against the public to record a continual debunking of this is helpful. the emphasis on what works best, will -- you know better than us. >> thank you, dr. oz. if you ever need anyone to fill in, i known to call. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the head of general motors will talk about the company's investigation of the ignition switch problems and subsequent recalls. this week, the detroit-based automaker announced the recall of an additional 3 million cars, you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. tomorrow on c-span3. day, foreign affairs panels will investigate the pentagon decision to exchange guantanamo detainees for bowe bergdahl. that is also one c-span3. the faces of the book is there is a whole group of people being leftthat is

behind. not included in the discussion. particularly, the republicans. i call them blue-collar conservatives. that are working people. --hout working degrees college degrees. they understand the importance of work and responsibility. the importance of family and faith and believe in freedom and limited government. arethink, those conservative republican voters. in many cases, they are not. a lot of them are not voting at all. they don't see either party talking to them about the concerns they have tried to create an opportunity to live the american dream. former presidential candidate

rick santorum argues working americans have been abandoned by both local parties and offers conservative answers to their problems, saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of book tv. a new historying of the great depression. book tv. television for serious readers. menow democratic commerce republicanman and candidate out laying there for from the national press club, this is one hour. >> hi, everybody. welcome to the national press club. where news is made. i am bob wiener, the event were

nader -- coordinator for the news conference by two national leaders on the federal budget teacher. -- future. our speakers will discuss priorities and methods to achieve them. they will cover areas the budget should attend to. the usefulness and future of shutdowns and sequestration. a projected timeline. all in one hour. we think they will indeed make news by telling us what they think will happen and when. what they think will not happen, namely, will we have more shutdowns that close major portions of the government. and more sequestration that slices programs across the board without privatization? how does this process work. maybe they can tell the american people, who have seen what to them looks like chaos.

and will it be improved in the near future? that is a lot to cover in one hour. he was elected to congress in 2002 and beat some well-known people with big legacies. in addition to representing the eighth district and serving in house leadership, he was reelected by his colleagues. to serve a second term. in this position, he serves as key pointint -- person. the washington post describes 10 as a bona fide budget expert. the l.a. times says he is a bunk that he is among the best minds.

i think a few years ago, he called him a rising star. he was recognized as the best metro area member of congress. and is the best local official. there may be some in congress today who have recently lost elections that will tell you just tell important that local service recognition can be. he also played an integral role in the effort to pass health care reform and fought to make sure young adults receive expanded access. -- anues to lead the fight former professional staff member , and i empathize is a former staffer myself, he has a strong ground in national security

policy. and maybe his interest there comes from the fact he is the son of a foreign service officer. house his election to the he served four years in the maryland house and eight years in the maryland senate. inalso worked as an attorney private practice. he's a graduate of swarthmore college, the john f. kennedy school of kennedy -- government,. he lives in -- u.s. senatoris the from ohio. he was elected in 2010, running a campaign that focuses on conservative ideas. he was born and raised in cincinnati where he lives today with his wife chain -- jane. value ofd early on the hard work and fiscal responsibility. when he was young, his dad, bill portman, oral money to start an

equipment company. his father and brother built the family business from a small dealership with five employees with the mom as a book keeper to one that employed more than 300 people. nice story. he became a lawyer and develop a private practice representing small businesses. in 1993, he was a partner in a cincinnati law firm when he was elected to congress. diversesented the second district. he served 12 years and never received less than 70% of the vote. during his time in congress, he was actively involved in crafting these welfare reform efforts and was an advocate for the balanced budget bill that passed in 1987. ofgain the respect democratic and republican colleagues. through bipartisan initiatives, including measures to add

taxpayer rights and curb unfunded mandates. x band -- expand drug-- prevention. while was the white house drug director of public affairs, we organized an event together in ohio. that's where we met and became friends. now he represents my mama motter, oberlin college. he represents my mater, oberlin college. the u.s. brought successful legal challenges for trade violations. he was asked to serve in another critical catnip post. -- cabinet post. he made his mark as a deficit hawk.

putting in place new transparency measures for all federal spending. he was listed as a vice presidential high prospect in 2008 and 2012. we wonder if he will in 2016. is national press club privileged to have two superstars and their staffs. caitlin done for senator portman for senatorunn portman and others have been helpful. i want to introduce my wife, a george washington medical center. she has a real job, looking for cures for cancer. i also want to thank the also rebecca, if you will raise your hand. she will be carrying the mic to the audience.

that way the media will be -- get the advantages of the questions from the audience. i know that is important to c-span also. i want to thank the national press club's executive director. and the club photographer who does such a special secular -- spectacular job. and ourudio people --v a audio people. let's lead with the senator. >> thanks very much. we have worked together in the past. we consider him an honorary ojai in -- ohioan. he has worked for the republicans and democrats. he has been an advocate for not the current approach to drug abuse and addiction but one that

focuses more on prevention, education, treatment, and recovery. whiles one of the issues, we are not going to talk about directly, something on the discretionary part of the budget that is getting squeezed more and more as we do not deal with the mandatory part. as we are talking about that, keep in mind that is an example like a second chance act we are trying to get reauthorized that is on the discretionary side that is under more budget pressure even though that islly is a program not a top-down washington program and actually saves money because it encourages states and localities to put in place is in keepsntry programs and them out of the revolving door programs. productive lives

where they are taxpayers and taking care of their families. better for communities and taxpayers. an example of the kinds of things we fear are going to be under increasing pressure if we don't do something about the bigger problem in our budget. this is a nice turnout. i would have come thursday. i will to you why. i looked at the website. the description for today is basically, come here two budget walks -- wonks talk. thursday is marion barry is bent -- mary's -- thursday is marion barry's event. only was he caught smoking crack, he has led a controversial career. so i don't know why you're here. but they give for coming. [laughter] maybe the tubas could make this more interesting. we should stick to budget stuff. that is what we are supposed to do. i have worked for chris over the

years. we were on the supercommittee which ended up being not so super. a serious effort on behalf of some of us to find answers. we were not ultimately successful. some of what we proposed happen through sequestration. what we did not get at was the broader picture of how you deal with the biggest part of the budget. if thirds of the budget -- two thirds of the budget, which is called mandatory spending. the office tells that that will be three quarters of the budget within 10 years. we have our work cut out for us. chris van hollen and i have had the opportunity to work before and i hope we will have the opportunity in the future. have any we currently deficit is very serious and threatening to our economy. kristin bowles has said is the

most protectable economic crisis in our history. i agree. are addicted to top $1 trillion in the decade. but it seems like it is off the headline. i want to think the press club for having this. . by shining a light on us, it shows they believe this continues to be an important issue and we had to be talking about it. some have suggested that because the deficit is only about $500 billion this year, that is ok. first of all, that doesn't seem ok to me. when i was at the offices of budget, they mentioned that it was $161 billion. i thought it was to lie. we propose a balanced budget. i think that hundred billion is not solving the problem. it is also too high because we are looking at trillion dollar deficits when a decade.

that is on the budget office analysis. this is due entirely on the mandatory side. the vital but unsustainable entitlement programs. this is pretty rosy scenario when you have a chilling dollars in a year. interest rates will stay at relatively low rates. the deficits could be for higher -- higher than that. the cbo projects a $10 trillion increase in debt over the next decade. you go from roughly 17 trillion. it will be 20 $7 trillion in debt 10 years from now. again, relatively rosy scenario. i hope we continue to keep this very much on the front runner and talk about how to resolve this problem.

the problem driving this debt is entitlement spending. most folks understand that. i will not a lot of time talking about the math. i don't think it's a big mystery. i think it is a matter of arithmetic. the numbers are simply overwhelming. social security, health entitlements, comprise over half of the budget and are responsible for 86% of all new spending over the next decade. entitlement spending is set to double over the next decade. it will consume almost 100% of tax revenues within a decade. in other words, the entire discretionary budget from research, education, to what we talked about, infrastructure, all of that would have to be funded through the nation's credit card because any revenue coming in will have to be used

to pay for this expanding entitlement spending. we have to act, you have to save these vital but unsustainable programs. social security already faces a $62 billion deficit this year. the cast of fish it would be another 62. the primary trust fund will go bankrupt in just over 20 years. when you think about it, we are at the point where those that are retiring today, they would be alive at the time when the social security goes up. to folks who are currently moving to work into retirement. social security disability trust

fund goes bankrupt in 2017. just around the corner. the medicare trust fund in just over a decade. obviously, these companies need to be modernized, reformed. if we're going to do it, we're going to have to take some tough steps and it will take reaching across the aisle and both parties being involved and just was done back in the 1980's. is party will have to be involved in my view. i will touch on five what i think are the most persistent myths out there that help to keep us from doing this important work of finding common ground. declining tax revenues are the

problem. foghorn leghorn used to say in the cartoons, that is mathematics, son. i think it is. you can argue with me but you cannot argue with figures. tax revenues has stayed around 18% of gdp. that has been the ever since the 60's. that is about to change. revenues will exceed this circle average starting next year. this is the highest levels in terms of nominal tax. i'm talking about a percent of the economy. individual revenues will shatter all records in the next decade. the congressional budget office, not me or some other partisan group.

these more revenues keep up with higher spending. the net interest costs will drive the spending to 25, 30, 35% of the economy. the cbo used to have the baseline that a kind of like which i -- which is called the alternative baseline. regardless, if you look at the numbers. the tax system cannot keep up the spending. you cannot have an income tax system that collected taxes high enough to keep up with the spending. one way to say it is that the

cbo projects that entitlement costs and resulting high interest on the debt, higher interest in the debt are responsible for 100% of the rising long-term deficits, even the highest sustained tax revenues in history would come close to paying for that. if entitlement spending is driving this, then shouldn't the strong majority come from this programs or should we just keep chasing record spending with higher tax levels? that is a race we are going to lose because we cannot keep up with it eventually. myth two, social security city it's received only what they put into the system. for social security, this is becoming more true for current retirees. the typical person retiring into medicare will still receive three dollars in benefits for every one dollar paid in the system. specifically, typical to earn couple returning in ohio, anywhere in the country, will pay at 119 thousand dollars in lifetime taxes and premiums, this receives about $357,000 in lifetime benefits. when you multiply that time about 77 million baby boomers,

you can see why the medicare math doesn't make sense. social security, medicare trust funds will hear taxpayers from additional costs. the trust funds are an asset to social security. they're also a liability to the treasury. while the trust fund assure seniors at all deficits through 2035 will be funded, it does not provide any actual economic resources to do it. so, the general funds. in that sense the existence of the trust fund is not say current or future taxpayers a dime. all future benefits are going to be financed. in the clinton administration, the budget office had a quote about this. the real economic assets cannot be drawn down in the future that

are redeemable and will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits for other expenditures. pretty simple. there's a lot of misunderstanding about what the trust funds mean. we can tweak the way to fiscal responsibility. this is not possible again. there is a $40 trillion unfunded liability. tweaks cannot close that gap. the recent expiration of the upper income tax cuts which the president is committed to close raised about $620 billion over the next decade. and a lot of folks said that would solve the problem. it was about 3.3% of the projected social security, medicare, and medicaid costs.

3.3%. about one 30th. forget just bringing the troops home, let's say that we could permanently eliminate the entire department of defense, it would delay the budget reckoning by about 15 years. there are no possible that tax hikes. this requires fundamental reform. because obamacare is paid for, that makes it fiscally responsible. that is a new entitlement that was started. some say that it is paid for, at least almost all paid for. my view is that that does not make it any more fiscally responsible. this is about $100,000. they have figured out a way to find $10,000 through hard work and then they take that $10,000

and go to the mall and spend it. i don't they say that the spending spree was justified because this is paid for. i think we need to look at this in terms of what it does to medicare. with regard to medicare, we can debate whether the obamacare cuts are appropriate or not. the cbo has said that some of these are unsustainable. this is unsustainable under the health care system. let's assume it would do the right thing to do. the savings from medicare providing's is about $700 billion. should be used to do with this problem in medicare. some say, you can double

count it. it just doesn't make sense. it was used to fund obamacare. funds that could have been available for medicare reform. facing these record spending and debt levels, the government did scrape together $1.5 trillion in tax increases and medicare cuts. they spent the entire amount on a new entitlement program. so, this matters because the options from budget savings are pretty limited. medicare providers, they can only do so much before they stopped participating in the program. some have already as you know. the property programs, education programs, federal spending programs as well as entitlement programs have mostly been taken off the table by republicans and democrats. so, the options are pretty limited. there are only so many programs that can be scaled back or eliminated. there can be some savings but they pale in comparison to the costs we are talking about.

if washington keeps using its limited supply of realistic savings, there would be nothing left for the so-called bargain. if not a grand bargain, some kind of bargain to deal with entitlements. and save them from bankruptcy and scale back at that. -- the debt. $1.2 trillion in new taxes used primarily to pay for new spending. the senate the cuts prefer a tax increase, and it is now proposed as an offset to nearly a dozen proposed spending hikes appear for those who follow congress carefully, you will recall this happened in the last week. the tax was proposed to use to pay for another spending increase, not to reduce the deficit. the tax would close less than 1% of the budget deficit. it keeps being used to offset spending. it is a struggle, frankly, as

chris will acknowledge probably, because we have worked on this together, as did others, to find these savings. look, before i close, let me add one point -- we need to have ideas out there. it is easy to criticize ideas when they come up. paul ryan's budget gets criticized regularly. democrats do not have an alternative that does what it does though. i often talk about means testing in medicare as an example where we can make a step in the right direction. does it solve the problems we talked about today? no, but it does take a step in the right direction. it is in the president's budget. it does provide that folks that make over $170,000 a year have to pay more in premiums under part b and d in medicare, sending about $60 million in the first few years.

probably $450 billion over the next 10 years, which is why it is the kind of proposal we should be talking about. it has an expanding benefit to the debt and deficit. a long-term problem can only be solved by those kinds of reforms. yet, we cannot seem to even get progress there. my proposal today is, let's make the commitment, at least, to take what is in the president's own budget and put that out as a spending reform here, even this year, because it seems to me that is where we should be able to find bipartisan consensus and take a small step toward dealing with these problems. success begets success. we cannot allow the current situation to continue without making some progress. high raises in the confirmation hearings recently with sylvia burwell -- she was before our finance committee, wanting to

move from omb -- i do not blame her -- to the health and human services job. her response was, well, we cannot move on that without a balanced approach. and that balanced approach is, of course, raising taxes. raising taxes on upper income americans and businesses who pay taxes at an individual level. i understand that balance sounds great, but think about this -- think about the logic about this. we cannot ask wealthier seniors, $130,000 year is roughly equivalent to a $3 million annuity, by the way, so we're asking people who, i believe, can't afford it given their situation with medicare. we need to raise taxes on those people in order to ask them to pay more, which is also revenue.

makes no sense. there is no logic there. i am hopeful that we can make progress on these broader issues and come up with this grand bargain. i think this year is going to be difficult to do something grand. next year is an opportunity for us, particularly the first part of next year before we get wholeheartedly into the 2016 cycle. meantime, let's take this small step together and take the president up on his budget. one thing in his budget that deals with this entitlement concern that we talked about today. thank you all for being here. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we are honored by the president of the national press club who is here with us. anything you would like to say, myron? here comes the microphone. we are live on c-span. >> i know senator portman -- always nice to see you.

ohio state buckeyes are coming to maryland, you know? thank you, senator and congressman. the national press club has the motto -- this is where news is made. thank you for helping with this this morning. i do not want to take more than a moment -- i want to take a moment of my time to thank you both. everybody is here to ask questions. >> ok, congressman van hollen? >> if i can figure out how to use this microphone button. there we go. well, first, let me start by thanking law for bringing us together today. it is great to be back here, and thanks for all your leadership. myron, thank you for your stewardship here at the national press club. it is great to be here with my friend and colleague rob portman.

as he indicated, we have worked together on these budget issues. they are tough and challenging, and i am hopeful that at some point down the line we are able to resolve them in a more comprehensive fashion. we have had some piecemeal progress, but really what we need is more comprehensive progress on these issues. before i talk about the budget issues, i also serve as cochair of the bipartisan congressional soccer caucus, norm want to congratulate team usa on a terrific victory in the world cup yesterday, and i hope that is a sign of things to come. they are in a tough bracket. also, bob indicated that my father had served in the u.s. foreign service. earlier in my career, i was on the senate foreign relations committee. i do want to say a word about iraq, because when we look at

the situation there, obviously it is a time of great chaos and uncertainty. and we have learned, over the last week, that when it comes to foreign policy pundits in washington, there seems to be no accountability. because what we are witnessing in iraq is the fallout of one of the biggest foreign-policy blunders the united states has ever made. yet, when i turn on my television or look at the newspapers, i continue to see unrepentant architects of the iraq war offering advice today as to what we should do. in my view, that is a little bit like asking the arsonist how to prevent fires. and i do hope that as we go forward in this debate, we will have a little bit more accountability with respect to some of the pundits that are out there.

of course, the iraq war is directly related to budget issues. we lost, oh, close to 4849 americans. over 32,000 wounded. in terms of the budget cost, well over $1 trillion, unpaid for, all on the credit card, all adding to our debt. now let me turn to the budget and the economy. look, the good news is the economy has been steadily improving. we have seen a growth and jobs month-after-month. still, i think we all recognize that we could be doing better. our focus right now should be on boosting job growth and boosting wages. that should be the priority in our budget process. and we have one challenge immediately before us, which is the transportation trust fund. the transportation trust fund is currently scheduled to have a big shortfall as early as

august. what does that mean? it means the money coming into the fund is not enough to pay for current programs. and you are already seeing slowdowns in projects around the country. states do not know if they will get paid, so they are much more cautious about bidding jobs out. this is threatening thousands of construction jobs around the country. so priority number one when we deal with our budget issues should be addressing issues like that. the president has a plan in his budget not only to provide current funding for the transportation trust fund, but actually to boost investment in our infrastructure. it is a $302 billion four-year plan. it is paid for largely by closing some of these special interest tax breaks that actually grew to american companies to ship american jobs overseas. he would end those perverse and

counterproductive tax breaks and adjust those funds in jobs here at home and in infrastructure development. unfortunately, the house republican budget has no solution when it comes to the chance protection trust fund. it essentially assumes no more revenue coming in, and it assumes the shortfall coming up. there is a proposal in the house that is being put forward by the house republican leadership to essentially extend it by 10 months, i believe by ending a saturday postal delivery on a permanent basis, permanently ending saturday postal delivery. that is not a long-term solution to our transportation trust fund issues, and we really should bite the bullet and make progress on that. some other things we should do right now, we should deal with the huge burden on student debt. i think everybody here knows that student debt is now over $1 trillion. that means when students are graduating from college and

university, they do not have the funds to help buy a new apartment or get a mortgage. they have to struggle simply to repay those debts. so the president has been forward a plan to relieve some of that. there was this plan that senator portman mentioned the senate. if we are not going to do that, we should have an alternative to adjust this very important issue. we should be boosting our investment in science, innovation, and early education. senator portman has a great proposal dealing with energy efficiency. that is a deficit-neutral proposal. we should adopt that in the senate and the house. those are the kinds of investments and initiatives that i think makes sense. we should extend emergency unemployment insurance. we now have more than 3 million americans out of work through no fault of their own. congressional budget office tells us that extending that

unemployment insurance will also create jobs between now and the end of the year. again, senator portman was part of a bipartisan agreement that passed that in the u.s. senate. it is now sitting in the u.s. house. we have asked speaker boehner for a vote on that measure, and the speaker has denied us the opportunity to have that vote. as he has also denied the opportunity of a vote on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. and there is a direct link between comprehensive immigration reform and our budget. the congressional budget office tells us one of the things we can do to both grow our economy and reduce our long-term deficit is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. in fact, they analyzed and scored the bipartisan senate bill and said it is good for reducing the deficit over the next 10 years and over the next 20 years, which is why the president actually included the conference immigration reform measure in his budget as did

house democrats. so that is an issue directly related to budget, just as it is related to other things. again, speaker boehner has not allowed us to have a vote, either on the bipartisan senate bill or a house bill that has been proposed by many. so those are some things we can do right now to help boost jobs and wages. another thing we can do to boost wages is to pass an increase on the minimum wage. we should do that now. in the state of ohio, they have indexed their minimum wage. we should do that at the federal level so that it keeps up with inflation. and we should have some catch-up revision. right now, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is lower than it was when truman was president. and we should pass equal pay for equal work legislation. those are two measures that we can take now that would also

boost wages in the united states. now i want to talk about the sequester and dealing with the long-term budget challenges. because we had a bipartisan agreement last december, we have some period of relative calm when it comes to budget issues. we have an agreement that provides topline numbers for discretionary spending for fiscal year 2014, which we are in now, and fiscal year 2015 which begins in october. we have also set the caps on for defense spending and nondefense spending. so we should be able to avoid that dispute, at least going into fiscal year budget 15. therefore, to answer your query, bob, i would say that prospects are good that we will avoid

another shameless and unnecessary government shutdown this year because of the short-term agreement. but lurking below the surface is the sequester. fiscal year 2016, it is going to rise up and hit the country again. that is, unless congress comes together to resolve that issue. i would like to see us resolve that sooner rather than later, meaning before november. but the prospects are relatively remote right now of i'm doing that. that means right after the midterm elections, that should be a priority. again, it is important to provide some certainty of having this -- a sequester will create uncertainty in the country. the congressional budget office has indicated that because of some of the provisions in the house republican budget, you will actually see a drag on the economy in the short term.

i hope to avoid that. in terms of dealing with the long-term deficits and replacing the sequester, the president has advocated in what we call a balanced approach. the house democratic budget i have advocated and approached calls for a balanced approach. it has reductions in spending, continued reductions in spending. we have already seen significant reductions. but we also believe there should be cuts in special interest tax breaks to help reduce our long-term deficits. in fact, if you look at the president's budget proposal, it actually has less revenue over the coming years than simpson bowles provided in their balanced plan. i want to say that again -- the president's budget that was submitted to the congress has less revenue from closing tax breaks than does the simpson bowles proposal. because simpson bowles recognized that there are about $1 trillion year in so-called tax expenditures, provisions

that provide for deductions and credits. some of them have good public policy purposes and should be when they get a break, everybody else pays more. those should certainly be on the table in terms of a long-term deficit reduction plan, combined with looking at other things. and the unfortunate reality is, yes, paul ryan has a budget. but in the house republican budget, they refuse to close one single tax break for the purposes of deficit reduction. not one. not one. now, if you actually look at the last times we balanced our

budget in the united states, it was four years. 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. what was revenue as a percentage of gdp during that time? it was over 19%. over 19%. yes, as senator portman said, right now it is about 18% or do the last time we actually balanced our budget was 19%. and if you look at current congressional budget office projections, at the end of the current 10-year window, revenue as a percent of gdp will still be around 18%. not where it was the last time we balanced our budget for despite the fact that we will have tens of millions more americans on social security. so we will have tens of millions more americans on health and retirement plans, and yet, the current projection is that

revenue as a percent of gdp will be lower than it was the last time we balanced our budget in that four-year period. that is not make sense. that is why we have called for a balanced approach moving forward. let me just close, you know, with a little refection on where we are now in the process. because all those items i listed that we should be doing now, unfortunately, we have not even had a chance to vote on those things in the house. we have had votes on the budget alternatives, but not on things like cover his of immigration reform, not on the emergency extension, not on minimum wage, not on of those other measures i talked about. unfortunately, i do not see a high likelihood in the near-term of us getting to move forward on those issues, and i fear that

the situation in the house has grown even more difficult because the signal that was sent to the has republican caucus by congressman eric cantor's defeat was do not even whisper about compromise on these big national issues to help move the country forward. do not even whisper that or you will be called a traitor, traitor to the cause. because eric cantor, for all our differences, and i'm not predicting that we would have made a lot of progress on these issues before, but at least on things like how prince of immigration reform, he had expressed some openness to a conversation. unfortunately, the signal that was sent in that election was not even talk about those issues or you are going to be punished by right-wing talk radio. so i hope that sort of moderate,

reasonable voices can pull this conversation back on track, at least after the november election. that is for the country needs. we need to tackle these issues. and i am hoping that once we get through the political season, we will be able to do that. meantime, the american public is going to have to make a decision as to the best way forward. so thank you. [applause] >> maybe you can both stand up here for the questions and we will be able to give a little better presentation for tv that way. well, let's make some news here. let me just leave it off with this -- am i right to understand that you both believe there will not be a shutdown, even though

nbc and others have reported that the debt ceiling is coming in august or september? in your expert views, will we not have a shutdown by the end of the year and will we have a resolution that will accommodate and get us past the election? yes or no? >> yes or no? no, i think because the ryan-murray budget agreement was put in place for two years, i think it is very likely we will not have any kind of a government shutdown. i do think that this gives us an opportunity -- this fiscal year ends in september, and then we are in the final fiscal year of ryan-murray. early next calendar year, we will have to deal with the issues i talked about here the obvious way to deal with this is to focus on the mandatory side of the budget. ryan-murray did that. frankly, they took all the low hanging fruit and did not take on the tough issues that deal with these important, but again,

unsustainable programs, medicare, medicaid, and social security. we also did not do the tax reform we should be doing, because we talked a lot about revenue as a percent of the economy -- chris and i have a little difference of opinion that can be resolved by the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan arbiter. i think the revenues can get to record levels in the next couple decades and get above that 15%. chris talked about the fact that we had 19% back in 1999, 2000, 2001. we also had about 18% when i was at omb, and we had a deficit of $161 billion, 1.2% of the economy. so we can get back there. instead of talking so much about how much taxes are a burden on the economy, we should talk more about growth and progress tax reform, lowering rates, broadening the base. it could be revenue-neutral, not have an impact from a status perspective, but from a macroeconomic perspective

through growth. frankly, creating more jobs and opportunities for the american people would also result in more revenues. realistically, this could happen next year. this year, take the president's own budget and put in place as part of the continuing resolution, as part of doing with the debt ceiling, something to take that first step, even a baby step toward dealing with the mandatory spending programs where we have an agreement between republicans and democrats already, and that is means testing in medicare. >> chris? shutdown, no shutdown? >> fingers crossed, but more importantly, as a result of the short-term bipartisan agreement, i think we will avoid a shutdown. whether or not we will come together to work out separate appropriations bills is another

question, but i believe we will avoid a shutdown. >> one other, then we will go to questions. bill, since we started a little late, i thought we could go until 10 after. the situation in iraq, you addressed it a little bit, chris. what is the impact of that on the budget? could iraq military action bust the budget? >> there are two baselines. defense spending continues the spending we have had an previous years, which is the current law baseline and current policy baseline which is a little different. it would not bust the budget. as a real mentor, yeah, if we have an additional commitment there, it will cost more. regardless of what the baselines show, it could be an impact. i would state the obvious point which is if we had a status of forces agreement with iraq to

which many of us pushed for and were disappointed we did not have one, some of these problems could have been avoided. now, it is a dangerous world out there. clearly, what is going on in iraq and syria is hard of a bigger issue we have to deal with as a country in terms of terrorism and this particular group, the isis group having ambitions well beyond iraq. but not to have an agreement with iraq to provide for continued training and provide special operations response to terrorism to ensure that the iraqi government would be able to sustain itself and their national security, we are hopeful that we are now learning, having seen the tragedies unfolding in iraq -- it was on the news this morning, you know, people being summarily executed and so on -- that we will learn that as it relates to afghanistan and as we continue

our withdrawal from afghanistan. we do put in place an agreement with the new government of afghanistan to ensure that we do not have these kinds of security problems that could have been avoided had we had some training and some ability to respond quickly with a strikeforce with some special forces presence in iraq. >> let me quickly respond to a couple of those points. first, the status of forces agreement with iraq. everybody here knows the maliki government rejected a proposal that we made sure that americans are held harmless from any actions against them, legal or otherwise, and maliki said no. i am not sure we should have bent to his wishes in that situation.

second, i urge all of you to go back and look at a great quote from dick cheney back in 1991 where he is explaining why, at the end of the persian gulf war when the united states went in to eject saddam hussein's forces from to wait, why u.s. forces did not then go into baghdad, because the bush one administration was criticized by some for not taking advantage of the situation and marching into baghdad. cheney posed a question -- if we go into baghdad, what kind of government would we create? is it a sunni government, shia government, or kurdish government? how long will it last, and what will happen when the u.s. leaves? and he said the president made the right decision by not going to baghdad. i think those who have followed

events in that region over decades recognize that we essentially took the lid off pandora's box. and the idea that the united states can micromanage events in these parts of the world, in my view, reflects a lot of hubris. not that we should not engage. i am not a serial interventionist, and i think that is the issue. with respect to afghanistan, we do expect status of forces agreements. we should be careful in how we exit afghanistan. after all, the last time the united states left that region, we left after the soviets left, and in that vacuum you did have chaos and the government took over and invited al qaeda or allowed al qaeda to become part

of the country, and they of course launched attacks. with respect to the budget issue, we have something called the overseas contingency fund. that fund is expected to come down in fiscal year 2015. the president has not yet submitted his request for the overseas contingency fund. he has set aside 5 billion for certain other purposes as use all with respect to nato commitments. and some of our objectives there. certain events in a rock -- iraq could have an impact on what the ultimate number is. we will have the defense appropriation bill on the floor of the house this week and i am sure we will have a debate on

the issues going forward. >> questions? >> i am a longtime member of the club. a very impressive personality. an honorary southeastern citizen. >> your question, please? >> on the five mystical things would you please respond to the senator five mystical things. thank you very much. >> they were not mystical they were mystical. >> i have to say i can't write them all down. number one it has stymied

negotiations at least from my perspective. the disagreement as whether or not part of disagreements or deaths of votes we will have additional revenue contribution achieved by closing some of the tax breaks. reducing some of the tax expenditures. rob mentioned some symbols, and i urge all of you to take a look , some symbols called for more revenue. then the president's budget. i am glad a lot of our colleagues have embraced the framework and balanced, but sometimes they leave out the fact that some symbols concluded additional revenues concluded from the tax report.

they have tax reform, but also a tax reform proposal that's -- generated significant revenue. >> we talked about closing loopholes today. i believe tax reform is urgent. when you look at the democrats in the senate and what they have to do with the business tax code and taking individual parts of the governance, our corporate tax code is so uncompetitive and inefficient that we are losing jobs and investment even as we sit here. some of you saw medtronic talking about doing what i saw was talking about doing two weeks ago and what has artie happened with some other companies were they simply stopped becoming a u.s. company because the tax code is so

onerous for them they can become a foreign company. in this case talking about merging with a smaller company. a lower tax rate and a better international system. we have seen a couple of the so-called inversions. what is happening every day if u.s. companies cannot compete. competition of an acquisition or looking at whether they can compete with another company from another country, we will start losing more and more u.s. companies. this is frightening. for those of you that her beer drinkers in the room, try to find an american-owned beer. sam adams with one percent market share is probably the biggest. the rest are foreign owned. i have sat down with the numbers on these companies. we have to deal with it. the notion that democrats have,

let's make the tax code less competitive by taking away the preferences will exacerbate the problem and result in more jobs going overseas and more investments overseas because then we will reform the entire code. that means getting rid of these codes. in the context of overall reform where were you -- where you get rid of preferences and are able to lower the rate and come up with a more competitive international system that is competitive with the trading partners, we unfortunately are sitting on the sidelines while other countries do this. we're the only country that has not reform the tax code, and we are suffering the consequences. who is suffering the most? the countries. -- the workers. these workers would get higher pay and actually have a job. we need to be very purple as we talk about this loophole in that

loophole. let's reform the code and help everyone, including american workers. >> if you look at the president's budget, most of the revenue is generated not by closing the business tax preferences. most of it is generated by reducing the deductions that higher income can take to the 28% range. right now if you are a millionaire for every dollar deduction you get a $.75 benefit. what the president has said is that higher income individuals, millionaires should get the 28 set in effect. -- 28 cents benefit. the president has said, and i support the idea of or for tax reform are we lower the rates and broaden the base.

rob is right that at 35% our corporate tax rate is not competitive. our effective court britt tax rate is actually average. the problem is that creates huge winners and losers within the united states. so we need to find a way to deal with that issue. i did not stop port all of dave's camps proposal or most of it but at least it was a professional expert -- effort. i would say the people who ran the fastest was the house republican leadership who have not made tax reform the first bill introduced in the house the number one priority tried to run away from the committee chairman when he put something on the table. so yes, let's do tax reform and simplify the code, but in the process we have to do with the bipartisan some symbols commission did, which is

generate some revenue to help reduce the long-term deficits. >> we are running out of time. >> jonathan nicholson. this is for both of you guys. the senate last week approved legislation to deal with a ba that the cbo says will create entitlement for 50 billion per year paid for on an overwhelming basis. the house last week did tax expenditures that added 60 billion unpaid 4 -- 360 billion unpaid for. why should joe schmo sixpack voter who expect deficit reduction since everyone likes to talk about it think that either of your parties given the pieces of legislation.

>> great question. it is beyond that because we are not growing the economy, which is the way you'd deal with that. we are not paying attention to the existing deficit. i appreciate this opportunity to talk about it today because most people think 500 billion in washington is something we should not worry about. of coarse we should. so i agree. on the veterans issue, the understanding was we were conference that with the house. the house version of it scored by congressional budget office's is a lot less. so we need to figure out a way to work with the house too, but something is fully responsible. congressional budget office analysis of the senate bill was done about an hour before the vote, which i think was a huge

mistake. i think you need time to go through the process and look at what the analysis is. the assumptions they make with regard to how many pensions will use the private sector health care system for the choice part of the legislation, let's have that debate and talk about it, rather than rushing about. i was encouraged by that. we have to take our time. we now have the opportunity to work with the house because the bills are quite different in some respect. with respect to veterans, i agree with rob that we will have to reconcile the house piece of legislation.

we have veterans on the long -- long waiting list and another example frankly of the cost of the war in iraq and the fact that it continues to impact these countries in these ways, and a huge influx for veterans who have been severely wounded. we have to consider what the costs are for the vi. second, very important question, not about followed by many,

which is in the house over the past couple of weeks the ways and means committee has passed tax breaks on the extenders on a permanent basis, adding over $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. >> the senator has to go because there are both on the floor. >> all right. >> tradition that the national plus club to present to the distinguished speakers the traditional national press club mug. thank you both for coming in contributing to the success of the event. cheers. thank you. >> i will wrap up.

jonathan raised the point in the house last week we voted on a number of measures to permanently extend business tax preferences unpaid for, and if you look at all the bills coming out of the ways and means -- ways and means committee that would add 500 billion to the deficit. the house had to wave their own rules because it immediately made the claimed house republican budget out of balance. the budget they claim to be in balance, which intruded $1 trillion in the affordable care act at the same time they were getting rid of the affordable care act. this would have put the house republican budget way out of balance in terms of the tax breaks not offset as you point out. we made the argument on the floor that this is a violation of the house roles and house budget.

but to no avail. hopefully people will come to their senses over the next couple of months. >> we are close to concluding when we wanted to. thank you very much, everybody, for coming. so chris and senator portman, thank you very much. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> talking about the 2014 and 2016 elections.

taking questions from capitol hill about weight loss products. >> house republicans will meet to elect a successor for eric cantor, who lost his primary race last week and will step down in july. kevin mccarthy and rollup or brador will bea trying to fill the position. now, perspective on the november elections. lsters talk about the general mood of the country and look ahead to the 2016 presidential campaign. this was part of the wall street journal conference.

>> good morning. one and all. we have two great political minds in polling today. we are the only three and all of all ofton -- in washington or the country who saw the eric cantor defeat coming. we did not want to let anyone know. the eric cantor defeat, none of us actually did see it coming. it was a rare shock. does it mean anything? can we extrapolate anything? >> absolutely. have enormous bearing on the republican caucus and legislative policy in the house. movement, in terms of passing anything related to health care or doing immigration. none of that will happen.

house, also, and the mean a leadership fight. if you have bad numbers like this, weird things happen. mitch mcconnell is a gifted politician and in an anti-obama state. he is a leader in the congress. it is a reminder of the burden that he bears. we have lots of governors in trouble and it is a reminder icked-offhave a t electorate. this will be a republican year. we are going to see some more weird things. >> the burden he bears. what is the corollary? >> he is a long-term legislative leader who represents the congress. he has the advantage of

leveraging the anti-obama sentiment in his state. it is a reminder. he has his own anchor he has to deal with and the eric cantor thing is a reminder of how an opponent can crystallize perception, that anti-congress perception, and wrap it around one person. >> we have been talking about that. i'm sure it is a favorite topic. what you extrapolate from the cantor defeat? >> let me help you out. it is confusing. you look at bill. you see his tie. you say, he must be the democrat. i have the conservative tie. i must be republican. i am the democrat, to straighten that out. let me start out with cancer or any