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 won't testify about the investigation of ignition switch problems and subsequent recalls. this week, the detroit-based automaker recalled an additional 3 million cars. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. watch live coverage from the house energy commerce committee tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. later in the day, and two house foreign affairs handles investigating the decision to

exchange five guantánamo prison detainees for army sergeant hobart all. p.m.coverage at 2:00 eastern also on c-span 3. democratic congressman chris van hollen and republican senator rob portman outline each of their party's budget priorities. congressman van hollen is the ranking member on the house budget committee and senator portman serves on the finance and budget committee and was president bush's budget erector. from the national press club, this is one hour. >> welcome to the national press club. i am bob wiener, the court made her for the news conference by two national leaders on the federal budget's future, our two speakers will address future federal budget priorities and methods to achieve them. they will cover areas that the

budget should attend to. the usefulness and future of shutdowns and sequestration, strategies for bipartisan cooperation in action and the projected timeline. 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] >> house republicans will meet thursday to elect a successor for house majority leader eric cantor who lost his primary race last week and will step down in july. congress when kevin mccarthy of california and republican labrador announced it would try to fill the position. we will have coverage of those

leadership elections on the c-span networks. >> the idea behind it is that instead of trying to tell the entire history of st. louis in a timeline, we would absolutely miss vitally important things. instead of trying to do that and failing, we decided what we does give snapshots of history that would give people a glimpse of all the diverse things that happened here and make them use their imagination to fill in the rest. we chose 50 people, 50 places, 50 moments, 50 images, 50 objects and try to choose the most diverse collection. what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is

right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of st. louis history. it is an amazing story with lots of different breweries and the most famous became anheuser-busch. of anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels reduced each year, they're producing so much beer. this is from an arrow when things were little bit simpler and it is fun to show people of this object and gauge the response. before, they put corks on the top of bottles. somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. it has foot pedals on the bottom where the operator would push down with his feet to give the cork enough force to get into the bottle. it has three holes. >> this weekend, the history and literally life of st. louis, gateway to the west on c-span 2's book tv and c-span3 american

history tv. >> senate finance committee chair ron wyden spoke to some of the financial issues racing congress, including taxes, trade, and spending. he sat down with the wall street journal and the dow jones newswires. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you, senator wyden, for showing up on time. two interesting factoids about senator wyden. know thegot to to senator back in the 1990's when i wrote a column about a congressman from oregon who had a great idea of solving the finances of medicare. a wrote a column about him and here we are. i guess we didn't succeed. life,ly, in an earlier

senator wyden play division i college basketball for university of california santa barbara. >> a delusional dream. --you became senator of the chairman of the senate finance committee. hee has been in charge of the committee since february. you cannot blame him totally for everything that hasn't got done. only partially. you deal with the huge agenda on senate finance. let's start with a topic that everybody loves to hate -- taxes. one of the anomalies of washington in the last few years has been that there is broad bipartisan consensus on one thing which is there ought to be tax reform of the system, yet nothing ever seems to happen. tell me what your plan is to make it happen. you and your republican colleague have announced hearings last week. what is the road ahead? >> first of all, our people

deserve a tax code that gives all americans the opportunity to get ahead. not just those who have the resources to figure out how to anda brigade of lawyers accountants to hotwire the system so they could take advantage of the latest loophole. i have developed a bipartisan proposals over the last few years with mitch mcconnell, senator dan coats. it builds on the good work that a big batch of democrats did in the 1980's. bill bradley, another tall democrat on the finance committee. ronald reagan. you go in there and drain the swamp. there has been something like 15,000 changes since that last tax reform. you go in there, clean them out, use the money to hold down the rates. when they did that in the first couple of years out of the box,

created something like 6 million new jobs. toody can say it was all due tax reform but it helped set the climate and i think it could do so again. >> tell me the specifics. what would you for the corporate tax rates, personal rates? is it revenue neutral? >> i think of that program of -- growth is going to encourage job growth. it will encourage economic growth and that will translate into revenue. my top rate is 24%. it is really the lowest. it means we're cutting the top rate by a third. i think we do need to go after some of these loopholes. we have a big group of cfos here today and one of the ways they can help is give us some certainty for the next two years which is the past these tax expenditures provisions. pinpoint specific

loopholes that can be closed in order to drive down the rates which was the principle that kept the democrats and republicans together. a quarter-century ago. 24%, the lowest on offer. the reality is that much of what we are seeing today, the inversions, which are very much in the news, stems from the fact that our corporate rate is not very efficient. it is putting us right there at the top. in a tough global economy, we need to have an efficient rate for business that is competitive . on the trade gap front, we need to build a new bipartisan commission to expand markets. add value to them here and then ship them somewhere. >> george will pointed out that it is hard to do tax reform the

year before an election and the year after an election. unfortunately, those are the only two years that you have. how do you do this? >> 1986 was an election year. that was the year of the bipartisan tax reform. bob packwood was not able to make the ceremony because he was getting a plaque from the citizens group. a primethat there is 15-month window between now and the recess in the fall. that is where me and senator hatch have three important hearings. i think we all understand that our students are getting smothered by debt. this is really harming their ability to be productive. i focus will be to consolidate this welter of confusing

provisions into essentially a handful. also to create new incentives. right now, if you have a modest income and you want to set a little bit of money aside, you bump up against these asset limits which means it is hard for you to get assistance. we will start with the education incentive juried we will move quickly to looking at international competitiveness. isone of the issues that paramount for a lot of people in this audience is the extenders. that topic.d somebody mentioned the recession. what are the prospects for getting that done? it is late. are the extenders going to be extended? >> yes. the real priority has to be to

do it quickly. so many of our businesses have to pay quarterly. paying higher estimates now. i met with some small businesses in oregon. the robert schumer bipartisan amendment years at towards the small person. they said, if we do not get this passed quickly, i will be making estimated payments which take money out of the pocket to higher people. if all cfo's will help with that, it gives us more time to move on to the next year. >> what is realistic? what is your hope? >> i wanted them to be passed yesterday. senator hatch and i produce a proposal which has strong bipartisan support in committee. we try to bring it up. we made it clear that we would

be open to amendments as long as they had some connection with extenders. my colleague thinks that it is time for the government to get out of the business of creating incentives for renewable energy. that is not a view that i happen to share. it is a legitimate bipartisan amendment. let's offered those amendments that are really relevant. >> this is becoming an increasingly relevant and somewhat emotional topic. they have announced that they are moving their or brick headquarters, presumably for tax reasons. >> to ireland where the rate is 12.5%. >> you said that we need to stop this and you want to take steps to deal with inversions. what is your idea for dealing with inversions? writes we need to understand what is at stake.

americans do not want a race to the bottom. we want a more efficient corporate system. that is why i have this proposal that has been bipartisan or a number of years. that is fair to all sides. to be competitive in these tough global markets, there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. in terms of tax rates, it is hard to do that. >> you talked about inserting a provision that would raise the effective tax rate and make that retroactive. seen and we have not introduced informally as a bill. i have not put everybody on notice that that is what i was going to push for. the reality is that any time you have one of these kinds of approaches, in the long-term, people pay more. they will be small businesses. what we need to do, going back

to the first words out of my mouth is to create a system that gives everybody in america the opportunity to get ahead. when you are a corporation or somebody just getting started, we know that our system is about marketplace forces. right now, we do not have a system that equally gives everybody the opportunity to get ahead. that is what we will focus on with education. >> are you a tax repatriation fan? >> i am focused on a tax bill. i am open, particularly to the idea of doing it as a transition to a new system the creates a new incentives specifically to create red white and blue jobs. jobs in our country. in 2004 there was a repatriation bill that they promised a

repatriation rainbow. this would allow huge sums of money. the audit officers were scathing in their review. shareholders encouraged giving out dividends. >> is there a reason not to do it? >> i am in favor of the transportation bill for which is being considered that everything is on the table. transportation comes in two step s. the first is the short term. we have three weeks before this goes belly up. this has got to be done before august. for the longer term, i want to encourage the private sector to come off of the sideline and make investments in infrastructure. we have got a history of being able to do this.

i authored the build american bonds row gram which i authored with a number of republicans. back of the envelope. it's try $5 billion. it has generated more than $180 billion worth of investments . let's deal with the highway trust fund immediately. let's look at an approach in particular that encourages that private capital to come off the sidelines in transportation. >> the highway trust fund is about to run out of money. there are projects shutting down across the country. are you confident that the highway trust fund will be replenished? >> failure on this is not an option. with a fragile economy, the kind we are dealing with right now, we cannot take the kind of economic hit if transportation

starts to vanish. failure on this one is not acceptable. senator hatch and i have been very positive. i anticipate our moving, even during this work period. >> a couple of more topics i wanted to bounce off of you quickly. involved inn deeply taxation of internet access and taxation of sales online. what do you want to happen? what is the most likely outcome of the internet taxation? wrotegressman cox and i the internet tax freedom bill. in those earliest days, we did not want to see promising businesses, particularly small businesses clobbered by thousands of taxes. it is proper to say that the

bill far exceeded our expectations. it has been a huge tool for innovation and small business growth, particularly online. i want to see that reauthorized. fairness act in effect goes in the other direction. i oppose to that legislation. maybe in a way in which both sides can agree. >> the sales tax on the internet essentially. >> what it is is forcing online merchants to go through red tape and compliance matters that you would not have to face if you are not an online business. that to me is discrimination. that is what congressman cox and i sought to prevent. >> you dealt with trade on finance.

you are a free trader. your party is moving in the opposite direction. they will not give the president fast-track authority for negotiating trade agreements. why are you free trade and why is your party going in the opposite direction? >> the trade discussion has changed dramatically since the 80's. a inou go on indy medi portland, you can walk through town and see people saying ron white and nafta, ron white and calf to them a what is next? shafta? i understand the strong views on this. in the 80's bill clinton and i were not talking about digital goods. this is an area where it is advantage, america. another republican senator has introduced a bill.

there are a whole host of new kinds of issues. to me, one of the priorities in building a new bipartisan coalition so that it is not all republicans and a handful of democratic free traders, you are going to have to take steps that are significantly bolder in terms of enforcing the trade laws. the first thing a middle-class person says, trade is now completed with the middle class economic challenge. the first thing a middle-class person is why are you talking about new in dash new agreements if you are not enforcing the laws on the books today? with respect to enforcement and digital goods and human rights and transparency, labor and environmental protections, there is a opportunity to build a new bipartisan coalition. somebody was talking about fast-track. maybe we will talk about smart

track that ensures that we can cap these markets. my part of the world is very intrusive in asia. the growth markets. the northeast, maybe the european markets. the agreement with europe. the reality is that this is a prime opportunity for us to create more good paying jobs. the trade jobs often pay better than the non-trade jobs. i am determined to find a new bipartisan coalition for trade. >> you are swimming upstream against a populous current. that makes it even harder. it has never been easy to sell free-trade. is it harder than it was? cox i may call it smart trade. the point is that if you have a new agenda that focuses on the concerns that middle-class people are talking about, i

mentioned enforcement, i mentioned labor matters. ensuring environmental policy. so that illegal logging and overfishing are not taking away american jobs. my determination is to get a significant block of democrats in the senate. well over the majority of democrats to be part of a new focus on trade policy. this will not be your grandparents trade policy where it is all republicans and a couple of democrats. minutes left before questions. let me ask you one final thing. toyou think it is advisable try to do corporate and personal tax reform simultaneously, or is it wiser to just do the corporate part first and personal is too complicated? do that separately. should that be done together?

>> the tax system is like an ecosystem. you put pressure over here and it dumps up over here. if the word goes out across america that there is going to be business tax relief, we will have millions of businesses say that sounds pretty good. it applies to me. then they might find out that this really does not apply. it does not apply to a partnership. it does not have -- applied to the restaurant that has 15 or 20 people. it applies to the multinationals. have view, you have to businesses that pay taxes and the individual that are actually part of the equation. the people will probably get sick of me saying it. it very much embodies my philosophy. that is part of giving everybody

the chance to get ahead. >> why don't we open it up to questions? >> right here, please. >> if you look at the revenues 80%his country, almost comes from individual taxes. less than 10% comes from corporate tax. the real issue is about $800 million. on the topfocus line. it comes down to the individual tax as the issue. of ave -- we are one handful of taxes -- country in the world where lower individual taxes and people can cheat the system. wealthy people are lowering their taxes with a very smart people and very complex tax code. why don't we simplify the tax code and go to a consumption tax

that is easy to control? >> you have the american people and me at hello when it comes to simplifying the tax code. if you go online, you will be able to see the 1040 form that i proposed as part of the bipartisan proposal. it is 31 lines long. magazine" tooky a typical tax code under our legislation and they were able to complete an individual taxes and under an hour. on the simplification issue, you have me at hello. with respect to revenue ideas, my colleague will be interested in that. a number of them are looking at that. a number of them are looking at carbon taxes and the like. that will be part of the debate. what i am trying to do is to

recognize the consumer driving 70% of the american economy. the consumer right now does not have the kind of disposable income that we really need for those kinds of purchases. a piece of our bipartisan proposal is to triple the standard deduction. youou are making $70,000, may be close to the median income in oregon. he may put $30,000 in tax relief out there for you. give you more disposable income to go out there and buy those goods and services that drive our economy. to some extent today when you look at shopping purchases, we have a neiman marcus dollar tree economy. we have purchases being made at these stores with a lot of very high end goods. dollar tree, we have many of those in our state.

the places that are hurting our seers and pennies and the restaurants that cater to the middle class. those are the kinds of places we should be looking at when we look at economic growth. some of that goes back to the days of henry ford. the history has been distorted. when he raised the wages of his workers, that was the key to helping found the middle class which drove economic growth in the long term. erry from the trade promotion authority. what happens between now and the end of the year between that and the trans-pacific partnership negotiations? given the opportunity to speed negotiations with partners, the argument is that all of the partners abroad are holding their best offers off of the negotiation table until they see that the agreements do not have

to be approved by congress. >> it is hard to keep all of the acronyms together. the lines have blurred just as much in government today. it used to be, and i have colleagues come up to me and say, what are we talking about this tpa deal for? i just read in the paper that tpp is almost finished. then you read the text of the law. is supposed to define your negotiating objectives. you do that first. then you come back and you do your substantive agreements. yiddish word, come together. >> a lot in washington. trading partners

know this is a matter of heated domestic debate. he are serious about both of these matters. the person that handles trade matters and finance committee to recent negotiations. i have had a number of discussions with the fiscals including the prime minister's that are coming through washington. we made it very clear that we are intensely interested in getting this done. i see this as one of the paths to generating more high skill am a high wage jobs. >> if you do not have fast-track hands, ie president's do not think you can get across the finish line. >> the bipartisan coalition that

i am talking about will be in place in the next few months. we are not talking about this as an intern at the. i am spending a lot of time talking to my colleagues on the finance committee. my party is legitimately looking at this huge challenge to help middle-class people get ahead in a tough economy. they are satisfied that we have a new trade agenda to do it and we can keep republicans on the program. year, willtime next we have a negotiated transpacific partnership? >> i am not in charge of the negotiation. mike and i talked constantly. is, i do not set the calendar in the united states senate, that it is my hope that in the next few months we will have a new bipartisan coalition

for expanded trade. for the first time in recent years it will put the focus on what is not just a political issue, but an economic issue. we need to create more opportunities for middle-class people that are legitimately concerned about where our future is going. >> thank you very much. andks, everybody jerry good morning, everyone. thanks to you both for being here. we will ask for your participation on a couple of questions. it ready for some morning calisthenics. man, i would like to start with you. talk about the u.s. economy. it is concerning that the long-term growth rate is slower than we thought. over the last half-century, it averaged about 3%. a report is out that it will be

2%. what is going on? is our future darker than we thought? >> you look at our economic growth, you can look at where we are right at this moment. we do not want to look at the rearview mirror. we want to look at where we are now. jobs have picked up. we add jobs for the month of june. we will have 52 consecutive months of private sector job growth. that will be the longest streak we have seen in this country. there are two components of growth. you are adding to your productivity. the second is, how much are you adding to the workforce? the first started rising in the mid-90's with the new economy. it continued strongly. there is a lot of technology and growth in the future. does contribute to an

overall slower growth rate. it highlights why we need to do things like immigration reform, get more women into the workforce and do what we can to go against the demographic trend. >> why is it slowing instead of going the other way? >> we had a first-quarter that was obviously disappointing, way below than anybody would have thought. some of that seems to be due to weather. the half-year before that was quite strong. all of the indications are that the second quarter is quite strong and that it was an aberration. it is still going to take down your average growth rate look that over the course of a year. >> i would like to ask you about emerging economies. they used to be the answer for growth. that is almost completely, the world bank has a study out that

for a third year in a row they will look -- deliver disappointing growth under 5%. >> disappointing by their own past performance. >> in the current global scenario, that is important enough. 7%.a is still at over compared to what china used to , 5% or 6% is handsome growth. 4.8% is not bad. this is the one where it has gone down quite a bit. my own expectation is that there are sufficient deep underlying issues that have to do with the labor market. it never makes the headlines. because of those reasons, a lot

of the growth leadership, there is no comparison. gohin one or two years, to back to the emerging and developing economies. do relatively better in terms of organization. >> i want to switch to our first question for the cfo's. we would like to know which country will deliver the a guest economic surprise over the next 12 months. one of the factors is the escalating violence in iraq. what impact could that have on the u.s. economy? shale insulate us in ways that it would not have previously? >> eight years ago we were importing 12 billion barrels a -- 12 million barrels a day. we have cut that down to 6

billion barrels. we have increased our production of oil by as much in this country as iraq reduces. about half of that production is use and fueld efficiency. we have the most fuel-efficient fleet. we are more insulated from global fuel prices than we were. even if we did not import any oil, our price would still be determined on a global market. that is very much a function of a fence around the world. are we safer than we were a decade ago? we are a lot better than we were 30 or 40 years ago. there is no doubt that it is a risk factor and one we are taking seriously. modeling inoing any terms of what kind of impact it would have on the economy? >> we monitor the situation in

oil markets. as the president said last week, we will look at a range of responses that we could take if there was a disruption in oil prices. >> does this change the game in terms of natural gas? >> we are talking about building terminals two or three years from now. i do not think that changes at all. >> we are still waiting for some answers. you were the economic advisor to india's government until 2012. there is incredible optimistic -- optimism about india. are people getting ahead of themselves? the optimism i think is right. you should not get ahead of yourself. but if you look at the last previous years of the i was actually in there, the

reforms have slowed down. from 2005 to 2008, at 9.5% per an number. crisis ite financial kept up pretty well, then the dropped down. it there was also a slowdown in was an imminent election, there were corruption scandals breaking which was the mood in the country. there was a lot of ordinarily upset abouty very this. so with the election there's comes a burst of expectation. you look at the details on things like that, we do expect that there will be some reforms will come in and now they don't have to think of the next election for another five years. so i actually expect giving that ofple of the fundamentals the income, like the savings rate and investment rate, india now saves the way