>> you can watch all to have governor's remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. part of c-span's road to the hite house coverage. colleagues and journalism would give a spectacular grade whether they're liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process has become a joke. it was already well on its way but this administration has perfected the stall, the delay, the redaks, excuses. it's shocking. i feel strongly that the information they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. but they covet it as if they're a private corporation defending trailed secretes -- secrets.

attkisson on the changing face of government and her career. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> this week, "the wall street journal" held its annual c.f.o. network conference in washington, d.c. to discuss some of the challenges in today's economic and business climate. next a conversation with oregon senator way man. he talked about a range of financial issuings currently being addressed by congress. this is 30 minutes. >> two interesting factoids about the senator before we start. i got to know him a long time go

>> you became chairman of the senate finance committee. he's been in charge of the committee since sneb so you can't blame him totally for everything that hadn't gotten done in washington. only partially. but you deal with a huge agenda on senate finance. let me start with the topic that everybody loves to hate, which s taxes. some say there ought to be a

broad tax reform of the system yet nothing ever seems to happen. tell me your plan to make it happen. you and your colleague senator hatch announced a plan last week. what's in the works? >> our people deserve a tax code that gives all americans the opportunity to get ahead and not those that have the resources to brigade t how to get a a lawyers to hot wire the system. i developed a bipartisan proposal over the last two years. first with mitch mcconnell. recently with senator dan coats and it essentially build on the good work that a big batch of democrats did in the 1980's. ronald reagan, bob packwood, which basically means you go in there and drain the swamp.

there have been something like 15,000 tax changes since that last tax emple are. you go in there, clean those out. use that money to hold down the rates and encourage productivity. when they did that we created something like six million new jobs. it helped to set the climate and i think it can do so again. >> tell me the specifics. what would you do to corporations and tax rates? >> first of all, i think that pro-growth tax reform, the right kind of bipartisan tax reform is going to encourage job growth, encourage economic growth and that will translate into revenue and my top rate is 24%. it is the lowest on offer. it means we're cutting the top rate but i think we do need to go after some of these loopholes and we have a big group of

c.f.o.'s here today and one of the ways they can help is first of all give us some certainty for the next two years to pass these tax extenders and then help us pinpoint specific loopholes that can be closed in order to drive down rates what was the principle that kept democrats and republicans together a quarter century ago. > and the cooperate rate you envision? >> 24%, the lowest on offer. the reality is much of what we're seeing today, these inversions, which are very much in the news, stems in the fact that our corporate rate isn't very efficient. it's really putting us right up there at the top and in a tough global economy, we need to have an efficient rate for business that's competitive and then also on the trade def front we need

to find a way to build a new bipartisan coalition to expand markets and make things here, grow things here, add value to them here and ship them somewhere. >> george wills pointed out it's hard to do tax reform the year before an election and the year after an election. unfortunately those are the only two years we do this. >> by the way, 198 was an election year and that was the year of the bipartisan tax reform. in fact, bob pack wood wasn't able to make the signing ceremony because he was at home getting a plaque from a citizening group. it can be group. i think from is a prime 15-month window now. essentially from now until say the august recess of 2015, maybe early fall. that's why senator hatch and i have joined with three very important hearings. the first will start on the

education provisions. i think we all understand that our students are getting smothered by debt. this is really harming their ability to be productive and my focus there will be to of olidate the array, confusing provisions into essentially a handful and to create new incentives for everyone to save. 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 rules. we'll start with the education incentives and quickly move to looking at individual competitiveness. >> i want to get to inversions in a second. one of the things that's paramount to this audience because they have to plan -- what are the prospects for

getting those don't it's late. are the extenders going to be extended? >> yes, but the real priority has got to be to do it quickly. so many of our businesses pay quarterly so they're having to pay higher estimates now. i met with small businesses in oregon recently and one of the good parts of the extender bill, a robert schumer bipartisan amendment gears it more to the small person, the person in a garage with innovation. they said if we get this passed quickly, i'm going to be making estimated payments which takes money out of my pocket that i could use to hire people. so let's get this passed quickly. the c.f.o.'s will help with that and gives us more time to move on to comprehensive reform. >> can you define what's realistic, what's your hope? >> i wanted to have them passed

yesterday. i thought that senator hatch and i produced a proposal that had strong bipartisan support in the committee. we tried to bring it up. we made it clear that we would be open to amendments, as long as they have some connection with extenders. for example, a number of my colleagues think that it's time for the government to get out of the business of creating incentives for renewable energy. that's a view i don't happen to share but it's a legitimate bipartisan amendment. let's offer those amendments that are really relevant to tax extenders and move on to reform. >> this is becoming an increasingly relevant and somewhat emotional topic. ith a new one this week, metronic announced it's moving. > to ireland where the rate is 12.5%. >> you said essentially we need

to stop this and that you wanted to take some steps to dealing with inversions. what's your idea? >> first of all, i think we ought to understand what's at stake here and that is americans don't want a race to the bottom. what we want to do is have a more efficient corporate system. that's why i have this rate in a proposal that has been bipartisan for a number of years of 24. i think that is fair to all sides. clearly to be competitive in these tough global markets there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle and if we're on top in terms of tax rates it's pretty hard to do that. >> so you had talked about inserting a provision that would raise the tax rate and make that retroactive. are you getting support for that? >> what we've seen -- of course we've not introduced it folly as a bill. i was probably -- trying to put

everybody on notice so everybody would understand the new rules when we get to tax reform. the reality is that anytime you have one of these kinds of approaches, in the long term people pay more and particularly they're going to be small businesses. what we need to do is create a system that gives everybody in america the opportunity to get ahead. i want to say as part of the fax tax code, whether you're somebody just getting started. we know that our system is about marketplace forces but right now we don't have a system that equally gives everybody the opportunity to get ahead. >> are you a tax repatryation fan? >> i have indicated in my last bill. which was with senator coates, who stepped in after senator gregg, that i am open particularly to the idea of as a it as a transition

transition to a new system specifically to create red, white, and blue jobs. but in 2004 there was a repatriation bill. the sponsors promised a repatriation rainbow, that this would generate enormous amounts of money but that was not the case. the removes were scathing indicating that it would not. >> is that a reason not to do it or are you still in favor of attempting? >> what i'm in favor of, as we said in the transportation build, that everything is on the table. i think transportation comes in two steps. the first is the short term. we have three weeks essentially before this goes belly up so this has got to be done before august. we're looking at a variety of ways to do it.

i want to encourage the private sector to come off the sideline. we have a history of being able to do this. the build america bonds program which i authored with a number of republicans. the last night of the recovery act i was asked what might happen and i said oh, back of the envelope, let's try $5 billion. democrats and republicans said pretty attractive. it generated more than $180 billion worth of investments. let's build with the highway trust fund right away and then let's look at approaches, particularly in my view, that encourage private capital to come off the sideline. >> are you confident that the highway trust fund is about to run out of money -- there are project shutting down across the country right now because of the uncertainty. are you confident that that trust fund will get danny before

you leave in august? >> failure on this is not an option. with a fragile economy, the kind we're dealing with right now, we cannot take the kind of economic hit that you have if transportation starts to pretty much vanish. failure isn't acceptable. senator hatch and i have had some very positive talks on it and i anticipate our moving during this work period to advance the effort. >> a couple of more topics i want to bounce off you. let me start with internet taxation. both taxation of internet access and sales online. both those questions are very much in the air. what do you want to happen and what is the most likely outcome? >> congressman cox and i wrote the internet tax freedom bill. what we wanted to do was a, make sure that in those earliest days

we wouldn't see promising businesses, particularly small businesses, clobbered by thousands and thousands of taxing jurisdictions. i think it's fair 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. i wrote the original bill and the reauthorization as we've seen in the last decade. the marketplace fairness about in effect goes in the other direction and i have been opposed to that legislation. that may be some ways in which both sides can agree but my prorte -- >> your sales tax on the internet, essentially? >> what it is forcing online merchants to go through red tape and compliance matters that you wouldn't have to face if you were not an online business.

that to me is discrimination. that's exactly what congressman cox and i on a bipartisan basis sought to prevent. >> you also deal with trade on finance. you are a free trader. your party is essentially moving in the opposite direction, won't give the president fast track authority for negotiating trade agreements, for example. why are you moving at a free trade direction, why is your party going in the opposite direction and how do you reconcile those two? >> first of all, the trailed discussion has changed very dramatically since the 1980's. if you go on indi media in portland you can see people walking through town saying ron white and nafta. ron white and cafta. what's next, ron? shafta? i understand people have strong views but the trade debate has

changed dramatically. for example in the 1980's, bill clinton and i were not talking about digital goods. senator thune and i have introduced a bill to help us build on that. so there are a whole host of new kinds of issues and to me one of the priorities in build agnew bipartisan coalition, so it's not just all the republicans and a handful of democratic free traders but you're going to have to take steps, for example, that are significantly bolder in terms of enforcing the trade laws. the first thing that a middle class person says, and, of course, trade is now conflated with the middle class economic challenge. the first thing a middle class person on the trade issue is liable to say is why are you talking about new agreements if you aren't enforcing the laws on the books today? so with respect to enforcement, with respect to digital goods, human rights, transparency, a

labor and environmental protections, i think there is an opportunity to build a new bipartisan coalition. somebody the other day was talking about fast track. i said maybe we'll tall -- call it smart track -- that in effect ensures that we can tap these markets. my part of the world is very interested in asia, a big growth market. northeast, maybe european markets. it's called t-tip, the agreement with europe. but the reality is this is a prime opportunity for us to create more good-paying jobs. the trailed jobs often pay better than do the non-trade jobs and i'm determined to find a way to a new bipartisan coalition for trailed policy. >> but you are swimming upstream against a populist current in the country, i think it's fair to say and that makes it harder. isn't it harder than it was just a few years ago or certainly

before the 2007-2008 rescission? >> i may call it smart trade but the point is you have a new agenda that focuses on the concerns middle class people are talking about. i mentioned enforcement, labor matters, ensuring that environment a.m. -- environmental policy, whether it's illegal logging or overfishing or not taking away american jobs. my determination is to get a significant bloc of democrats in the senate, well, -- well over a majority of democrats to be part of a new focus on trade policy. this is not going to be your grandparents' trade policy where it's all the republicans and a couple of democrats. >> we have two minutes left before questions. let me ask you one final thing and go back to tax reform for a second. do you think it is advisable to try to do corporate and personal

tax reform simultaneously or is it wiser, as the white house seems to think to do the corporate part first, personal too complicated or should these two be done together? >> i think they have to be done together. the tax system is like an eco system. you put pressure over here and it bumps up over here. then of course there's politics. if the word gets out across america that there is going to be business tax relief, we'll have millions of businesses hague -- saying hey, that sound really good, it applies to me. then they may find out, it doesn't ply to the partnerships, to the sole proprietor but it applies to huge multinationals so you have to make sure, in my view that what are called pass threws, businesses that pay

taxes as individuals are also part of the esituation that, as i said, people will probably get sick of me saying it but it very much embodies my philosophy. that's part of giving everybody the chance to get ahead. >> john, why don't we open it up to questions. >> yeah, right here, please. >> senator wyden. the if you look at the revenues of this country, almost 80% of it comes from individual taxes and less than 10% comes from corporate tax. the real issue, the gap, which is about $800 million every year. you'll focus on the top ones. so it comes down to the individual tax as the issue. why is it we are own -- one of a handful of countries in the world that hasn't figured out lower individual income taxes and institute a consumption tax

which people cannot cheat the system. at this time we have all the wealthy people in the country lowering their taxes. why don't we just go to a con sumpings tax that is extremely easy to control? >> you have the american people d me and hello when it comes to simplifying the tax code. if you go online you'll be able to see the 1040 form i've proposed. it's like 31 lines long and the people at money magazine are prominent financial -- a prominent financial magazine took a typical tax code under our legislation and they were able to complete the individual taxes in under an hour. so on the simplification issue, you have me at hello. with respect to the revenue kids -- certainly my colleagues will

be interested in that. a number of them are looking at that. looking at carbon taxes and the likes of that. that will be part of the debate. what i'm trying to do is to cognize that the consumer is deriving 70% of the american economy and the consumer right now does not have the kind of disposable income we need nor nor for that. the idea is to trip it will standard deduction so if you're making say $70,000, close to median income in oregon, we're going to put over $30,000 worth of tax relief out there for you in terms of that standard deduction. give you more disposable income out there in terms of those goods and services that drive our economy. particularly when you look at shopping purchases, we have what

i call a neiman marcus dollar tree economy. we have purchase that are being made at these stores with a lot of high-end goods. dollar tree are always mobbed. the places that are hurting are the sears and penny's and the restaurants that cater to the middle class. those are the kinds of places we eight to be looking at what we talk about economic growth and some of it goes back to the days of henry ford. history has been kind of distorted on it but clearly when he raised the wages of his workers that this was a key to helping the middle class, which drives economic growth for the long term in our country. >> other questions? senator, jerry raised the trade promotion authority. what happens between now and the end of the year on that and the transpacific partnership gorks? t.p.a. fast track gives the

administration the opportunity to speed negotiations with partners. the argument is all the partners abroad are holding their best offer off the negotiating table until they see that negotiations are not going to have to be approved by congress. >> first of all, and it's hard to keep all the acronyms together. the lines have sort of blurred, just as much has in government today. it used to be, and i have colleagues come up to me and say, hey, what are we talking about this t.p.a. deal for? i just read in the paper that t.p.p. is almost finished. what's going on? i thought that the whole point -- and when you read the texts of the law -- t.p.a. is supposed to define your negotiating objectives. you do that first and then you come back and do your substantive agreements like ttp and t-tip.

now it has this yiddish word, come together. smergel will cover d.c. adequately. i think our trading partners will know that clearly this is a matter of heated domestic political debate but we are intensely serious about both of these matters. i have sent, for example, my lead trade staffer, the person who handles trailed matters, the finance committee to recent negotiations. i've had a number of negotiations with officials, including in the last couple of weeks, prime ministers were coming through washington. we are making it very clear that we are intensely interested in getting this done and as i indicated with jerry, i see this as one of the paths to generating more high-skill, high-wage jobs. >> you can get as close as you

want to the finish line. if you don't have fast track t.p.a. in the president's hands, i don't think you can get across the finish line. what's going to go there with it? >> my hope is that this bipartisan coalition that i'm talking about is going to be in place here in the next few months. we're not talking about this being eternity but i am spending a lot of time talking to my colleagues on the finance committee about provisions that would ensure my party, which is legitimately looking at this huge challenge to help middle-class people get ahead in a tough economy and that they're satisfied that we have a new trailed agenda to do it and that we have republicans on the program and i think we'll have it together in the next few months. >> by this time next year will we have a negotiated transpacific partnership? >> certainly on my part -- i am not in charge of the negotiation.

mike furman and i talk constantly. i don't set the calendar in the united states senate but it is my hope that in the next few months we'll have a new bipartisan coalition for expanded trailed that for the first time in recent years puts a new focus on what i think is not just a middle issue but a a an economic issue. a trade policy that helps create more opportunities. >> senator wyden, jerry, thank you very much. >> thank you. thangse, everybody. [applause] >> more now from the "wall street journal" c.f.o. coverage ith homeland security leader jim johnson. his is 30 minutes.

>> good afternoon. >> garnett thank you so much for being our last speaker of the day and one that i think is probably very important to have last because it's going to wrap up a lot of the things we've talked about during the day, and also the fact that we had someone from the n.s.a. here earlier and i'm hoping that conversation -- >> chris english. >> that's right. so before we -- >> a lot of pressure on being last of the day. got to make it interesting. >> you're up for it. >> ok. >> before i launch in with a barrage of questions, i want to point out that we have a wild variety of companies and industries in this room and so for them, the idea of cybersecurity is actually kind of different components. there is the issue of cybertheft, which is hackers going in trying to steal

personal information of companies such as what we saw with target and neiman marcus in december. there's the issue of cyber espionage. the justice department has charged five members of the chinese military unit, alleging ,hey hacked into u.s. companies alternative power companies, nuclear companies, to try to take their intellectual property. then there is the issue of cyber where there is at least the specter of hackers tapping into our power grid, our water supply, the switching technology for our railroads. allre going to talk about three of those today, but i would like to ask your assessment of those three -- cyber theft, cyber espionage,