damage that's being done inside of the middle east and then hopefully, over time, build towards a better future there. that's not a two-year project, that's going to be a longer-term project. that was a long answer, but it was a big question. he said he wanted to go around he said he wanted to go around the world and i did that pretty fast. all right. in the back. fred. >> mr. president, you mentioned infrastructure in your opening remarks, and the brt i think would echo the fact that our highways and bridges are deteriorating, and the lack of investment is creating congestion, which is retarding economic activity. >> i want my fedex package moving smooth through our infrastructure. >> "60 minutes" did a very good piece on this problem the other day. so the highway trust fund, which provides the funding for all of

these infrastructure improvements, ran out of money in august and it was papered over with a patch based on some pension accounting. so now you have bipartisan bills in both the senate from senator corker, a republican, and senator murphy of connecticut. you have, as of yesterday, a bipartisan bill in the house with congressman petri, a republican, and congressman blumenauer, a democrat, and you had the chamber of commerce and the head of the afl-cio jointly testify in congress about the highway trust fund, the gasoline and diesel tax, and you've got the entire industry supporting an increase in highway taxation

to fund these infrastructure improvements. so why not, before the congress goes home for december, just pass a bill that takes the two bipartisan bills that i just mentioned up and solves the problem? because come may, it's going to run out of money again because the patch is over. i would think that would be a great opportunity for you and the new congress to show some bipartisan success here. >> i'll tell you, fred, if i were running congress, i'd potentially take you up on that offer or suggestion. i think i probably already would have done it. in fairness to members of congress, votes on gas tax are really tough.

gas prices are one of those things that really bug people. when they go up, they're greatly attuned to them. when they do down, they don't go down enough. and so, historically, i think there's been great hesitance. and so i guess what i'd do is separate out, fred, a short-term problem and the long-term problem. short term is we've got to replenish the highway trust fund. and i will engage with speaker boehner and mcconnell to see what they think they can get done to make sure that we're not running out of money. because we've got a whole bunch of construction projects that are in train right now that -- set aside the stuff that we need to do, just keeping going on the stuff that is currently operating would be endangered if

we don't replenish it. the question is going to be, is there a formula long term for us to get a dedicated revenue source for funding the infrastructure that we need that is not so politically frightening to members of congress that it's reliable. the gas tax hasn't been increased for 20 years. there's a reason for that. and if that's your primary source of revenue when the population has -- i don't know what it's done, but it's gone up x percent; gdp has gone up x percent -- we've got -- your business, fred, has completely transformed over the last two decades, and yet we still have the same mechanism to try to keep up.

it's probably a good time for us to redesign and think through how do -- what is a sustainable way for us on a regular basis to make the investments we need. and this may be something that we can introduce into the tax reform agenda. it may end up being too complicated and we got to do something separate, but we've got to figure this out. we are falling behind. dave, you were asking earlier about china. i do not take potential competition from china lightly, but i am absolutely confident we've got better cars than china does. and i'd much rather have our problems than china's problems. that i'm confident about. on the other hand, the one thing i will say is that if they need to build some stuff, they can build it. and over time, that wears away our advantage competitively.

it's embarrassing -- you drive down the roads, and you look at what they're able to do. the place that we stayed at for the apec summit was this lavish conference center, and it probably put most of the conference centers here to shame. they built it in a year. now, you've got an authoritarian government that isn't necessarily accountable. i understand we're not going to do that. but if they're able to build their ports, their airports, their smart grid, their air traffic control systems, their

broadband systems with that rapidity and they're highly superior to ours -- over time, that's going to be a problem for us. so, fred, i guess the answer is, i'm going to talk to mcconnell and boehner to see what we can do short term and to see whether these bipartisan bills have any legs. they'll have a better sense of head counts. and i'll have to talk to harry reid and nancy pelosi as well. but even if we were able to get something done, it would not be the kind of 10-year solution that we need. the best i suspect they could do would be to stagger through another year. and we've got to have a better way of planning and executing on infrastructure investment. and i'll be engaging with the brt and you, hopefully, and others who are interested to see if we can come up with something. and i've got to check in with larry to see if he's figured out whether we can get all that global capital on the sidelines to start helping us fund some

infrastructure projects here in the united states. yes, greg. >> so just to pivot back to immigration for a minute. it remains a top priority unequivocally of brt. we are of the mind that the policy and the politics can still align sometime in 2015. we are steadfast and consistent in comprehensive or broad-based reform and all the components that come with that. we agree with you on timing -- maybe it's for, whatever, second quarter, summer, whatever it ends up being, but there's still an opportunity to do that. as we go down this path in what appears to be a piecemeal approach with multiple bills that can advance, i just wanted to make a comment. we all collectively need to be mindful of the sequencing and the packaging of those individual pieces of legislation and how they're viewed so we don't talk past each other. you know what i'm saying.

>> i do. i mean, greg, look, let's be blunt. brt has a great interest in the high-skill visa issue and h-1bs, and making sure that stem graduates are available to work and ultimately start businesses here in the united states. i'm for that as well. there was a limit to how much we could do on that front through executive action because something like h-1b visa numbers are clear, statutory, not subject to a lot of executive interpretation. but, for example, we could administratively make sure that folks who had been approved for green cards, that process was accelerated so that they weren't stuck and their employers weren't hobbled in terms of utilizing those personnel in a

more efficient, effective way. so that's component one, and i know that's a preeminent interest to this room. there's an agricultural component. there wasn't a lot we could do administratively on the ag sector, but those whose businesses keep track and are related to what happens in agriculture understand that we should have a more efficient system for managing fairly, justly, agricultural workers who are vital to the economy. and, frankly, this is one of the few areas where it genuinely is true that it's hard to find americans to do those jobs. sometimes that's overstated. sometimes the question is -- and i hope i'm not offending anybody here -- but sometimes when folks say, we can't find anybody it's because you don't want to pay as much as you'd have to, to find some folks.

but in the ag sector, that's hard work, and it's hard to find enough american-born workers to actually get it done. but we've got to treat them fairly and make sure that it's good for workers, good for business. that we could not do much about through executive action. so those are two big components that are of interest to this group that need to get done. border security -- the truth is, we're already doing a lot. we're going to be doing more as a consequence of the executive actions. there was a spike in concern about the borders because those kids had been coming up from central america during the summer and it got two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage until everybody forgot about it. it does reflect real problems in central america with their economies and violence, but also active marketing by smugglers to

parents, saying that they could get kids in. we brought that back down so the numbers are now below what they were two years ago. overall, the border is less porous than it's been any time since the 1970s. and we make huge investments down there. we can still do more, but the truth is, were working that part of it real hard. and then there's the issue that i did deal with in executive actions, although not for everybody, and that is the 11 million people who are here undocumented, but the vast majority who are law-abiding. and the one principle i guess, if, in fact, we can still get a comprehensive deal going forward, even if it's somewhat piecemeal, is i am not going to preside over a system in which

we know these folks are in the kitchens of most restaurants in the country, are cleaning up most of the hotels that all of you stay in, that are doing the landscaping in most neighborhoods where you live, whose kids are going to school with our kids, and we tolerate it because it's good for us economically to have cheap labor and services, but we never give them a path to be part of this country in a more full and fair way. that's just not who we are. that's not how most of our forebears got to the point where we had the opportunities we've got today. so i'm not going to perpetuate a system of that sort. i've taken executive actions. what i'd like to see, and i'm happy to negotiate, is to see if we can solidify that into law.

but it's going to be hard, i think, for me and for other democrats to vote for a big package that says, all right, we're going to still not deal with that and just deal with those aspects of it that are of core concern to the brt. that doesn't mean i can't have that conversation, but i want to be honest about the complications of us doing something piecemeal. >> well, and we support -- >> i know you do. >> the components. >> you guys are all there. you guys have been terrific on this. i have no complaints at all, and, in fact, i have only gratitude for the way that the brt stepped up. i think everybody here sincerely understands what immigration has meant to the life of this country. and just in terms of macroeconomics. it's not a sexy argument to make to the public, but we are younger than our competitors.

and that is entirely because of immigration. and when you look at the problems that china, japan, europe, russia, are all going to have, a lot of it just has to do with they're getting old. and we stay young because were 're constantly being replenished by these striving families from around the world. and we should want that to continue. all right. i'll take two more, what the heck. right back here and then right over here. >> mr. president, almost everyone agrees that u.s. trade representative michael froman is doing a herculean job of driving trade agreements around the world. it seems to be common sense that more access to global trade is good for the creation of u.s. jobs. how can we get tpa passed so that michael can have the clear support that he needs to drive these agreements? >> well, i'm going to be talking to mcconnell and boehner, reid

and pelosi, and making a strong case on the merits as to why this has to get done. it is somewhat challenging because of a factor that i mentioned earlier, which is americans feeling as if their wages and incomes have stagnated. and there's a half-truth that is magnified i think in the discussions around trade that global competition has contributed to some of that wage stagnation. it's an appealing argument. i think when you look at the numbers, it's actually an incorrect argument that over time, growth, investment, exports all have increased the capacity for working families to improve their economic standing.

but i say it's a half-truth because there's no doubt that some manufacturing moved offshore in the wake of china entering the wto and as a consequence of nafta. now, more of those jobs were lost because of automation and capital investment, but there's a narrative there that makes for some tough politics. we have to be able to talk directly to the public about why trade is good for america, good for american businesses and good for american workers. and we have to dispel some of the myths. part of the argument that i'm making to democrats is, don't fight the last war -- you you already have -- if somebody

is wanting to outsource, if any of the companies here wanted to locate in china, you've already done it. if you wanted to locate in a low-wage country with low labor standards and low environmental standards, there hasn't been that much preventing you from doing so. and, ironically, if we are able to get trans-pacific partnership done, then we're actually forcing some countries to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection. and so all that is good for us. those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to american workers.

and i'm going to have to engage directly with our friends in labor and our environmental organizations and try to get from them why it is that they think that -- for example, mike is in a conversation with vietnam, one of the potential signatories to the tpp. right now, there are no labor rights in vietnam. i don't know how it's good for labor for us to tank a deal that would require vietnam to improve its laws around labor organization and safety. i mean, we're not punishing them somehow by leaving them out of something like this. let's bring them in. on the environmental front, i

haven't looked carefully at the environmental laws in malaysia recently, but i suspect they're not as strong as they are here. it's not a bad thing for us to nudge them in a better direction, particularly since we now know that environmental problems somewhere else in the world are going to ultimately affect us. so i think that there are folks in my own party and in my own constituency that have legitimate complaints about some of the trend lines of inequality, but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing tpp, and i'm going to have to make that argument. but i will tell you, though, when you talk to boehner and mcconnell, that some of those same anti-trade impulses are

more ascendant in the republican party than they might have been 20 years ago as well. and some of you may have encountered those in some of your conversations. and this was why it goes back to the point -- we're not going to get trade done, we're not going to get infrastructure done, we're not going to get anything done in this town until we're able to describe to the average american worker how at some level this is improving their wages, it's giving them the ability to save for retirement, it's improving their financial security. if people continue to feel like democrats are looking after poor folks and republicans are looking after rich folks and nobody is looking after me, then we don't get a lot of stuff done. and the trend lines evidence the

fact that folks have gotten squeezed. and obviously, 2007, 2008 really ripped open for people how vulnerable they were. nick. >> mr. president, thank you for being here today. we talked about many issues that are on the 2015 agenda for the business roundtable. one of the real pervasive issues that i know you've talked about before is the regulatory burden in this country, and still it remains the major issue that many of us deal with. in my industry, american electric power, we're in the midst of a major transition in our industry. we have environmental rules, obviously, that we continue to advance, and have done quite a good job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. and i know that we've had

billions being spent on mercury removal at the time when we're now having greenhouse gas rules being put in place that even independent system operators say that there will be impacts on the reliability of the grid. and i know you've been seriously responsible and involved with the reliability implications for our grid post super storm sandy, from the cyber physical standpoint. and it really is interesting for us to see this transition occurring. we've got to be reasonable and rational. and it goes to the overall regulatory question -- how do we continue to make progress -- and i'd like just your views on -- you've talked about this before -- how do you see the progress that's been made and what you anticipate occurring in the next couple of years relative to removing some of this regulatory burden that makes us all uncompetitive? >> i think it's a great question. it's probably a good place to close because i think this is an area where i'd like to see us do more together.

i've said before to my staff -- i haven't said this publicly, so i've got to be careful here. you get a little looser in your last two years of office. [laughter] and this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it will get to a point. the republicans -- and maybe i'd throw the brt in here -- are actually about 25% right when it comes to regulatory burden. now, you'd say the numbers are different. but what i mean by that is, nobody wants to be regulated, and there are some regulations that are burdensome on businesses. they'd rather not do them, but the common good that is served is sufficiently important, the

benefits so outweigh the cost that, as a society, we should go ahead and do them. and we were talking about china earlier. i would just point to one simple example, and that is, you would not want your kids growing up in beijing right now, because they could not breathe. and the fact of the matter is that used to be true in los angeles -- as recently as 1970. and the reason it changed was because of the clean air act. and in my hometown of chicago, the chicago river caught fire right around the same period, and because of the clean water act, you now have folks paddling down the water and fishing. and the commercial renaissance of downtown chicago is, in large part, driven by a really big, radical piece of environmental legislation that, at the time, people said would destroy our businesses and our competitiveness.

so there's an example of something that -- it's inconvenient, it's tough, but it's the right thing to do. and, over time, i actually think it's not only good for our quality of life, it's actually good for our economy. because we've got some really innovative companies here and you guys figure out how to adapt to those regulations. but remember what i said at the beginning -- you're actually about 25% right. what is absolutely true is, is that as we comb through our regulatory structures, there are old regulations that have outlived their usefulness. you have regulations on railroads that don't take into account gps, so they have folks doing a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't acknowledge technologies that have sprung up over the last 20 years. you have regulations that are poorly written.

you've got regulations that are not properly synced up so that you have different agencies with different responsibilities, and so compliance costs end up skyrocketing. you have regulations that squash innovation, because at times some of the agencies, the regulatory agencies, treat every problem like a nail and only have a hammer, and aren't engaging with industry enough to think, all right, here is the problem we're trying to solve, is there's a smarter way of solving it? so what we've tried to do is to set up a structure in which we can engage directly with various industries, explain, here's the goal we're trying to accomplish, solicit as much feedback as possible, and then try to design systems that provide some flexibility, allow for creative adaptation, but still hit the mark, still hit the goal.

and, for example, on the power plant rule, which obviously you're having to spend a lot of time with, i recognize that this is a big expense for a lot of companies. on the other hand, i think gina mccarthy has tried to have a sufficiently open process so that she's working with not only industry, but on a state-by-state basis, recognizing not every state is the same, to figure out is there a smarter way for us to do this, but still meet the mark of reducing our overall carbon emissions. what i'd like to do in these last two years is figure out how we can improve the system to find that 25% -- and again, we may not always agree on what the 25% is -- and can we institutionalize it so that it outlives my administration. we already instituted a cost-benefit analysis system

that -- or we inherited one that had been instituted. it was controversial for a while -- mostly criticism from democrats. i actually believe in cost-benefit. i think it makes sense for us to engage in a vigorous review. and there has -- and my essential rule has been, we're not going to promulgate new regulations unless you can show a significant benefit relative to costs. and we've been able to do that. we've been able to document it in the most rigorous way possible. but are there some other institutional things we can do to build the process so, for example, there's more input on the front end, rather than the rule gets promulgated, published, and then there's this big, cumbersome, inefficient, unwieldy process of comments. and maybe, are there smarter ways of doing that? we're spending a lot of time on the regulatory look-back process, digging back into old

rules and seeing what don't make sense. so what i'd like people to do, the brt to do is, perhaps industry by industry, work with jeff, and let's inventory what are the rules that bother you most. we'll go through them. i'll tell you, if it's child labor laws, i'm probably going to hang to them. we're going to keep that rule. if it's some basic issues around environmental protection, i'm going to be -- want to preserve them. but in those instances where there are significant costs, i may say we're not going to change the goal; do you think there's a smarter way of doing this, because we're willing to listen if you think there is. less command and control, more market incentive -- we're open to it. and on that list, i suspect

there may be four or five regulations out of 20, 25 where you can persuade us, you know what, this actually should just be eliminated. it doesn't make sense anymore. or it should be replaced. and we will be open to doing that. the job council that we put together, that some of you participated in, gave us a list of recommendations, and some of them involve, for example, streamlining infrastructure projects. we adopted almost all those recommendations. and business was absolutely right -- it wasn't that they minded having an environmental review; they didn't like the idea of having permitting, environmental review, all this stuff go consecutively, and you end up with an eight-year time frame, when, if you put in on parallel tracks, you could compress it down to one year. so we are open to common sense.

and what i have assigned jeff to do and my entire cabinet to do -- penny pritzker and tom perez and others -- is to sit down, listen to you, and if you can show us either that something is counterproductive and doesn't work, or there's a smarter way of meeting the goal, we will embrace it, happily. there are going to be times, though, where we just disagree on the goal. and i'm going to be -- workers' safety -- my instruction to tom perez is i want our workers to be safe. and we now do have probably the safest workforce that we've ever had in history. made huge strides on that, partly because of just continuous improvement that you've instituted in your own companies. this has been good for workers. it's been good for business. but, frankly, if it hadn't been for some initial laws to prod you, some of it just wouldn't have happened. so we're going to hang on to worker safety rules. the question then is going to

be, is there a way, for example, for us to enforce it in a more efficient way and a less disruptive way, but continues to hold you accountable. that's a conversation tom perez is going to be happy to have. all right? happy holidays, everybody. it's good to be in america. god bless us. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] ♪ ♪

>> we learned early today that a group in yemen linked to al qaeda is responsible for the death of an american who was being held captive there. luke somers was a photojournalist abductive in 2014. according to the defense department, he was killed this morning as u.s. special forces were attempting to rescue him and the other potential hostages. president obama authorize the

rescue attempt when intelligence suggested somers' life was in immediate danger. he released a statement reading in part -- on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will talk about steps the u.s. takes to recover americans taken hostage overseas, with someone who served on the white house security council from 2004-2006.

also, a professor will discuss the curriculum being used for police training, and we will be joined by cory bennett of the hill about ways americans can protect themselves from hackers online. ann compton, who recently retired as white house correspondent, on over 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford through barack obama. >> we see second graders go through their drill. i was stunned. i looked down to my reporter's notebook. nobody interrupts the president, even in front of second graders. said heident stood and had to go. he went into a side room. and then we discovered it was tw o plane crashes in new york.

eric fleischer came out in the parking lot outside the school and said, stay right here. the president will come talk to you. i said, my camera is in the cafeteria. the president has to speak there. he did not want to scare the children, but he did go into the cafeteria. he said, it is an apparent terrorist attack, and i have to return to washington. the door slammed. night.ay >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> i want to complement them on putting together two different did thiss, like they morning. i think you need more programming that way.

they conduct themselves with a very civil tone. and i applaud him for that. ideology can be overcome to reach a common ground. i think we should do more to that effect. thank you very much. i go to c-span on a daily basis. i find it to be very informative. at all wonderful look the politicians so that citizens can understand exactly who we elect it, and what they are doing in congress. isseems to be that congress undecided or always fighting the citizens, and it is a nice outlet for them to see. i appreciate c-span. regardless whether or not it is popular with mainstream culture, there are young people,

particularly me -- i am 18. i watched c-span to make sure i understand what is happening in my country. thank you. tour, then history battle of little big horn -- i just watched it in its entirety. so many people throughout the world do not understand themselves, but if they watch american history, they can see that america is such a great and wonderful nation of all the peoples of the world. thank you. what kenya to let us know you think about the programs you are watching. us a tweet.end .oin the c-span conversation

like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the wall street journal ceo council recently hosted its annual meeting in washington, d.c. the multi-day event included interviews with lawmakers, military officials, and leaders in government. this year's meeting began with the international monetary fund managing director christine lagarde. she discussed the imf cost roll ineconomic -- the imf's role economic issues. this is 40 minutes. [applause] >> that was last year. what an extraordinary 12 months we have all witnessed. who would forecast the price of oil? in june, $102. in the midst of mideast mayhem, it is now sixtysomething dollars. who was the precedent person -- prescient person who understood that trajectory, and how much

did that person make by shorting oil? [laughter] qe2 wask back to when , before very large ship he was hijacked by central bankers. and then we have had qe3, and possibly even qe4. but it is pretty fair to say that with qe, it is not yet qed. since we last gathered, india, indonesia have both got new reformist leaders. china, xi jinping has become newly assertive. those three countries together bring together 2.9 billion people. of transition and trajectory those countries, sometimes colliding, will fashion the future for many of the people on our planet. and it is a year of anniversaries. is a particular poignant one that literally 25 years ago this

month, the nikkei -- that is december 1990 9 -- the nikkei peaked at just over 38,900. today, it closed at 17,600. on present trends, it will reach its former high at around 2039. and given contemporary longevity, we will not be here to -- we will all be here to witness it. [laughter] on the other hand, probably not the averagecause lifespan of a ceo is 4.6 years. [laughter] have beenof you who to seven ceo councils -- [laughter] i will let you do the math. anyway, there are people to whom we must give particular thanks for their particular contributions. first of all, to rupert murdoch.

prickly, he helps all of us at the journal and at fox in ways some would not even imagine. to the new chief executive of dow jones, unfortunately another former editor -- he is leading dow jones with energy and efficacy. to the two jerries. they sound like a standup comedian act. in part, they are. that is jerry baker, the distinguished editor in chief of "the wall street journal" and that would -- dow jones. he is rectifying his predecessor 's agreed his mistakes. [laughter] -- grievous mistakes. [laughter] much work to do. the paper into the

future. and to the washington bureau chief of the journal. you'll meet you with as much clout. to john busey and dorothy, and are committed, capable conference team, we would not be here without you. there is one distinguished group that deserve our particular collective thanks, without whom we would certainly not be here. they are not just sponsors, they are alchemists, and they are making possible the magic. they are the apollo education group, b.n.p. paribas, novo, nasdaq, and work day. if we could give them a round of applause. [applause] now, to work. washington is still the center of the world. for the next 24 hours, you will be at the epicenter.

fascinatingwill be and important. there will be an unfolding configuration of congress, and a president confronting institutional impermanence. you here and the world outside will hear from those influencing the core policy debates. dialogue,as to be a active, not passive. so please, please participate. and to start the conversation, we are extremely fortunate to have with us jerry baker and the managing director of the imf, christine lagarde. thank you very much. [applause] we do have a chair for you. it is not quite as hostile and environment as that.

much, robert, for those extremely kind remarks, and for your leadership of both the wall street journal and news corp., which has been extraordinary and is appreciated by everybody who works there, and lots of people elsewhere. thank you very much indeed for being with us. thank you for making the time. i know you are very busy, literally dashing off after this to catch a plane to a country somewhere. managing when the director of the imf is dashing off to catch a plane somewhere, it is not very good news for the country, but i know in this case, that is not the case. let's start looking at the global economy, and particularly at something very topical, which is the dramatic move robert mentioned that you have seen in oil and energy prices. 40%, roughly, decline since the summer. concomitant declines in other prices. when you see these dramatic turnarounds, these dramatic

shifts in markets, particularly something as crucial to the u.s. economy as oil and energy, it results in a lot of dislocation for countries, balance payment problems, financial problems elsewhere. what are we seeing so far? as you look at this really dramatic change we have seen, what are you seeing from the imf in terms of the stresses and strains this is producing, as well as the benefits for the global economy? >> i think what we do first is try to analyze where it is coming from, whether it is a supply or demand effect. in the present circumstances, we are seeing it is predominantly a supply, you know. 80% supply, 20% demand. that is pretty good. look at the aggregate effect it is going to have on the global economy. if i was to address an audience in saudi arabia, qatar, or k

uwait, i would not look at it in the same way, because there will be winners and losers, but on a net basis, it is good for the global economy. we have a rule of thumb based on a lot of modeling and analysis of what has taken place. if we have a 30% decline -- we have a bit more than that. assuming a 30% decline, it is likely to be an additional 0.8% for most advanced economies, because they are importers of oil, whether you look at the u.s., japan, europe, china -- all of them are net oil importers. 0.8% to eachother of those countries -- worldly only 0.6% for the u.s., because the effect is less critical for this economy -- it is a net booster, on an aggregate basis. winners and losers. exporters are taking a hit. my assumption is, it is a calculated hit. but net-that, it is good.

>> let us look at some of those producers. take russia in particular. russia is going through extraordinary economic dislocation right now. the ruble has declined dramatically, continues to fall. how fragile is russia, and what kind of threat is its fragility post to the global economy? a i think it pulls significant threat, mutt not just from an economic point of view. i amu were to ask me what concerned about at the moment, it is the geopolitical threat created by the current endeavors. russiatting endeavors by high on my list. the burden it is taking as a result of the price of oil going down is adding to their fragility and vulnerability, and they know it. it remains to be seen what the

reaction will be. but it is certainly something that is an add on to the ruble depreciation, to the sanctions actually affecting the russian economy as well. you have now three factors at play, really, operating on the russian economy. >> do think the imf is going to need to be involved again, looking at what is happening with these energy net exporting countries? are we seeing, whether it is in thereec countries -- is going to be a need, do you think, for intervention by the imf? >> i was in kuwait about three gulf ago, addressing the country councils. and i told them, you might not be used to it, but it continues the way it does, most of your economies will show fiscal deficits. and you should be prepared for that, and you should build the buffers that you will need in due course to deal with that.

second point -- if you look at who is going to be most affected, we just mentioned russia. you have to think about iran, clearly. you have to think about venezuela. and there will be a few african countries, not the smallest ones, like nigeria, that will be affected as a result of what is happening. -- if the imft was called upon to help not only ukraine, as we do and have to at the moment, but many of those other countries, i would seriously need some help from this country so that our quota and volume of capital to be engaged as loans to those countries would be increased, as is expected from the rest of the world. so i need your help. [laughter] >> i want to come to the quota" a reform issue in a bit. let's go around the world and the world isf helped by this fall in energy

prices. looking at the global hotspots, -- itng in this place looks like, according to the latest data, it is either in or close to its third recession in five years. this is a continent that seems to be reliving japan's experience over the last 20 years. it seems to be sclerotic. it seems to be not getting better anytime soon. what is the outlook for europe? what needs to be done? >> this is what i have called the risk of the new mediocre, being a combination of low growth, anywhere between 0.8%, possibly 1.3% next year, low inflation, which is really bad debt is countries where close to 100% -- >> some countries are already in deflation. >> out for the moment, it is more sustained low inflation. >> it could get worse. >> it might get worse because of

the price of oil, but we are talking about nominal inflation. the question is, does it translate into core inflation as well, which it might pass through, at least a portion of it. and high unemployment, which is the other very bad part of this new mediocre. that is bad news. if you look on the other hand at much lower price of oil, cheaper energy, you look at a euro that has clearly been depreciating over the course of the last three or four months, and you look at the banking sector, which has been sanitized, cleaned, stress tested by the ecb, and where remedies have been taken, you have three components that should be moving the euro area. i am not suggesting that this is a walk in the park, europe is a piece of cake. no, it is not. it is a complicated landscape,

and one where the political games -- there were some allusions and hints to how politics should improve. certainly, that is an area where, at the european level, politics should play a positive role for growth and the people. >> you know there is an intense debate in europe about what needs to be done, a strong view from some that there should be aggressive monetary stimulus. the ecb has not generally follow the route of the bank of england and the bank of japan and the fed in really aggressive stimulus, buying government bonds. strongly resisted by the germans, who say we need structural reform, you are not going to get anywhere by constantly injecting adrenaline into the economy in this way. where do you stand? where do you stand on that debate? do you think the ecb should do more? >> we talk about the eurozone, putting the u.k. outside. the u.k. is operating differently.

the eurozone has to fire on all saunders. -- on all cylinders. we will see it quantitative easing is appropriate and others fall off. where they are at the moment, they need to use all available tools. job means growth and friendly fiscal policies for those that can afford it, monetary policy that is innovative and quite aggressive, and it means, absolutely, structural reforms that they have been talking about, and they have suggested, get on with it and do it. >> they talk about it a lot, but they do not do it. >> he cannot say that, because some of them do. a lot has been done in spain. a lot has been done in ireland. there are some big players. >> france. >> i do not take it personally, i assure you. but very significant structural reform, particularly concerning the labor market.

that have to be implement it, not just talk about. pope francis went to the european parliament last week and gave a speech. even the pope, whom one assumes the pope is there to speak truth -- >> tell the truth, yes. >> but also is there to give comfort. what did he say? he said europe is haggard and elderly. >> like a grandmother. >> that is right. like a rather sick grandmother. it is like that, isn't it? >> i am not privy to his way of thinking. [laughter] >> have a try. >> i will have a private meeting with him next week, so i will ask him exactly what he meant by this. haggard and non-fertile grandmother. i think what he wanted to do is to give a little kick and say, come on, i am challenging you.

you can do better than that. you cannot be that haggard grandmother. there is something in the belly of the europeans that can be stored to good fire. >> forgive me for saying, this is an englishman who has lived here all longtime. but the euro is making it worse. the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. [laughter] that was a question. i am sorry. what -- i you know think the mistake was to have assumed that by moving into a monetary single currency, everything else would follow, and the fiscal union would be a given, which has not happened. so if you have a currency union without a school union, without a banking union, it is like not having all cylinders to fire with. and that is, i hope, what they are going to be working on. >> let's move on to china. very interesting things, as

robert mentioned in his opening remarks. significant reforms. in the last week, we are seeing reform of the financial or. perhaps attacking the big question of state-owned enterprises. but all is carrying on at a time when growth is clearly slowing. official numbers may be say 7.5. others are not as strong as that. is china going to be able to pull off this trick? more than a trick, this balancing act of reforming its economy, making pro-market reforms that he clearly seems to want to make, while maintaining enough growth to keep people fed, happy, and in jobs, and from rioting in the streets. manyny of us have, for years, in a way, suspected china of not being able to deliver. many have shortened china. the truth of the matter is, it actually delivered. what it plans on doing, it does.

might be using slightly different devices and tools and policies than what we are used to. but when they say they will deliver 7.5%, and they are gradually being more confident seven than 6.5, and gradually phasing to a more moderate growth rate, i think that is what they are going to do. carefully look very as a monetary policy, the structural reforms. and this is just happening. >> how stable is the financial sector in china, particularly related to the real estate sector? there is a lot of concern about overbuilding, over accumulation. everybody is worried about the scale of it. how much of a threat does china's financial overhang represent? the chinese monetary authorities are particularly concerned about what you just mentioned.

the expansion of credit, particularly for local communities and housing unconventional tools and use shadow banking to the point where eventually interest rates can be freed as a result of the pressure of shadow banking. >> in japan, a lot of interesting things. an experiment in the past two years. not finished. maybe two years ago, another election in a couple of weeks. a new bout of monetary easing. but, it looks like that big experiment -- and despite all of the experiment and the nikkei having rapid growth for a year or so, it seems to be falling apart.

sense of what is happening? will they get it back on track? >> you have to give them the credit of trying something that was really hard and trying something that is still very hard. i do not believe prime minister abe has given up on the three arrows. the central bank governor is very keen on just staying the course. rigorous and continues to stay he will do what it takes to make sure inflation goes up 2%. it is a bitly, short on the delivery it's both on the structural reform and on the fiscal. once the election is over and done and hopefully it will be stronger as a result of the elections, it comes back to the fiscal plan and give a very clear indication and solid indication of the timing of the

consumption tax increase from 8% the end of the year for implementation in 2015. so there is no uncertainty and everybody understands what will happen when it happens and they can't anticipate. when they do that which will give revenue going forward and 245% to which is above gdp, winnipeg and the indication, they can for the short-term put in place stimulus that will compensate the immediate effects we have seen back in april when they increased from 5% to 8%. they have to do that, clearly. structural reforms, they have to get on with it. slack moment, there is no in the jobless economy. when they of money in the construction business, there's no one to build.

the labor market is so tense. has signaledr abe for the first time. they will have to open up to women, and i hope they do it. but also to immigration. they have to open up. home, thering it back united states. the relative bright spot. standards, 1.5% after the recession we had into doubt and seven through 2009 is not very impressive. it has been delivered by a massive stimulus. through 2009,007 it is not very impressive. the fed will probably raise interest rates. is the u.s. economy strong enough? we include the effects of the oil price reduction, our forecast for next year will be 3.5%.

that should be strong enough for the monetary policy to follow its course which has been indicated with could communication. good communication by the president of the sad. they are putting out so many senses. -- with good communication by the president of the sad. when it is a good time to raise interest. verywill do that delicately and sensibly and give it the right signal. that is our for the moment. it is not that. >> that is 0.25%. year-over-year -- >> i am talking about no year -- next year. 3.9%, not bad. will be hearing from stan fischer, the president of the fed. what you are saying, we talk about europe and japan and the u.s., my question is a broader one which is -- hasn't the world

become so dependent on the central bank injections for so long? what growth we see seems to be stimulated by this inevitably artificial and ultimately destabilizing injection of demand you have seen from the quantity that you say from central banks. we have not really seen in the developed world, sustained growth based on structural factors, the kind of reforms necessary. on we not just dependent these repeated injections of monetary stimulus? helpful ineen most the last two years. had it not been around, we would not be talking about this growth in the u.s. in particular or england, for that matter. it has been necessary. it has been a helpful. gradually, phasing out. regulatorstoken, the

and sympathizers have to be extremely attentive -- attentive to asset bubbles. they can use a macro credential tools to temper that and put them down. fine, but itcy is cannot go at it alone. it has to be supported by structural reform and a focus on productivity and sound fiscal policy as well. that itre not worried lets those governments off the hook for making the reforms? they can rely on stimulus and not have to do the hard stuff like making people work harder and take tough -- >> that is what all central bankers are saying at the moment. dragh saidt what yesterday in that is his point. we have done everything wei can. i want to ask you

about broader financial conditions in the world. we are 60 years on from the financial crisis. a lot has been done. a huge amount of regulatory change. a lot of tough regulation imposed on the financial sector. are we confident we are now pretty well save from the kind of a natural disaster we saw six years ago? have we done the right thing? >> a lot of progress has been made. -- despitehe market the market trepidation and banks , some in the room, the fact we addressed it from a capital, liquidity leverage point of view , having some regards a but not too much regard for the banks and generating monetization and risk the waiting methods was the right thing to do. governors respectable

of big central banks would say the same thing. it might seem a little bit basic, but more capital is actually the best remedy to potential risk. now, what has happened because the picture is much more regulated, you have seen, we have seen the development around the settlements -- shadow banking developing, growing nicely. to the extent this particular part of the business and which can be defined narrowly to broadly, that segment has to be supervised and checked. it is a public good. a creation of credit and creation of money at the end of the day. >> i have one more question from me. trickylation issues is a one. what is important and i heard from many bankers, what ever it

is, they want certainty. they want to know what the landscape is. maybe overll be 9%, such time. everybody needs certainty in this business. fsb in charge it is implemented is -- >> you don't think it has gone too far? banks are crawling with regulators. they have regulators and compliance teams and responsibility and all kinds of regulation of being created area three years after dodd frank, rules are still devised and implemented. and guess what? banks are reluctant to take the risk and land and do the kind of things necessary to keep a healthy economy going. >> some would argue they are reluctant to lend because

there's no one to lend to and no demand. that is the debated point. >> one final point. and back to your point about the imf and changes you are trying to make read you are in -- make. you are in the middle of a debate with the u.s. congress. agree to get congress to to change. we do not want to go into details but the fundamental change would essentially give more voting power to the ,merging countries like china the system you have got is one that is back in the past. the fear among the u.s. is, where does it leave the u.s. -- still the largest shareholder in case of most amount of money are responsible and carries the support when the world music. will the u.s. be able, will it

be able to have the influence in east a half? -- it needs to have? >> absolutely. decided by the u.s. in the first place, the u.s. keeps is veto right and have 50% shareholding right. the imf will stay in washington as long as that is the case and will have a big say in what ever the institution does. instead of having china, the sixth raising member, china needs to move up to be a representative in the world economy. , the membership of the imf, with weak u.s. leadership is painful. it is painful career it is the largest economy player in the world, the largest financial player in the world and around the table the imf, it is a week pardon.weak

it has to be a strong partner. >> you said you will go up to capitol hill and belly dance. anybody taking you up on that? i am practicing that heavily. as soon as they pass it, i will. >> we have time for a couple of questions before we get to enjoy dinner. anybody? yes? over there. i believe there are microphone circulating. could you identify yourself? >> as a global firefighter, could you tell us what you are looking at as you think the crises that will come and you are worried about and people are focusing on now? >> we have -- we currently have -- ish programs

underway. countries which we are lending because they have difficulties and are prepared to reform themselves in order to have access to loans. we are not in the business of grants. we give loans and we get our money back. because weileged hold the money of the world not the money of the u.s.. we currently have those countries under -- in the program. where else could be difficult question certainly ukraine is one country that is a big issue and a lot more financing will be needed if we want to deliver and support a government. it is serious about reforming the country and about trying to eradicate some of what is lacking get.

all countries will be affected significantly by the decline of oil price, which are producers of oil massively. watchk it should be under and clearly one country where it can be difficult. i would watch very carefully in europe as well for the reasons. and a couple of other countries in eastern asia which is difficult. >> a bailout? that's not the way to deal with the u.s. congress. >> no, no. i am not suggesting it would have to be bailed out. a country whether it is instability and that is not desirable. >> another question, please. christmas please wait for the -- yes? please wait for the microphone. >> good evening.

from your perspective, would you mind commenting on where you see the trend line of free trade versus protectionism and the and globalsis economies is affecting and that trend line. thank you. >> thank you for raising that. it is one of my big positives. you have the u.s. economy, the price of oil, and the focus on growth that the g 20 has decided to elevate to adding another 2.1% percentage points. but trade is a big plus and could deliver. the varying estimates with you institutions where there is $400 billion to $1 billion -- $1 trillion. the agreement that has been reached as a result of the deal

between the u.s. and india. there was that the gridlock which had to do with india being able to stop and store food much more so that would've been otherwise authorized. it has opened up the gate to the trade portion. and that can really unleash a lot of jobs created more needs to be done as always. it is encouraging development from my perspective area what is happening on the intellectual property and information spectrum between the u.s. and china is also a positive. be efficientt will to overcome this slight increase we have seen over the past year and protective measures.

none -- to protect markets. i predict we will be seeing different trade agreements from now on. differ regional, different dialogues between members of the wto which will not focus so much on tariff. there's not much more tariffs to be reduced especially -- except for a specific cases. tariffs have gone down massively. we will see much more by harmonization between norms, funders, products so products can flow more efficiently. question ask one final if i may. there are 100 ceo's represented and several trillion dollars worth of revenue between them. companies. who knows. running this extraordinarily important global institution when the world looks and crisis,

do you have a message for how you would like to work in partnership with corporations around the world? >> i think talking to each other and understanding each other's proposals, plans, strategies, how we can help each other. how the policy makers can facilitate. refrain from doing things or being engaged and active in certain areas. that is the solution to something where everybody should have vested interests. generating profits, working for the stakeholders, the shareholders, all of that is to the benefit of the companies. the socialbility and fabric of society vibrant and creative is also in the interest of the people in general. we have to continue the dialogue.

yany in these rooms are mo former clients. >> there is a good note. madame lagardere has really worked hard. she is literally dashing off to catch a plane. >> i have time to eat something. >> please join me in thanking her. [applause] c-span's city tour is on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary lives. we partner with time warner cable for a visit to waco, texas. saved, weigitized and began turning over to the b side of the 45s. gospel music was not widely heard in the white community.

on the flip side would be even less. what we discovered quickly was songs wasf the b side related to the civil rights movement. we went through very few database and very few were complaints. we do not know the sheer number "there ain't no segregation in heaven." very dangerouss in the deep south. inging that sort of song out loud was a risk. >> the texas ranger hall of fame was set up in 1976 for the 150th anniversary of the rangers. who mades contributions to the service or gave their lives under her what circumstances. we had paintings or portraits of

all of the rangers. they begin with stephen have often. he was very successful with his rangers and they fought not only an managed to make that area reasonably safe for settlement, but when they -- when texas' war for independence broke out, the rangers played a major role by saving -- staving off the mexican army long enough to allow the colonists to develop a strategy. as a result, texas became its own independent nation. for about 10 years. >> watch all of our events from waco on c-span 2's book tv. earlier today, president obama traveled to the hospital to undergo testing for a sore throat he has had for several weeks. earnest wasary josh

calling the visit a matter of convenience and not urgency. since returned to the white house, the president dr. said the symptoms are related to acid reflux and the president will be treated accordingly. >> in his weekly address, president obama does us the recent jobs report, delivering the republican response are three members of congress. discussing the achieving a better life experience at also known as the able at -- act. >> hi, everybody. just in time for the holiday season, we now have another piece of good news about the pace of our economic recovery. last month, our businesses created 314,000 new jobs. and that's not a fluke -- it keeps up the solid pace of job creation we've seen all year long. november was the tenth month in

a row we've added more than 200,000 jobs. so far this year, our economy has created 2.65 million new jobs. that's the most of any year since the 1990's, even with a full month to go. all told, our businesses have created 10.9 million new jobs over the past 57 months. and that's the longest streak of private-sector job creation on record. we also know that the upswing in job growth this year has come in industries with higher wages. overall, wages are on the rise. and that's some very welcome news for millions of hardworking americans. because even though corporate profits and the stock market have hit all-time highs, the typical family isn't bringing home more than they did 15 years ago. and that still has to change. and a vibrant jobs market gives us the opportunity to keep up this progress, and begin to undo that decades-long middle-class squeeze. but first, we need the outgoing congress to pass a budget and keep our government open. a christmas shutdown is not a

good idea. then, when the new congress convenes in january, we need to work together to invest in the things that support faster growth in higher-paying jobs. building new roads and bridges creates jobs. growing our exports creates jobs. reforming our outdated tax system and our broken immigration system creates jobs. raising the minimum wage would benefit nearly 28 million american workers, giving them more money to spend at local businesses -- and that helps those businesses create jobs. america, we still have a lot of work to do together. but we do have real, tangible evidence of our progress -- 10.9 million new jobs. 10 million more americans with health insurance. manufacturing has grown. our deficits have shrunk. our dependence on foreign oil is down. clean energy is up. more young americans are graduating from high school and earning college degrees than ever before. over the last four years, this country has put more people back to work than europe, japan, and

every advanced economy combined. the united states of america continues to outperform much of the world. and we are going to keep it up until every american feels the gains of a growing economy where it matters most -- in your own lives. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> i would like to tell you the story of a little boy who was diagnosed with down syndrome just three days after he was born. his diagnosis came with a list of future complications and doctors appointments, potential heart defects and even early alzheimer's. seven years later, as the mom of that little boy, nothing has given me greater joy than watching the impact he has had on the world and dreaming of the difference he will make when he grows up. this week, the house spoke for col in millionse by passing in the achieving a better life

experience act. it will the able act, empower individuals with tax-free savings accounts to save for college, retirement, job training, and other future expenses. right now, people with disabilities are not given the chance of save more of what they earn. it encourages them to resign themselves to a life of the dependency. the able act will change that. >> most of us become who we are because of our parents. i have got a dynamic down syndrome son who is a go getter. 21 next month and let me tell you, he is god every wish and desire to succeed like his big brother. we do not know what the future holds but i am not going to send back and allow anything especially any law to prevent

our children from fulfilling their potential. ,n america, the skies the limit no matter where you start. i can't think of enough of all of the people and families who have helped us to get the able act to this point. it is one of the ideas when you ask yourself -- why aren't we doing this already? because we are not talking about newars and cents, every account will be a new ladder of opportunity and a new source of the one thing every parent loves -- peace of mind. i first filed this legislation in 2006, 8 long years ago. because the hard work and dedication because of a lot of people, we are able to bring that legislation to the floor of house and pass it with an overwhelming majority. the legislation is fairly simple and straightforward. it allows individuals with

disabilities to set up a tax-free savings account. if they use for medical bills or transportation bills. this allows individuals with disabilities a better chance to help themselves a be less dependent on government and more independent on their daily lives. it allows them to achieve their full potential and realize their hopes and dreams. stories listen to their , it is easy to see why the able act will open the door to a brighter future for many americans. i can't think of a better privilege to speak out with legislation or people who cannot often speak for themselves and i know the able act will bring the peace of mind to millions of american families who deal with disabilities every day. >> this is why we are here to advance solutions that make people's lives better.

solutions that empower all americans, no matter where they come from, how much money they make or what challenges they face. the able act as one of the many ways we are doing that. it will empower millions like my son and so many others with the opportunity to have a better life. from my family to yours, merry christmas. here on c-span, the communicators is next with a reporter kim zetter. then senators talk about foreign policy and later, a discussion on police training and procedures. >> c-span, created 35 years ago and brought as a public service by your local provider. >> the book is called "countdown to zero day: stuxnet and the launch of the world's first digital weapon."

the author is magazine reporter kim zetter. what is or what was stuxnet? virus/worm used to attack iran's nuclear plant. uranium enrichment plant. the worm was designed to manipulate the computers that control and slow them up and speak to them down to degrade the level of uranium enrichment and also to do some wear and tear on the centrifuges and destroy them. >> what was unique about stuxnet ? >> stuxnet was sophisticated. this was a virus that was designed to physically destroy something. in the past home a webzine malware that steals credit card debt credit cards and passwords. we never saw something that physically