that is our job, we are not supposed to impede progress, we are supposed to accelerate progress. if our leaders can put common sense over ideology and the good of the country over the good of the party, then we will do just fine. despite the perennial doom and gloom that is inevitably part of a presidential campaign, america's winning right now. america is great right now. we can do even better. the reason that i am so confident about the future is not because of the government or the size of our gdp or military, but because everybody in this country that i meet, regardless of their station in life, race,

religion, the region they live in, they do believe in a common creed, that if people work hard in this country, they should be able to get ahead. i know that is what you believe. those are the values you try to instill in your companies as well. my hope is that that decency and hard work, common sense will be reflected here in washington. with that, let me take questions. i will start with randall, since he volunteered for what i am sure is the thankless job of being head. [laughter] randall: i will get it going here. leader mcconnell was here earlier. he gave us all a cause to exhale talking about the budget. in the context of that, he spoke

about how split government can actually provide opportunities for getting big things done that might be hard otherwise. he caused a headhead snapper when he gave you a strong complement over -- president obama: my head is snapping. what did i do? randall: trade -- you worked aggressively. he was complementary about the work. we have the possibility of getting a trade deal done. talk to us a little bit about your view of the opportunity to get the transpacific deal done. president obama: i am confident we can get it done this year. the trade ministers should be meeting again sometime in the next several weeks. they have the opportunity to close the deal. most chapters have been completed at this point.

i am confident that it will in fact accomplish our central goal, which is to make sure that we have a level playing field for american businesses and workers in the fastest-growing region of the world. there are going to be unprecedented protections for labor standards and environmental standards, but also for i.t. protection. also for making sure that when any company here makes an investment, that they are not being disadvantaged, but are instead being treated like domestic companies for commercial purposes. the notion here is that we have got 11 nations who represent the fastest-growing, most populous part of the world, buying into a high-standards trade deal that allows us and your companies on a consistent basis to compete.

the good news is, with a lot of tough negotiating and pushing and pulling -- mainly by mr. froman, but occasionally i get called in to lob a call to one of my counterparts -- i think that we will get this done. the key then, once we close the negotiations and we have an agreement, is to get tpp through congress. we got it through, i will return the compliment. mitch mcconnell worked very hard to get it done. we should not assume though that because the authority was done that we automatically are going

to be getting tpp done. the politics around trade are tough. i said this even in the run-up to getting tpa authority, a lot of americans, when they think of trade, they think of plants in their hometown or nearby shutting down and moving to mexico or china, and american manufacturing and good paying jobs being lost. the argument that i have made consistently to democrats has been that there may have been some mistakes made in past trade agreements, and not, for example, having enforceable labor and environmental provisions that put american

companies that are doing the right thing at a disadvantage. that there were not enough safeguards for intellectual property, and the abuses of state-owned enterprises and subsidies that companies may have been involved with. that is the status quo now. if you want to correct those things, we have to raise the bar. i did not fully persuade all of my democratic colleagues, because the politics are tough. i was willing to take my case to be democratic caucus and talk to my friends in organized labor and say that we cannot look backwards, we have to look forward. we will have to compete in these areas. here is the concern politically, is that, i think, within the republican party, some of the same impulses that are anti-immigration reform, some of

the same impulses that see the entire world as a threat, and we have to wall ourselves off, some of those same impulses also start creeping into the trade debate. a party that traditionally was pro-free trade now has a substantial element that may feel differently. to their credit, i think they both mitch mcconnell and john boehner i think they are on the right program here, they will need help potentially with membership. the closer we get to political season, the tighter the gloves get. i will tell you i am confident that if i am presenting an agreement to congress, it will meet the commitment that i made

that this would be the highest standard, most progressive trade deal in american history. it will be good for american business and american workers. all right. yeah. >> hi, mr. president, thank you for being with us. i wanted to ask you about cyber security. you put in an executive order earlier this year because of the information sharing and we at the brt are very supportive of the legislation that has passed the house and is in progress in the senate. i wanted to get your thoughts on how you are thinking about this, and also with the upcoming visit of the president of china about cyber security and our relationship with china. president obama: this is an issue that is not going away. it is going to be more and more important, and it will be challenging. it is challenging in part

because the internet itself -- the architecture of it -- was not intended to carry trillions of dollars of transactions and everyone's personal information. it was designed for a couple of professors to trade academic papers. the kind of security that we are looking for was not embedded into the dna of internet. the internet. the vulnerabilities are significant. they are being exploited by not just state actors, but also nonstate actors, and criminal gangs at an accelerating pace. this is something that from a business perspective that we have to continue to concentrate

on. one of the issues that you mentioned, maggie, that we are focused on is this encryption issue. there is a legitimate tension around this issue. on the one hand, the stronger the encryption, the better we can potentially protect data. there is an argument that says we want to turbocharge our encryption so no one can crack it. on the other hand, if you have encryption that does not have any way to get in there, we are now empowering isil, child pornographers, others to essentially be able to operate within a black box in ways that we have never experienced before

during the telecommunications age. i am not talking about the countries around nsa -- i am talking about the traditional fbi going to a judge, getting a warrant, showing probable cause, but still cannot get in. so we have created a process around which to see if we can square the circle here, and reconcile the need for greater and greater encryption, and the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement. i will not say that we have cracked the code yet, but we have some of the smartest folks, not just in government, but also in private sector, working together to try to resolve it. what is interesting is even in

the private sector, even in the tech community, people are on different sides of this. with respect to china, this will probably be one of the biggest topics that i discussed with president xi. we have repeatedly said to the chinese government that we understand traditional intelligence-gathering functions that all states, including us, engage in. we will do everything we can to stop you from getting into transcripts ofr a meeting that i have had, but we understand that you will try to do that. that is fundamentally different from your government or its proxies engaging directly in industrial espionage and stealing trade secrets, stealing proprietary information from companies.

that we consider and act of aggression that has to stop. we are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset but is something that will put significant strains on a bilateral relationship is not resolved. we are prepared to take action in order to get their attention. my hope is it gets resolved short of that. ultimately the goal should be to have some basic international framework that will not be perfect because there will still be a lot of nonstate actors and hackers who are very good. we will still have to have good

good defense. we will still have to find fingerprints of those and apprehend them, and stop networks engaged in cybercrime. amongst states, there has to be a framework that is analogous to what we have done to nuclear power. nobody stands to gain, and frankly, although the chinese and russians are close, we are still the best at this. if we want to go on offense, a whole bunch of countries would have some significant problems. we do not want to see the internet weaponized in that way. that requires tough negotiations. if we and the chinese are able to coalesce around a process for negotiations, then i think we can bring a lot of other countries along. maggie: we will work with you on that, too.

president obama: thank you. >> thank you for being here. it is also good to be reminded occasionally of some of the progress we have made in a complete sentence, so thank you for that as well. recent ones, the iran deal, really good, health care standing up, all good. the place that we have not made progress but is really good for business is on tax reform. we are getting now to being back ed in the corner. since you cannot get a grand deal, we are talking about sub deals. the sub deals in and of are destructive to the grand deal, which is total tax reform. can you help us think about how we should negotiate this duality that we're in right now? where do you think we will end up?

president obama: we put forward a proposal early on that i am confident i could sell to this group. not everyone would be thrilled, but i think i could argue that over time would be good for business. essentially what we proposed was the traditional framework for tax reform, close loopholes, lower rates, we would address international taxation in ways that currently put american businesses at a disadvantage, and would allow for repatriation, but would not simply empty out the treasury. and would generate enough revenue that we could also pay for some infrastructure. our hope was that we would get some nibbles on the other side.

to his credit, paul ryan expressed real interest in discussions and negotiations, but your previous speaker, mitch mcconnell, has said that he is not interested in getting tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform of that that sort done. there is still work being done. we are still in conversations with mr. ryan. i know that senator schumer and others have been working on the possibilities of a fairly robust package. ultimately you will have to have the leader of the senate majority party brought in to try to get this done. i understand why tax reform is

elusive, because those of us who believe in a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax framework in the abstract sometimes look at our bottom lines and say the deduction sounds pretty good here. even at this organization, has been supportive, there are other organizations in town that have pretty strong influence over the republican party that have not been as wild on it, partly because their view is that the only kind of tax reform acceptable is one that would lower all rates, regardless of the effect on the deficit. that is not something that is viable. we will keep on working on it. my suggestion would be that the brt continue to encourage

speaker boehner, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell to come up with an ambitious package. i can assure you that the white house will take it seriously. we do not expect everything in our original package would go forward. the one thing we could not do, and i get concerned sometimes that what is labeled as tax reform ends up just being cuts. you are not closing the loopholes, and as a consequence, it is a drain on the treasury. we then suddenly are accused of running up the deficit to help your tax rates, and we are not doing enough to help grow the economy and help ordinary workers. that is the one direction we cannot go.

tom? tom: thank you for being here. i would love to hear your thoughts on energy policy. i know we talk a lot about all of the above, but i think what is really changing in an unprecedented way recently, our technology revolutions coming in that are occurring in the use of energy that give americans a way to play offense and a set of unprecedented challenges. what are your thoughts? president obama: tom, i think you described it well. i am more optimistic about our ability to get a handle around energy that is good for our economy, good for business, good for consumers, good for job creation, and maybe save the planet in the process.

i am much more optimistic about that now than when i started as president. a good example is when you look at what is happening with solar. we are not at moore's law yet, but the pace at which the unit costs for solar energy have gone down is stunning. we have seen not quite the same pace but similar progress around wind. our natural gas production is unprecedented. i have been very supportive of our natural gas production as being not only important to our economy, but also geopolitically. it is a huge recipe for energy independence, as long as we get the methane discharge issues

right, and i think there are ways of doing that with sound science. that is on the production side. as you said on the utilization side, all of you, there is not a company here that is not producing significantly more product with less energy than you were 10 years ago, and certainly than you were 20 years ago. everyone here has seen the power of tracking, utilization, identifying waste, and timing issues around -- when is energy expensive, when is it cheap? there is a enormous progress on the commercial side, and then individual households now with things like nest or the equivalents, we are able to

fine-tune our energy usage. in ways we have not seen before. you have the whole transportation sector, which we have continued to to make progress in detroit as well as upstarts like tesla, there are still network issues around the transportation revolution. companies like ups are doing a great job, they are already experiencing with their fleets. that is all good news. i would say the big challenge now, if we are going to realize all of the potential here -- is to work with utilities so that they have a business model in which they are making money while seeing this change in distribution patterns. and grid.

i think there are still legitimate economic issues that have to be sorted through. it is a patchwork system. the second thing is, investments in basic research need to continue. battery technology is greatly improved, but we still have not seen all of the breakthroughs that i think we can make with battery technology that would make a huge difference in storage. that is an exciting area for development. i would urge the brt and some of you individually as companies have already done this, view the issue of climate change and the paris conference coming up at the end of the year should be used as an opportunity rather than as a problem. because this is coming.

it is coming generationally. if you talk to your kids or my kids, they are much more attuned to the issue. consumers are going to be caring about it more and more. the environmental effects that we are seeing -- i will be calling jerry brown to talk about california wildfires. some of you may have read the snowpack in the sierra nevada is the lowest it has been. the flooding problems we're already seeing in places like south florida -- it is during high tide. suddenly billions of dollars of property is underwater. this is coming. for us to be out ahead of it and to think about how our ingenuity and our science can solve these problems is going to give us a jump on every one else.

there is a pledge that some members of brt have organized around supporting a strong paris agreement. i would encourage you to sign up on that and look for opportunities on this. that includes companies that have been in traditional fossil fuel areas. if you know how to do oil and gas well, you can figure out how to do solar well. you can figure out how to make money doing it. you can figure out how to make create efficiencies that help your bottom line. what we try to do with the clean power plan is to give states flexibility, understanding everyone has a different energy mix. down south, we approved the first nuclear plant in a generation basically because we think that nuclear needs to be part of the package.

i am a big believer that there will be different ways to skin the cat on this thing. we have to set a baseline in which all of us understand the direction we need to go. instead of us spending a lot of time fighting science, let's go with science. we usually do better when we are on the side with facts and evidence and science. as a general rule, that has proved to be our strength as americans. jim? jim: if i could just turn back to china for a second, there are a lot of issues we have to sort out. you mentioned cyber security, their feelings about tpp, their own economy, their inward turn -- they have had protectionist

elements we do not like. i think many in this room would like to see some kind of positive outcome from the summit as well that underlines our mutual benefit if we can figure out some of these things. if we can find a way for the world's two biggest economies to see a path forward, as well as all of the issues we have. do you have a comment on the tone you will try to set with the president, and roles that we could play in supporting both the managing our relationship as well as finding a future for it? president obama: my tone with respect to china has been pretty

consistent. it has not jumped up and down depending on polls. my view is that china should be, and will continue to be an economic competitor that we need to make sure that we are reaching an understanding with them about our presence is a pacific power. -- as a pacific power. it is in our interest for china to continue what has been dubbed a peaceful, orderly rise. china is a big place with a lot of people. we are better off if those people are eating, and have shelter, and are buying consumer goods, rather than starving and rioting on the street.

what i have consistently communicated first to the president when i came into office and our president xi is our goal is to have them as a partner in helping to maintain a set of international rules and norms that benefit everyone. in fact they were what facilitated china's rise -- they were essentially riding on our backs for 30 years because we were underwriting peace, security, the free flow of commerce, international rules in the financial sector, and as they have matured, what we have said to them is, with power comes responsibility. now you have got to step up.

you cannot act as if you are a third world country and pursue protectionist policies or engage in dumping or not protecting an intellectual property at a time when you are now the second and eventually the first largest economy in the world. you cannot simply pursue an export-driven strategy because you are too big. you will not grow your economy at the same pace over the next 20 years as the last 20 years. once your economy reaches a certain size, there is not enough level market to absorb that. that means that you have to start thinking about transparency within your own economy. how are you setting up a safety net so that workers have some cushion, and in turn are willing to spend money as opposed to

stuffing it in a mattress? you have to be concerned about environment issues, because you cannot breathe in beijing, that spills over for all of us. and as a large country with a powerful military, you cannot go around pushing your neighbors around just because you're bigger. ultimately you will be advantage d by everyone following rules. i think in some areas the chinese understand this. i think in other areas they do not. in other areas they still see themselves as the poor country that should not have any obligations internationally. in some cases they still feel that when we call them on issues like their behavior in the south

china sea, or on intellectual property theft, that we are trying to contain them, as opposed to us wanting them to abide by the same rules that helped create an environment in which they could rise. the good news is that our states are sufficiently intertwined, and in many ways they still need us a lot more than we need them. i think that they will continue areas in which they move. as long as we do not resort to the kind of loose talk and name-calling that i notice some of our presidential candidates engage in. people you know.

[laughter] it tends not to be constructive. bottom line, though, jim, i think this summit will be useful. there will be a lot of outcomes around things like energy and climate change. around improvements in how they deal with investors. that will show constructive progress. i think our military to military conversations have been much better than they were when i began office. the one thing i would suggest that the brt could do, two things, number one -- when your companies have a problem in china, and you want us to help, you have to let us help. do not tell us on a side, we

have this problem, you need to look into, but then leave our names out of it, because we want to be punished kind of thing. typically we are not effective with the chinese unless we are able to present facts and evidence of a problem. otherwise they will just stonewall and slow walk issues. if we are seeing problems in terms of the competitive environment there, in terms of protecting your ip, in terms of unfair competition that runs afoul of understanding the principles already established, you have to let us know and be let us be your advocates, that is important. the second thing everyone should do is not fall into the same trap that we fell into around japan in the 1980's, which is

somehow -- china has taken over over,ike japan has taken and we are in inevitable decline. this whole argument, i will coat quick rant here for a second. this whole notion that somehow ted, outetting outcompe this, out that, we are losing, we are -- no one outside of the u.s. understands what we're talking about. we have problems. we have issues. our biggest problem is gridlock in washington. overall, our cards are so much better than everybody else's. our pool of quality businesses and talent, and our institutions, and our rule of law, and how we manage and adapt

to new and changing circumstances, and our dominance in knowledge-based industries -- nobody matches us. we attract the best talent around the world -- they still want to come here if we just let them come. i think it is important for business voices to point out every once in a while -- america is in the driver seat if we make some smart decisions. that is not a partisan comment. that is just the facts. there is not a country out there, including china, that would not look at us with envy. our problems not that china will outnegotiate us, or that mr.

putin is sort of outstrategizing us. has anyone looked at the russian economy lately? that is not our problem, our problem is us. typically. we engage in -- i am being generous when i say "we," but we engage in self-inflicted wounds like this potential government shutdown. it is unnecessary. we have got time for a couple more questions. how are you doing? it is good to see you. how is everyone back home? >> this summer, the expiration of the xm bank authorization. president obama: speaking of self-inflicted wounds. [laughter] >> as part of the ongoing debate here in washington the senate

has attached a reauthorization, as you know, to the transportation bill, which is now down at the house. on monday, the roundtable sent a letter to the leadership on both sides in congress pointing out really the benefits of reauthorization that some of those get lost in the debate. really it has been characterized as only benefiting a few companies, which ignores thousands of people employed by our suppliers across the country. and the positive impact that has, as well as it is a net generator revenue for the government. we had plans to have further discussions later today and this week with leadership in the house. do you have any -- we had a good discussion with your team this morning, do you have any insight that you could share with us that would help us in getting that reauthorization?

president obama: it is mind-boggling that this was not reauthorized a year ago. it is this weird reversal in which the principal opponents are the tea party caucus and the republican party. somehow xm bank has become this of -- what have presidential candidates called it? -- crony capitalism. what is ironic, obviously some of you know the back story, i think a member of this organization started the whole thing because they were upset about some planes being sold to

a competitor on a route. suddenly this caught fire in the right-wing internet. it is just hard to explain. look, i had a group of small businesses, ranging from four people to a couple of hundred people talking about how they use xm. this is the only way that they can get into these markets. as you said, xm does not cost the government. this is not a money loser for us. i do not have to tell jim how important it is. i keep on telling them i expect a gold watch from them because it seems like every time i make a foreign trip, i had to sell a

turbine or plane. [laughter] i was concerned about the announcement that jobs that were here in the u.s. would not go overseas because we don't get this done. that is true of the supply chain and also true of smaller companies that use xm directly. it is not just that they are part of the ge or boeing supply chain. this is the only mechanism they have to make those sales. the good news is that mcconnell john boehner both say they want to get done. as you said, we have already sufficient votes. we actually think there are sufficient votes in the house. i would concentrate your attention on house republican caucus members. i think you have to flood the zone and let them know this is important.

that includes, by the way, talking to individual members who in their districts potentially have companies that are being adversely affected as long as xm is frozen. my expectation is it gets done during the course the budget negotiations. -- during the course of these budget negotiations. we will push as hard as we can to get it done. >> thank you for being here today. one of the issues that we deal with, and we talked about last time you are here, was regulations. one of the areas that the business roundtable is focused on these days is the ozone rule. october 1, your administration will be coming out with a suggestion dealing with that. the business roundtable position is that we need to maintain a 75 parts per billion to lower that standard when technology does not exist and when communities

already advancing toward the 75 goal. if you lower to 70, it will introduce another 200 counties in this country into nonattainment, which basically means they are not open for business. that is our concern. do you have any thoughts on that or what the ministration plan is for that -- administration plan is for that? president obama: i will try to simplify as much as possible. number one, we are under a court order to do this. i think there may be a misperception that the epa can do whatever it wants here. there were lawsuits brought under the previous administration that continued into my administration. we went before a judge, we actually, i think properly got some additional time because there was the notion that we were going to lower standards a

few years ago and immediately get new data and force everyone to lower them all over again. we said, let's to this one time, in a sensible way so people can plan. we have legal constraints. this is not something that just popped out of my head full-blown. i always enjoy seeing the advertising for "obama's ozone plan." the ozone rules date back to when i was still in law school, before i had gray hair. there are some fairly stringent statutory guidelines by which the epa is supposed to evaluate the standards. the epa is following the science

and the statutes as best as it can. we are mindful that in some cases, because of the nature of where pollutants are generated, where they blow, that this could create a complicated situation for certain local jurisdictions and local communities, and some states and counties end up being hit worse than others. we are trying to work with those states and those communities as best we can, taking their concerns into account. i guess the bottom line is, you can legitimately go after me on the clean power plant rule. because that was hatched by us. i believe that we need to deal with climate change so we can have a lengthy debate about that.

here on ozone, this is an existing statute and an existing mechanism, and we are charged with implementing it based on the science that is presented to us. that is what we are trying to do, but we are taking this input into account. i recognize some of these concerns. i will say this, the last point, i will make on this, even with the costs associated with implementing the ozone rule, when you do a cost-benefit, the amount of lives saved, asthma averted, and so forth is still substantially higher than the cost. that does not necessarily

resolve all of the concerns that people may have about local whereas theborne savings are spread out more broadly, and legitimate economic issues that have to be considered. the epa has been listening to i think every stakeholder there. i think what you will see in the analysis overall is we do not issue a regulation where the costs are not lower than the benefits. if you look at the regulations we generally put forward, the costs are substantially lower than the benefits generated. ok? >> thank you, mr. president. many of us are interested in cuba. the opening there has been positive. there are a lot of issues to get to full normal relations. how do you see that path happening?

what is the future in your opinion? thank you. president obama: i do not think it will be an overnight transformation, but i am convinced that by re-engaging cuba, by re-engaging the cuban people, that we are creating an environment in which a generational change and transition will take place in the country. already you are seeing conversations taking place about tohow is cuba going accommodate an influx of tourists? how do they think about the internet? open communications in order to be able to participate in the modern economy. that inevitably leads to questions about -- can a company

hire a cuban directly, as as opposed asor, going to the government? over time, that create space for personal freedom and a long-term political transition. for now, what we have said is that we will step-by-step look for areas and opportunities within our authorities. as long as congress to have the embargo in place, there are certain things we cannot do, but there are certain things we can can do. for example, telecommunications, we're looking for opportunities there. we will also continue to press the cuban government around issues of political freedom and when his holiness, the pope comes, he will visit cuba. that i think will be an opportunity for more interesting conversations.

inside of cuba. my biggest suggestion would be for the brt to have a conversation on a bipartisan basis about the lifting the embargo. it does not necessarily have to happen in one flail sweep. if you look at the economic opportunities that are presented, they are significant. it does not make much sense that a country 90 miles off of the shore of florida, that is not at this point a significant threat to us, and it has shown itself willing to at least look beyond its borders for the first time. even if it is still scared of what it might bring.

it does not make sense for us to keep sticking with the old ways. of doing business. i will take one more question. then i will come around and say hello to everyone. anybody else? go ahead. >> thank you. i know a topic near and dear to your heart has been education. you have spent a lot of time on this, and many of us have done things, private partners, and you recently made a comment about computer science for all high school kids, which i think is an important part. technology is a broad topic, it will infiltrate all jobs. president obama: right. >> maybe a chance to make comments about how you envision something like that actually taking root over the long-term, that we could make some progress with this on scale. president obama: first of all i want to commend jenny and ibm, because you guys have done some terrific work. anyone who wants inspiration, go to the high school that ibm is

participating in brooklyn where kids -- a collaboration between the public school system, the city colleges of new york, and ibm, you have kids from -- most of them -- parents never went to college, a lot of immigrant kids. they are marching through s.t.e.m. education, preengineering education, they are getting essentially college credits by the time they are sophomores or juniors in high school. they are able to save money because in five years in high school they come out with an associates degree, there then transferring to a four-year university with his credits, or they start to work with ibm because they have been an apprentice. the curriculum design gives them confidence.

they will do well because they will be able to get a job. that is something that we are actually looking to try to duplicate all across the country. the good news, as i mentioned at the top, is because of the strong work that arne duncan has done, because of the strong work that a lot of governors and local communities done to increase accountability, creativity, have high expectations for kids, bust through some of the old bureaucratic obstacles. we are seeing highest reading, scores, highest math scores, highest graduation rates. part of our goal here is to improve s.t.e.m. education generally. a critical element of that is understanding this computer age that these kids are immersed in.

i do not want them to just know how to play video games with their phones, i want them to know how to use the phones and how they work. what is remarkable -- i am about the age where i think my high school just had, like, the first coding class may be in seventh or eighth grade. you had cards. they were punchcards. now, the way these tools and resources that are available for kids, starting in first, second grade, we have science fairs where these girl scout troops come in and they claimed that they have coded designed their , own games, simulations for entire towns with people and all

sorts of scenarios that they have figured out. it is actually something that they naturally gravitate to, we just have to start early. it is almost like a foreign language. rather than trying to catch kids in 10th, 11th, 12th grade, make it part of their broader curriculum and incorporate it into how you are teaching math and science. that seems to be the way in which kids get engaged. we are doing a lot of working with many of you individually as companies on this s.t.e.m. education issue. we hope that you will continue to participate. you have been great partners on that front. i will say in closing, it is always a pleasure to be here. i want to just reiterate as we

enter into the silly season of politics, that the primary thing that is holding back a lot of potential growth, jobs, improve bottom lines, greater stability is well within our control right now. and are things things that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. bank, getting tpp done, financing and executing on an infrastructure policy. i have had conversations where with larry fink and others where they are able and open to look at creative ways of financing, the notion we are not doing that right now makes absolutely no sense. investing in research and development. these are not partisan issues.

there are some areas where there have traditionally been legitimate arguments between democrats and republicans. there are some issues, like on environmental regulations or financial regulations where jamie and i may disagree, or nick and i may disagree. we can have those arguments, and we probably won't convince each other on some of these things. what i am looking at is the low-hanging fruit that are no-brainers and that no one here would argue with. the notion that we are not doing them right now because primarily a faction within one of our parties has gone off of the rails and sees a conspiracy

around everything, or simply is opposed to everything i propose, even if they used to propose it. that is a problem. i think it is very important for all of you to step back and take a look at it. you still have influence on at least some of those folks. challenge them. why would we not do things that everyone knows make sense? thank you, everyone. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today on c-span, "washington journal" is next, live with your phone calls, followed by live coverage of the u.s. house. in about 45 minutes, we will discuss the budget deadline in congress and other news of the day with democratic congresswoman marcy kaptur and peter roskam of illinois to we

will also speak with steven komarow about planned parenthood. host: good morning on this thursday, september 16th. contenders squared off last night over immigration, planned iran, the economy and others. the they're analyzing the performance but we want to turn of you to get your take on the debate. who lost st night and ground. here the phone