sitting on the sidelines, for their sake, and for our sake, we have to get them back on the field, back to work. may be the coming year it looks a lot like the last 6.5 years, tepid growth of 2%. the upside factors are few. and while the chamber is not -- let me say again, not forecasting a recession, despite the many domestic and international difficulties, the last time we checked, no one had repealed the business cycle. the current weak recovery is getting a little long in the tooth. now, don't get me wrong. why it's a natural for business leaders to worry about the markets in which they most operate, my irish heritage means

i'm optimistic about the future of this country. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] we have tremendous capacities, talents, resources, opportunities, and freedoms that are simply unmatched anywhere on earth. but a positive future will not come automatically. it will not happen through divine intervention. it must work for -- we must work for it and we must earn it. well, how do you do that? we can waive away all of the factors that are holding our economy back or eliminate all of the uncertainty, but we can remove impediments in order to spur investment, jobs, growth and opportunity. at the chamber, we follow more than 300 important issues on an ongoing basis. and we're going to continue to

do so. but this year, we're going to put our greatest effort behind a handful of key initiatives where we can make the greatest difference and the most progress. i'll lay them out for you in just a moment. some may ask whether the business community can expect to see any progress in washington this year. the honest answer is not as much as we would like. but probably more than you might expect. what happened in 2015, particularly near the end of the year is instructive. a year ago, many commentators said that the government is too divided to get anything much done at all. the chamber and others thankfully ignored their predictions and worked together and proved them wrong, working with others, we successfully advocated for trade promotion

authority and end to the outmoated oil export man, a multi-year transportation infrastructure bill, reauthorization of the x.m. bank, a new education reform bill, the permanent extension of several tax provisions and multi-year extensions of many others. speed c permit reform to up projects and critical cyber security legislation. now let's not forget that most of these victories enjoyed strong bipartisan support and that's been a long time coming. i know how fashionable it is to always beat up on washington. but the fact is that the republicans and the democrats are new house -- our new house speaker paul ryan and mitch

mcconnell and the president himself all deserve some credits for the progress that was made at the end of 2015. we did it when everybody said it couldn't be done. so what areas are we going to focus on most aggressively this year? first, at the tip of the spear is politics. in 2016, the chamber will work in key states and districts to elect candidates who understand that it's the private sector, not the government, that creates jobs and prosperity. and that the overriding goal must be to expand the economic pie, not to simply redistribute it. working in close partnership with state and local chambers and associations will back pro

growth candidates and upcoming primaries and in the general lection. the chamber will encourage aggressive voter education program in state supreme court and general general races -- races. general back to the congress, our goal is clear. our approach is simple, to protect the gains we made in the house and senate in 2014 by backing candidates who support pro-growth policies and our free enterprise system and who want to come to washington to govern, not just to shut the place down. and while we will not be participating in the presidential race, we will weigh in on presidential policy proposals. if candidates choose to beat up

on business, they will hear from us. next, we're going to vigorously challenge the vast regulatory state and work to reform the regulatory system itself. the administration has already put business on notice that it's going for broke on regulations nd executive orders in 2016. congress and economic growth be damned. in its final year, the administration plans to issue new or final rules that would restrict legal arbitration, create new and unworkable rules governing overtime pay, further regulates financial advisors, limit methane emissions from oil and gas drilling and add incredible complexities to our federal procurement process.

this is on top of the massive number of rules already choking the economy including obama care, a wrath of e.p.a. measures and dodd frank, a third of the regulations who has yet will be finalized. we'll be employing all of our tools to challenge overregulation, working in the agencies, working with congress through the appropriations process which is now available to us. and the congressional review act and going to court. on obama care, we're going to push for more common sense changes and work to preserve the employer-based system that is the bed rock of american health care. we'll work to fully and permanently repeal the cadillac tax the health assurance tax and the medical tax with the hope that major health care reforms

will be considered in 2017. on financial regulations, the chamber called our major regulatory reform even before the crisis. we called for it even before the economic problems. however, what we got instead in dodd frank was an expansion of the mays of -- maze of regulations and often conflicting regulations. it's astonishing with dodd frank champions like elizabeth warren. they believe that a law this size and this scope must never be changed. that has never happened in this country. any law of that size has always had to be fixed. do we really believe that you achieve absolute perfection in a 2,300-page bill that was written

in anger the first time around? we'll continue to work to fix the provisions that the law got wrong. add the provisions that the law left out and replace the provisions that we all know just don't work. we're going to support reforms to the consumer financial protection bureau while insisting that it goes through normal processes to make rules. we will also place a particular focus on the department of areas floored the deutsche rule. this rule limits small business's access to retirement services or lock them out of the retirement margaret altogether. we're also working onto modernize the regulatory system itself. the permit streamlining bill passed a the end of last year is a major step forward. it will help speed up projects

without compromising safety. passage of the regulatory accountability act will be key to our efforts. it would ensure that regulations costing over $1 billion would be very narrowly -- supported by credible data and evidence and impose the least possible burden on the american people while still implementing the intent of the congress. the regulatory challenges we face are not just national. they're global. for example, no sector holds so much promise for america's future than technology, yet today, our technology companies are facing a host of regulatory battles across the country and around the world. we must not allow the strong arm of government to put a chokehold on america's technology and

innovation. one of the chief ways we're going to push back on some regulations is through courtroom advocacy. you can be sure that our litigation center will be busier than ever in the final year of this administration. our law firm has already challenging the so-called clean power plan, the waters of u.s. rule and the administration's new ozone rule. there will be many others. our litigation center will also be very active in dozens of supreme court, appellate court and state court cases with a special focus on cushing class action abuses and reining in irresponsible regulators. we were pleased that the supreme court appeared less willing in

many cases to defer to the legal interpretations of executive agencies like the i.r.s. and the equal employment opportunity commission and the e.p.a. our institute of legal reform will work to remove barriers to growth by pursuing legal reform at the state and federal levels. and we will push back, push back hard on abusive enforcement systems and on the trial law that sees every new regulation as a multiple -- multitude of new opportunities to sue american companies. now in addition to politics and regulations, another key focus of the chamber in 2016 is trade. working together, we scored big wins in trade in 2015. the chamber and its ally hopes win a fuge huge fight over trade

promotion authority. we advocated for a major expansion of the 50 nation information technology agreement that will end tariffs on $1.3 trillion worth of i.t. products. we were the leading supporter, removing batteries to trade and travel with cuba and it's gratifying to see that effort after all these years finally bearing fruit. this year, the chamber will build on these successes by vigorously supporting the transpacific partnership agreement. as we build support for the agreement, we will also be encouraging the administration to work with congress, to address the legislate -- legitimate concerns expressed by industries and legislatures about some aspects of the deal. and we will continue to push for

another potentially historic agreement that -- the trans-- transatlantic trade and partnership with the e.u. both agreed to spade up the negotiations. amen. we're also working on trade and services agreement and pursuing bilateral investment treaties with china and india and we're urging the congress to pass the rer authorization bill and get it to the president's desk in a hurry. given the weakness in global demand, we must do everything possible to remove trade barriers. to form new commercial partnerships and to aggressively market america's goods and services in traditional and yes, non-traditional markets. the chamber is uniquely qualified to help american companies expand their markets

and fill up their order books. we run 12 bilateral business councils, maintain a network of 117 american chambers of customers aboard and we're establishing new offices overseas and places like turkey and is real. -- israel. we are leading high-level commercial dialogues with china, mexico, and now saudi arabia and we're just launched a new african business center. we can never ever forget that 95% of the world's customers, the ones we want to sell something to live out the -- outside the united states and nearly 40 million american jobs depend on trade. we could create millions and millions more if we advance our pro growth and pro trade measures. now expanding america's energy

supply is another one of these few, but very important priorities where progress can and must be made. we can and should be developing all kinds of energy and discriminating against none. we have untold amounts of american oil and gas. and unleashing the power of our own energy will put our economy on a much stronger footing. as i mentioned, congress took a major step forward by lifting the ban on exporting u.s. oil. while prices will inevitably go up and down, we can count on the world's long-term need for energy to dramatically increase. you know, america is now in the position of supplying countries with the energy they need instead of importing it from nations that used their energy as leverage. by responsibly expanding

production on federal lands, we can assure that we have the energy we need to meet the needs of a growing economy and put folks back to work. now we want also to expand emission-free sources like nuclear and renewable and press for greater gains in energy efficiency. but we must end the regulatory assault on coal, which will be an integral part of america's energy for a long time to come. it's hard to have a discussion about energy these days without mentioning private change -- climate change. the chamber supports reasonable actions to deal with this in all environmental challenges. but the focus auto -- ought to be on what has been proven to work. the united states was the only country to meet the targets laid

out years ago in the kyoto accords. even though we were one of the only countries that didn't sign the agreement. how? we did it our way. we did it through technology, through efficiency, with alternatives and the cleaner use of traditional resources. let's build on what works. let's reject unproven schemes that would put the government in charge of our daily energy uses, our choices and our lives. now, let me dare to go where most politicians fear to tread. the chamber is going to bang the drum loudly throughout 2016 and beyond on the urgent need for entitlement reform. americans should think very hard

about this question. who are the real champions' entitlement programs like social security, medicare, medicaid. those arguing for absolutely no change except to increase benefits or those who support constructive reforms in order to protect and sustain those benefits. if we do nothing, social security and medicare will become insolvent and sooner than you think. neither of them will be able to pay full benefits within 20 years. why? because 10,000 baby boomers retire every day. think about that. and will do so for years to come. by 2025, these programs, along with the interest on the debt will gobble up about 77% of all

ederal spending. without reform, there will be next to nothing left for other important national priorities like education and national defense. but if we make common sense changes soon, we can ensure that the nation's social safety net remains intact for future generations. pundit asks the political class are quick to dismiss all of this, dismiss the idea that anything can -- that is possible can be done with entitlement. however, some are encouraged by he agreement we reached last year. but is this simple? there could be no -- it is

simple that there could be no solution to the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances and our exploding national debt that does not involve reforming social security, medicare and for the state budgets medicaid. this is perhaps the most predictable crisis that our nation faces. there are lots of others. but we know what this one is and when it'll show up. shame on our government. and shame on all of us. if we don't make it an absolute priority for reform in both parties. now, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental question facing us today comes down to this. how do we accelerate our growth and strengthen our economy so that it creates more jobs, rising incomes and more opportunity for every american?

that's why we're supporting these policies and these ideas. not just to help business, but to help our country. than 100 year history, they have stepped up to help the nation in times of great need. e did it by marshalling vast resources of the private sector to help win two world war asks the cold war. we did it by advancing pro growth policies that created the strongest economy in the world has ever known. we did it by a strong national defense and principled american leadership around the world. we did it through technology and the innovation that came with it and strong protection of intellectual property rise and set the pace for the rest of the world. we continue to do these things

today by helping our government fight cyber attacks and terrorism, by supporting our armed forces on active duty and our veterans and their spouses. and by projecting american ideas like free enterprise and the rule of law around the globe. we want america to be as good as we know it can be. we want all americans to have a genuine chance to thrive and succeed. we want policymakers and citizens alike to understand that a growing economy represents true compassion. how else could we ever hope to pay for a strong social safety net for the poor, the sick, and the elderly? in fact, it is the private sector that pays most of the bills in our society for the schools, the clean environment

and a strong national defense. we're having more than just an election in 2016. we're having a big debate over our nation's economic future. and the chamber will be right in the middle of it. we're going to respond to the growing attacks on our free enterprise system and america's businesses by folks on the left and the right as well. the left tells us that our economy is hopelessly rigged. and that it's the only reason some americans are doing well, it's because they have managed to rip off other americans. the solution is put -- is to put politicians, they say, in charge of our economy. how has that worked out? wherever and whenever it's been tried, from the right, we hear of phony capitalism. the notion that government spends all day, every day,

figuring out how to help big business. really? that's not the washington i know and i've been around here for a long time. we're even seeing a dangerous effort to silence the voice of business. to demonize and even criminalize different viewpoints and to actually rewrite the first amendment of the constitution, i don't use this phrase very often, but that's just plain un-american. political b to the correctness, rewriting our history, airbrushing the past or centering views that make us uncomfortable, then how n we learn from our mistakes and build on our successes? winston churchill who seem to understand americans better than many of our own citizens once

said that some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. others look upon it as a you that can be milk -- cow that can be milked. only a handful see it for what it really is. the strong horse that pulls the whole cart. ladies and gentlemen, private enterprise has been shot at enough. and it has been milked unmercifully. it's time to recognize that business can be this sturdy horse pulling the whole cart forward. just give us a chance to show the american people what we can do. today, americans are hungering for leadership. across all institutions and all sectors of our society, leadership that understands that a vibrant private sector working

in a free enterprise system built the greatest economy ever known on earth. leadership that knows where the envy of the world because we read raw innovation and individual leadership, leadership that celebrates success and does not attack it. that embraces the principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and the right to ke rational risks to fail to succeed, to prosper. leadership that believes that business is not the problem but a big part of the solution. this is a challenge sung and certain time for america. we must reject the notion that government has all the answers or that we can isolate ourself from people, trade, ideas, capital and responsibilities cross the globe.

the state of the american economy may be risky and uncertain, but our future is not. it's bright if we pursue the ight priorities. in the coming year and beyond. we're going to do everything we possibly can to win on these policies that will create jobs, that will force the growth and expand opportunity for every community and every american. most important of all, we want all of our children and our grandchildren to know that we have not forsaken them. we are determined that they will know in america -- an america that is stronger, more prosperous, more confident and more helpful and hopeful than ever before.

i thought about this deeply for a long time. i'm convinced it can be done. we'll need all of you help and i thank you very much. [applause] >> and live today in about 30 minutes, remarks by vice president joe biden on the possibilities of curing cancer which he called for last year and which president obama talked about in his state of the union address. a tweet in the vice president reading proud to work for this president. ready to take on this challenge, and yes, fired up, ready to go. we'll take you there live, 3:00 eastern time right here on c-span. and live monday, a debate in the

british house of commons on banning republican presidential candidate donald trump from the u.k. both the united kingdom and ireland are considering barring him from their countries. we will take you live for the debate monday morning at 11:30 eastern time here on c-span. >> he said you know, we have college age kids covered here in alabama. but it's really the kids in the elementary schools that are suffering. the african-american kids are getting poor education, horrible buildings, just not anything separate and not equal. >> sunday night on q&a. documentary filmmaker talks about her latest film, "rosen "rosenwald." have he said oh, they

these kid houses. why don't we use it? and the best thing booker t. washington said no, i want just like we do is here. i want the communities to build it. so first, these six schools were built. and it's fully amazing and from then, it modified into 5,000 schools, all over the south, including maryland. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour hosted by our comcast cable partners explores the history and literary culture of hartford, connecticut. n book tv, author ann farrow discusses about her books, "the logbooks" and the significance the books had. >> in these logbooks, we have these extraordinary opportunity to see day-by-day, how life was

lived aboard new england's slave ships. two of which were from connecticut. i came to the realization that these logbooks were not maintained as i have earlier thought by the son of an obscure connecticut farmer but by a son of an aristocrat from ew london. >> throughout this moment of 1842, the george lattimore incident, seeing frederick douglas and perhaps hearing him speak, the hutchen sonics, you now, decide to take that step. they do this in very kind of

formal meeting settings and they do it brilliantly. >> on american history tv, we'll visit the home of harriet beecher stow where she published more than 30 books. >> she you moved in with her husband and he was about 10 years older than her and he was a professor of theology and he was retired. and stowe was still writing. she was world famous. and she had reached that pinnacle of fame in her 40's and now she's in her 60's and she's till writing to support the family. >> and finally, we will learn about mark twain's professional successs and private life with his wife and children while they ived in this home from

1874-1891. >> mark twain begin looking into harvard as a place to settle and he came to the stickers fell in love with it and was tickled to depth wrote letters back to his own family and said this place is beautiful. the family would come in the library here after dinner in the family. the paintings across the top on the walls here and the nick max on the mantle they would ask for a story. he had to begin with the cat in the rust painting and they had these certain rules. from there, he had to continue across the mantle and incorporate each and every knickknack. he could not go out of order and he could not repeat himself. >> and sunday afternoon at 2:00

on american history tv. the c-span cities tour, visiting cities across the country. after the chamber of commerce held its state of american business address, tom donohue held a press conference. he was joined by the group's vice president and they took questions from reporters for about an hour. we'll watch as much as this as we can prior to president biden's remark from curing cancer. that is scheduled for 3:00 astern time. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the state of american business address press conference. mr. donohue has short statement after that.

obviously, he and bruce josten will take your questions. please identify yourself and your organization when you're asking your question and please wait for the microphones that the staff will be taking around to each of you. r. donohue, thank you. bruce: good morning. we're looking forward to taking your questions. use know a few moments ago, i delivered an annual state of american business deal. up to tom: if you heard it, that's great. but if you want to get some specifics, there's a copy on your plate. i said in the speech that the chamber believes the state of american business in 216 is filled with uncertainty, risks and challenges. we all know that. our businesss and jobs, creators are facing extraordinary political and geo political uncertainty. they have to deal with economic

weaknesses home and especially abroad. and massive new regulatory burdens that are pouring out of washington and we're being told even yesterday by the chief of taff who did the christian science monitor deal that they're going to be really aggressive what they're doing on the regulatory side. we can't eliminate all uncertainty but the recovery that is probably the worse since the great depression, we've got to go to work and do everything we can. and my own view is we can get it done. i was very encouraged, as i said in the speech about what got done at the end of 2015 and in a bipartisan way on issues that we have been told every day by people on the hill, by people in the press, by political operatives that it wouldn't get

done. and we're going to take a very aggressive approach going forward and hope to do much of the same thing. i'm skipping a lot of this because i would rather get to what you want to ask me. you know, we made the point the fundamental issues we're going to be working on, the elections right now. and going forward, the regulatory stuff in trade, we're optimistic people. we have a great country. we have great resources to advance our views and we look forward to taking your questions. and whomever -- i think we got two lined up and after that, it's all -- i'll grab them. thanks. that's much better. we can't remember who. reporter: during your remarks when you were talking about candidates who wanted to wall

off america from talent free trade, in the dangerous singling out specific groups is morally wrong and politically stupid. was that a reference to trump in particular or any particular candidate? tom: i referenced anyone who in the process of the debates and remember, we started out with 17, bruce? who chose to go in that direction. it's not solely one candidate or if you go back and look at what they had to say about immigration, about cuba, about issues of trade. i think they stepped over the boundary and they lost track of who we are and what we stand for and how we fix this economy. and i hope we'll straighten out that as we go further into the elections. all right. so then we're going to do that last one over there and then i'm

going to the picking. is that a fair deal? go ahead. eporter: you said that the chamber plans a push for approval of the transspecific partnership this year and mentioned the administration needs to work to build support. do you think the administration has got that message and is willing to do what's needed in areas like buy logic investor state, dispute settlements, financial services, data resan franciscos, data flows. do you think they've got the message and they're willing to work with members to work with ccommodations on that? tom: there are three challenges here. first of all syringes and the administration understands this. you're exactly right that there are some issues that without

opening up the agreement, it would have to be dealt with. and for -- i believe they understand that and of course, the representatives of those organizations as well as the chamber will be pointing out in a vigorous way that this needs to be done. second, of course, is to figure out when would you vote this? you know, in an election year with a very, very tight votes in the senate and so on, you've heard the majority leader say not until after the election. but third and very, very important and the president in his -- and his associates have been very supportive of this agreement. they've got to go and get your votes. they've got to get the republican votes we've got to get the democratic votes. so it's a matter of getting the votes in and picking when is the

right time to vote and those three issues are what's standing between us and getting i done. and i believe getting it done is fundamental to making the move forward that we need on the economy and i'll go right here. reporter: mr. donohue, you spoke about the flawed furebry -- rule and the litigation. is the chamber planning to file suit when it's finalized? tom: somebody asked me that the other day and they didn't say when it's finalized. they just said are you going to sue that? i said i haven't even read it. we have had very strong conversations with the people at labor and people at the white house and others about what has to happen to that rule for it to be acceptable and not destructive to the retirement system of a lot of people in

small companies and individuals nd others. if it looks appropriate, then we won't have to sue. if it's not appropriate, it's not just suing. and inhave in the senate the house much, much better systems to use the appropriation and other parts of the committee process to get in there and work n this deal and we will. >> wait for the microphone. tom: i don't know. i haven't read it. they're -- tom: they're working on it and i'm giving the time to work on it. this building, a suit is always a possibility, yes.

i'll come back. thank you. reporter: given congress's tepid support so far for t.p.p., how vigorous can the chamber be especially given some of the comments made such as senator hatch? and what exactly are you planning on doing to lay the groundwork for the folks over the course of the year? again, given the senate majority leader's comment of vote if tom: it's important to recognize that senator hatch was a vigorous supporter of trade authority and he didn't and that because he was against trade agreements. he just wants to make sure they get done right. bruce has a whole slew of people that work on this, on a regular basis and we're going to working on all three parts of the deal. how do we get the problems fixed?

how do we find the votes? and how do we work with the leadership to schedule the most -- efficient time for that vote and get everybody we can in chambers and associations all around the country and in the business community to get off their seat and get out and get this done? >> let's not con inflate the concern of the majority leader in the chamber have expressed about the provision in a trade agreement. bruce: we are -- have a strong support for trade. this is not unusual. we are in the same boat with them because we want to get this eal done and enacted into law.

tom: go ahead. i'll do to the one in the middle. i'll do you in a minute. reporter: you talked about the regulatory reform bills that the chamber supports. do you see any prospects for passing them in 2016 or is it building support for went the administration comes in given the veto threats? tom: well, you know people told us last year we wouldn't get the permitting thing worked out. of course it ended up in a broader bill but we have every intention of moving vigorously on the process. you know, we haven't really changed -- i guess it's all the way back to truman or something. and we're just making it very clear that you've got look at what it costs. we're not only going to do that in trying to change the process

but then we want to use the committees of the congress to go in and make our case on all this. and yes, we think we can get more of it done this year. bruce: it's taken a while of educating and getting members to understand tom's point. the administrative procedure guides the regulating process hasn't been touched since the mid 40's. there is now broad based and bipartisan support to modernize it and start to address how the agencies are regulating. that's why the streamlining proposal became law. that's why the regulatory accountability act has drawn bipartisan support. i think the answer is yes, we intend to push. we intend to pass it. whether or not the president signs this is an open question. we're not going to back off. this needs to be done and i think most members of congress understand and appreciate that reality. tom: i'm going over there to the lady and then i'm coming right

back across here. reporter: thank you. have you identified any primaries on either the republican or democratic side house and senate races that you're going to be involved? and have you established a budget for what you may spend on political work for this election cycle? thank you. tom: the first answer is yes and the second answer is, you know, we have a system that is based on spending money where it makes sense and spending money we have. and so, you know, we don't go in the basement or we have a little down there. we go out and raise it. i think we'll have a vigorous system. it's going to be complicated because it's a presidential year but we're going to pursue exactly that we said in the speech. we're interested in following up and making sure we protect the

advances we made in the last election and we're very, very interested in supporting people who want to go in and prove the economy and put people back to work and will have more to say in the near future and thank you for asking. the question will go there. >> you mentioned your speech that businesses are still vulnerable to cyber attacks. what would you like to see next in washington to address that? tom: well, first of all, we know a lot about this for the simple reason that we've been at it for 11 years. we have on our advisory, one of our jarvisry group people that ran all these functions of government for a long time as part-time advisors. andork with large companies many ways on this issue.

and here's something we've learned. this is an ever moving, ever changing, ever threatening problem. you know at one point, i guess six months ago, the government was or maybe more than that, but they were beginning to say the companies, the banks, the retailers, the medical, you i know, if you get cracked into -- we'll penalize you for that. and they had in mind that they would run the same kind of lawsuits as did the class action guys. figure they could start suing companies for those problems. and then along comes the reality that the federal government in the united states looked like a piece of swiss cheese. everybody was running holes in and out of our system everywhere. and we haven't heard any more of that now because folks understand that this is an ever challenging, ever doubling down

kind of problem. and many, many of the problems are not only technological, and they're people. and they're not people of ill intent, and they leave a machine on. we have to change all of our thinking. and how we go about this. with all of the benefits that we have gotten from this unbelievable technology, and one man with the right or woman with the right technology on their wrist on in their purse can walk around this room and have everything on your -- every cell phone in this room without ever saying so or doing so. we're in a new life. and we're working on it. we'll be very vigorous on it. we're expanding our own skill. we're working with our members. we want to do this thing well. bruce: one of the outstanding issue in this space is

definitionle. there's a big difference between somebody stealing your personal information, hacking into a corps to do corporate espionage or attacking critical infrastructure. for example, if somebody dropped a bomb, if you will, on structure that is considered an act of war, what's it considered when somebody attacks an infrastructure? none of these things have yet been defined the way the private sector is comfortable. we have a huge task force of close to 200 companies to tom's point that we've been working with for more then a decade. we will be intimately involved with the federal government from the f.b.i. to d.h. skfment the cyber command trying to answer those kinds of questions because they then lead you to what are you going to do about that in terms of detection, prevention nd response.

reporter: i would like to ask you about the western hemisphere. how pessimistic or optimistic are you about brazil being able to avoid that and if -- what will that mean? i know cuba, how do you assess the progress so far? do you expect any major legislation this year on cuba? thank you. tom: cuba, the progress, we have to say it's very significant considering for more than 50 years, we didn't do anything. and we are very supportive of the rational kinds of things that are being done on both sides with absolute understanding that there's still significant activities it must be dealt with. but it appears that temb's going to keep talking and i believe that will go right through any

presidential administration. on the matter of the hemisphere, i mean, obviously, you know, when you look at brazil and argentina who are struggling, brazil, particularly, when you the at venezuela and changes there, we'll see how they play out. it's going on right now. i believe it's an area and i could go on and name other places. some just quiet. and it's very important to the united states. this is an extraordinary important trading relationship. it's a very important geo political relationship. and the chamber is putting

extraordinary resources and time into it. e think it's very important. reporter: hi. on taxes, are you anticipating any action at all this year, maybe if there are enough inversions? and what are your biggest concerns about country by country reporting? tom: well, bruce and i are going to do these together. on the tax deal, there could be issues on -- because of the inversion and other things that would come to the fore. but generally and i have to tell our members this, we are committed. we are committed to a broad based tax reform that stimulates economies and gives the risk takers a fair shake in the tax side.

i think it would be fair to say hat we don't think until 20 17 we're going to get there and even then, it's going to be tough because the people that used to do this that know all about it aren't around anymore. and on the second question, i think bruce, you should make a couple of questions on the comments first. bruce: one, there's about 35 tax extenders that were extended through this year. there's been a commitment and announcement from brady and pelosi both that they have an agreement to take a look at those and try and figure out how they're going to do el with them this year at some point. so there's going to be another tax extender package, that's for sure. brady, the new chairman, prayed of the house ways and means committee has made it clear that he does want to proceed on the international side as i'm sure you know. he views that as a bit of a

stepping stone the way he discusses it to get to broader extensive tax reform. so far, everything that the treasury department has done to tackle inversions have done nothing but make it more complicated and more expensive but they're not going to stop them. if you're going to stop inversion, you have to do fundamental tax reform. we have fallen behind talking about falling behind. for i guess now going close to two decades, the rest of the world has been in really tax cut competition. oecd countries have lowered their rates dramatically. japan has adopted territorial, lowering its rates. we are like the outlier with a high rate trying to compete in a global economy that disadvantages that u.s. companies make some takeover targets. we're going to see some movement here. i think ryan, the speaker wants to minimally put his weight as

speaker behind this with brady. whether or not that's going to be a template for tax reform as opposed to an actual vote, i can't say. i think there's going to be a lot of activity here where there's activity in this space, we obviously will engage it completely from start to finish. >> ok. right there. reporter: thank you. the white house has pled to release executive actions in 2016. can you tell us what you think that those remaining executive actions could be? what they're going to be about? what's left to come from this administration? bruce: damned if i know. tom: but but i thought it was really interesting if you think about it. that was a message. it didn't come from some second level staff in the white house. it came from the chief of staff.

nd he was sending a message. you know, executive orders are very tough to deal with. i believe presidents ought to have executive power. timesere are instances or when it is abused and used basically to get around the congress, not to deal with emergencies or particularly sensitive issues that everybody sort of agrees on. u can assume that we will be very involved with every tool we have to deal with it. now, we support some executive orders. i believe that executive order that came out of the white house when we were working so hard to come up with an appropriate cyber security bill which we

were helpful with was a great example of that sort of a process. ow, we'll have to see what of things we can't even imagine. mr. josten: what is in the pipeline, watch the department of labor and watch e.p.a. mr. donohue: one of the real places, if i was running a small or large company, what i'm worried more than anything else is the department of labor's rules on the employment and the pay and the benefits and the regulations of people and how they work. i'll go right there. reporter: i would like to follow

up on katie's questions about elections. given the number of elections up for elections on senate side, do you see the chamber playing a role in indiana and florida in the primaries? mr. donohue: we'll play a role on the senate side. we believe there is a value to the business community by holding the senate. we believe failure to hold the senate, no matter who is elected democrat or republican puts us at risk and what we mind up with with changes in the court. we will be working the senate in a very thoughtful way. we have spent a good deal of money in the senate races and you could expect to see us very aggressive in the senate.

and we will be in the house. when you're in presidential territory, you have to pay a lot more attention in the house. en: we are watching them carefully. we are doing our best not to answer your question, if you have not figured that out. mr. donohue: go ahead. reporter: you have mentioned to us the challenging of regulations. what does that mean in terms of working with c.m.s. on regulations and which of those regulations you will make the most headway on this year? mr. josten: we have a staff that lives over there once a week trying to sit down and negotiate outcomes. we have had success.

look, this is another example like tom mentioned with dodd-frank when you have these huge pieces of legislation, they are go to go demand changes going forward. and even the administration has bought into a lot of the changes that taken place in terms of obamacare and what is going on in the marketplace. there is unsettling in the marketplace and insurers. worried about the risk pools and the makeup of who is signing up. and they are not signing up. and they are kind of concerned about 2017. a lot of them want to go through 2016 and see what happens. this is another area that we will be doing health care legislation as we say every year forever.

reporter: you mentioned that the chamber would be in favor of reasonable actions to address climate change and you have done prior analysis showing there is a lot of work to do meet climate goals and despite what the obama administration has said. could you define what reasonable actions might be and what are the aspects on it? mr. donohue: there is no

question about the realities of climate change. we are able to track it for about two billion years. and what really comes down are three sets of issues. one of the questions, the issues that the business community or the country are causing any additional change in climate, what are the other countries around the world doing and the issue there is, can we have an incremental effect, beneficial effect. and finally, what are the proposals going to do to the united states' economy and to jobs and to the well-being of our country. i think we go back -- i mentioned that we did the kyoto accords. but how did we do it.

technology? we did it with efficiency. we did it with collective action. we're willing to do all those things again. we just don't want to take steps that will penalize the united states in a fundamentally different way than what's going on around the world and we don't want to destroy industries that are going to put people out of work when there are ways that you can still keep them functioning. and the next deal, i'll go there. reporter: you were talking about how you would like to see the changes, fixes to dodd-frank. in the coming months, what are some of the priorities specifically that you see as low-hanging fruit that congress could act on? and secondly on the t.p.p., there is discussion on the timing.

do you think there is any chance on the vote happening before the election in any chamber of congress? and when you talk about timing are you talking about the vote will take place after the election? mr. josten: the president hasn't even signed the agreement, that is in february. and we have to wait for the international trade commission. i think the deadline for that is may 17 or 18. that means to me it is pretty tight question to see that voted on in that time frame up to about june and i say that because of the announcements that the senate leader has made and the speaker has made about regular order on doing all 12 appropriation bills because it is under the budget control act.

i think that is a bit of a push so see that happen in that time frame. do i think it's possible to see a vote? sure. it is possible in lame duck? sure. the bigger issue is everybody needs to remember in t.p.a., we hit 218. we need to build support for this greem. and goes right back to the earlier questions in terms of addressing the issues that are bileics, et cetera and the financial services. they are going to have to be addressed. and until they are, it's going

to be hard to calibrate anyone putting that on the floor. don't put that on the floor and fail. mr. donohue: on the dodd-frank thing. with a third of the regulations, six years? that haven't been dealt with and hanging over the head of the business community we have to get on that. these laws and the regulations that come out on them are not standing still, whether it's the medical profession, the hospitals, whether it's the technology people, pharmaceutical and all the new drugs and everything, these things are constant moving -- changing system and we're dealing with all these questions of the affordable care act. not against ap standstill system but something that's moving. the sooner you get it and you

are going to find in an industry of this size, continual motion. mr. josten: trying to address the limits they put on health savings accounts. that's important for small business and small business owners. small business space in terms of the ability for them to purchase a major concern for them. there are a lot of concerns for them. and let's see. mr. donohue: let's go back to the middle.

the reality is this thing needs to be fixed in a host of areas -- they have been targeted, highlighted, reported on. it is fair to say we will be involved in every aspect. mr. donohue: the only comment i want to make about that -- all of the institutions affected by these laws and the regulations that come out on them, are not standing still. whether it's the medical profession, the hospitals, whether it's the technology people, pharmaceutical and all the new drugs and everything, these things are constant moving -- changing system and we're dealing with all these questions of the affordable care act.

not against ap standstill system but something that's moving. the sooner you get it and you are going to find in an industry of this size, continual motion. mr. josten: trying to address the limits they put on health savings accounts. that's important for small business and small business owners. small business space in terms of the ability for them to purchase a major concern for them. there are a lot of concerns for them. and let's see. mr. donohue: let's go back to the middle. audience member: those prices are creating a lot of pain in the oil industry. anything that the obama streags can do to soften the blow? or is this just something that has to work itself out in the market?

mr. donohue: you don't want to regulate oil prices for two or three reasons which would never work. the phenomenal, global system. i think -- i think some of what has been going on in the paris talks and the environmental stuff and some of the attacks on -- which absolutely is unacceptable on individual companies who maybe don't agree or have spoken about something that's not something you agree and see the attorney general of new york or to see others to come out and behave that way is very frightening and none of that, none of that helps in any way a vigorous and balanced price of energy. but let me say you can't run the economies of the world without

energy and everybody likes to have it downwards workable, but if it goes down so far, nobody is going to take it out of the ground and we have a problem. and to say we are up to it in our ears and it is very essential to our future and this is going to be a very interesting year. mr. josten: who would have predicted a price of a barrel of oil today and morgan stanley if you go to 20 bucks today and the industry said it's going to go up. we don't have a clue of what that is.

but getting out of the industry's way is one thing the government ought to be mindful of. this is one of the fracking you can find oil and natural gas pretty much everywhere. we ought to celebrate the fact we have these resources and this industry is one of the most innovative technologically in the world. it has already made a dramatic difference for you and about every other american -- about a $100 billion a year tax cut. >> take two more and you have take twonohue: i will more. you have been working on this. go ahead. reporter: i want to ask you about the crony capitalism statement. do you think the strong vote in re-authorizing the export-import bank is not that potent or do you still feel that side could end up winning on the g.o.p.?

mr. donohue: what happened on the bank, first of all it was a great thing for the far right to get on top of because it didn't cut any expenses, it was supposed to make them look efficient. and nobody thought about this very much. but when everybody began to think what this meant, this meant that the united states did not have a government -- export financing operation that they would not buy capital goods from our country. you could imagine how many companies we're looking at and we heard in this town when the chairman of g.e. spoke at the economic club, he was prepared to move the company not from connecticut to boston but from connecticut to canada.

the reality of this caused us to get the votes we needed. we always had the votes but we had to get the votes and you know, these are decent debates and will be other arguments. but the bottom line is we're trying very hard to get people no matter what their philosophy is to understand that their failures, if we don't put people to work and don't drive growth in this economy, and don't rknies that business is the one way we can get this done and if you are screwing that up, you deserve what you get.

mr. josten: crony capitalism has been around for 20 years. i don't see us ex punking that rhetoric any time soon. but we will fight the battle when necessary. defining it is like defining beauty. it's like members of congress complaining about ex-im's counting method up -- accounting methodology. if you don't like, change it. mr. donohue: something they saw on the talking sheets. i'll take the last one and anybody who wants to come up and talk, we'll talk to you. reporter: i have a question about the sanctions in iran. they are expected to be lifted soon.

if it happens, what kind of actions to you expect to see in u.s. companies? do you have any spec companies that are interest? have -- i will say under the law and outside the law, have been engaged in iran for a long time. i think american companies will be very careful in the early going. it's not only very, very competitive, but it's going to be difficult here and difficult there. and i think -- and there are two sets of sanctions, one has to do with nothing with the deal and will have to see how that goes and i'm not sure and i don't know that bruce is ready to go there either. we believe what's going on in the middle east, all through the

middle east is a very troubling time and we hope whatever comes out of iran is hopeful, not difficult particularly when the resources go back there they don't go to supporting terrorism. thank you very much everybody. and bruce will tell them what he thinks. [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] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscernible]

>> yeah, i am respecting it, because that is what they say. josten: best answer you can give. i can't make a blanket commitment. it is like the fiduciary rule question. but we are concerned. and we are going to review it when it comes down and sit down with our energy people and there has to be a legitimate opportunity to make a challenge. reporter: any indication from the administration that they are willing to respond to your demands? mr. josten: they are making encouraging comments particularly this week. i think everybody wants to get this done and how we are going to get it done. they have self-imposed

agreements with columbia. did similar efforts on other agreements. this is not to this agreement or any other. [indiscernible] examples of past history have raised. reporter: talk more about what that reform that came from the end of the year. now, then: right weight for a permit, whether it is a road a new energy , infrastructure, a new infrastructure has been 12 , years. why this private capital and why it has been taking place in america. 12 years wait is the reason. how much you are going to have to allocate in terms of legal costs and in massachusetts has gone on for 12 years. if you talk to the people with

money, why would i put anything here. i can go. and i can put money you . so getting this bill done says all-comers get hurt. you have to cut the pie and make a decision. so it's going to make a huge difference. reporter: does that include in your concerns about it -- well, are you concerned about the take-on of some of the congressman, incumbents, who fought -- mr. josten: it's like defining beauty.

>> will you take on some of them ? mr. josten: what do you mean kagan? -- take on? i am not the u.s. ex-im chamber of congress. i'm not a one-horse pony. we have an existing political process to evaluate challengers and incumbents. if you have a voting record with us, you get endorsed. if you have 70% or more or more, you get endorsed. i love these questions about a single issue. i love these questions about a single issue -- if you go after people, who would you deal with? reporter: when are you going to announce an endorsement? mr. josten: soon. >> what does soon mean? mr. josten: this year.

shortly. in the coming months. >> what is the process on the customs bill. mr. johnson: you have to rank everyone -- you have to figure including,ote we are make sure we are not have errors, and that is not easy. it will be a couple of. it's going to be a couple of months. reporter: what is stopping you. mr. josten: it became the dumping ground. the first deal was to try to get out of the customs bill and that had nothing to do with the customs bill. that has been going on. then congress wanted to add the internet tax freedom act which has been around from 19892. -- 1992. it has been reauthorized

perpetually. no real access. they wanted to make it permanent. it is now the permanent internet tax freedom act. complicatedin because he wanted to add the marketplace fairness act, which is an amendment to a larger bill. it has never been considered in the house of the presented its. it has never moved to the judiciary committee. the barrier right now, the thelenge right now, is durbin wanted to add another thing. have re-authorization of existing law and nobody is going to say we have no access, but the marketplace deal needs to be dealt with through regular order of the house. that, right now, is the big holdup.

reporter: you mentioned tax extenders are there are particular ones that are a particular ones. mr. josten: geothermal and some others. i'm not sure of the whole list. she and whoever in their publication because i leave you all, they were quoted as she is going to tackle that and the energy extenders that weren't dealt with and she says he has a commitment from them. reporter: any particular concerns about the economy's outlook? mr. josten: we have expressed concerns we are only growing at 2%, 2.2%, not growing at potential we should be and could otherwise be.

but it's pretty clear, tom tried to make the point that that kind of slow-motion policy are the -- recovery pace are the policies put in place. his remarks suggests alternatives. we are concerned. reporter: you mentioned about the letter to address the remaining issues, what are the options. pearlman said they are not going to renegotiate. mr. josten: they are not going to reopen it. they have always done sidebar on the implementation side deals , and other agreements with on how they are going to do that and that's the way we , are going to fix these issues. reporter: you get that an iron-clad commitment. josten: how -- mr. do i know what they shook hands on? seriously. i just read it. it was just yesterday.

reporter: given your commitment, how close are you working with republicans? do you think they could come up with a viable plan? mr. josten: well, it has been five years, and we are waiting. i think this is a very challenging deal for them because i think there are elements in the obama plan that are being go to be impossible. one is the pre-existing condition. i do not think we are ever going to see people going back on that. that will have to be included. the kid deal on the parents' policy is another one. that is probably not going to go away anytime soon. so there are some aspects of this thing that are going to stay. the gold, silver, bronze is a real challenge. you are seeing my members being force to raise co-pays and deductibles.

remember the president saying your premium would be $2500 or less -- that never really quite happened, you see what i'm saying. the curve that slowed has slowed obamacare if you went back, traced it, and came forward. so this is going to be a huge challenge. it is a personal issue a very , expensive issue. it is the most expensive issue the government is doing -- well, i guess social security still is, but it will overtake it and very expensive to business to continue to provide this to business and they have the benefit in terms of total employment. so i think the republicans have found themselves challenged and -- or i think we would have a plan. together by pull it the election? mr. josten: i do not think they will put together by the election and have a plan, but

they have no choice. you can't campaign as they have on repeal and replace and not come up with a replacement. reporter: what about the customs bill in the short-term bill? is that in the lobby in the chamber right now? in the coming work period, is that the main priority? mr. josten: it is one of the main priorities priorities we would like to see get done. >> can you be more specific on extending the energy supply priority discussed earlier and what opportunities to you see this year? know what: i do not opportunities there are on the hill, but there are opportunities to increase energy supply. here supply. ? >> policies. josten: the barriers are to

explore here federal lands to , explore on the mid-atlantic coast and gulf coast and coast of alaska. those are barriers. ok. thanks. >> and coming up live in 10, 15 minutes, vice president joe biden meeting with doctors and researchers at the university of pennsylvania school of edison for a discussion about curing cancer. the vice president made the call to fight cancer last year and president obama brought up the subject first, a conversation about poverty from today's "washington journal." we will show as much of this as we can. us on c-span is

robert woodson. the founder and president for the group of neighborhood enterprise. you are a guest of paul ryan at the state of the union. when did you get to know him? guest: i knew him when he was 22. the late congressman and secretary. i have known paul over the years. aget reacquainted with him month before the campaign ended when he called me and asked if i could assemble some grass roots leaders in ohio for him to meet. i did. we met 20 leaders. i want to, paul said have a press conference, i do not want them to feel used. after the election was over, paul called me and asked me if i could take him on a quiet, nonpublic listening tour through the country to low income neighborhoods that we have been servicing. so he could listen and learn about where are the solutions to

poverty. what is going on in these neighborhoods. they need to be restored from within. every month, we have spent a day for the past two years going to the most crime ribbon -- crime-ridden, drug infested neighborhoods and spending time with our leaders. so, he can sit and listen to those that have been transformed and redeemed as a consequence of what these programs do in these communities. i think that has had a profound impact on his worldviews of poverty and what it takes to cure it. host: have these tour is continued since he became speaker? he just became speaker. we will be together in dallas on monday. he is renewing these with the same profile. no press. he wants to keep in his understanding of what he is experienced in the last 2.5 years.

host: where will you take them on dallas? what will be the discussion? going to sell be dallas. we'll be talking about violence reduction. one of my most popular and effective leaders, mr. omar joa has met with paul several times he has run a group called vision regeneration. they actually have recruited x gang members whose lives have been transformed and they become healing agents to young gang members. they have a gang intervention effort. they are in 14 of the public schools. they help counsel young people to be peaceful and to act appropriately. so, paul will actually have some interactions with some of the people whose lives have been transformed as a result of omar. peoplewill interact with

whose lives have been touched in this very violent neighborhood. host: that's wonderful. what is the goal of the center for neighborhood enterprise? what do you do differently than the government? guest: i started in the center 34 years ago. i'm a veteran of the civil rights movement. i became disenchanted when i realized that a lot of the people who suffered and sacrificed most did not benefit from the change that the sybarite movements was more about promoting the interest of middle-class blacks and less behind low income blacks. i spent some time at the american enterprise institute, the national urban league, i stopped at the center because i did not feel that low income leaders had a voice. especially on the public stage. so, the center has provided service through grassroots leaders. i called them joseph's. they are indigenous communities.

we provide training, technical a geigere, we act like counter going into low income crime-ridden neighborhoods. governmento at the does or private charities, they go in and harvest failures of the poor. then, they promote these proposals where the money comes. 70% of all money spent on poor people does not go to the poor. it goes to those who serve poor people. they ask not which problems are solvable and fundable, but with the center does they go to high crime neighborhoods. are not raising children who are in trouble, we go to the 30% who are not dropping out in jail or drugs. we want to find out what they are doing that is different than their neighbors. those are the healing agents. those are the people at the solutions. , we try tod them help them to better manage what

they do. we get miracle grow in the form of training and access to capital. so, perhaps, a group that is helping 50 people can now help 500 people. we hope them to go -- grow. we network them run the country. then we try to determine what public policies will be in place that will one, ceased to injure them, but more, how to promote what they do so that the public can learn and benefit from the achievements of these organizations. have impacted around 3000 states that look to us to leadership. -- doing? at is the 30% guest: they apply all the values to a new vision. they have to understand that a set of complaining about what you have lost, they have more

concerned about utilizing the skills of what they have. another words, they understand that there is no monolithic definition of poverty. there are four categories of poor people people who are poor because they're broke. they do not have money. their characters intact. for them, they use the system of help as the way it should be. as an a.b. let's not a transportation. category two are the people who their characters intact, but they look at the disincentives, if they get a job they will lose day care. if they get a raise they will lose benefits, so they can include that is a reverse incentive. then you have the third category of people who are physically or mentally disabled, but they need help her the fourth category as a group that concerns most people. those are people who are poor because of character deficiencies. these are the people, giving the money or certificates, injures them with a helping hand.

what they need is transformation and redemption as a precondition of help. the groups we support around the primarily onntrate that category number four. so, if we will reduce poverty, we have to understand it is not just a financial crisis, it is a moral and spiritual crisis. our grassroots joseph's are experts at helping to transform people like that. host: boisvert woodson is our guest. phone numbers on the screen. -- robert woodson. will talk about different approaches -- conservative approaches to poverty. we will begin calls in a minute. at the state of the union speech, the president spoke about increasing economic security. we'll play this and get your reaction. president obama: if a hard-working american loses his job, we should not just make sure that he can get unemployment, we should make

sure that programs encourage him to reaching for a business ready to hire him. if the new job does not pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance. that we he can still pay his bills. even if he is going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. that is the way we make the new economy work better for everybody. i also know speaker ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. americans are about giving everybody willing to work a chance. not just a handout. i will welcome serious discussions about strategies we can support. like expanding tax cuts for low income workers. [applause] president obama: there are some

areas where we have to be honest. it has been difficult to find agreement over the last several years. the fall under the category of what role the government should play in making sure the system is not raked in favor of the wealthiest corporations. host: robert woodson. guest: i agree with the he is talking about those in category one and two. people whose character is intact, they just have financial disincentives. you can do that. i would agree with that. arelso said those who willing to work, the ones who -- welling up jails, treat the people in categories -- a liberal tends to look at all category one. and conservatives in category four. so, we miss one another.

if we can aggregate that population, and have an honest discussion about how we address those at the bottom, those are languishing a party because of the chances that they have taken. but, what interferes with our ability to do this is a raise. talk about holding people responsible for what they are doing. people say we are blaming the victim. they say that is racist. it is racist to expect people who have been a victim of injustice to do anything to help themselves. that is the difficulty we have. race exempts people on both sides. leaders, particularly black leaders who are running the various cities where property and crime is the highest from any responsibility from fixing it -- the voting rights act was supposed to elect black people to run these institutions with her the promise and the expectation that they would be operating more

effectively than those whom they replace. yet, we have 40 years of experience with some of those same people in place. conditions have not gotten better. race also exempts some of us were saying to the people who are victims, that the victimizer i.e. racism or your family not to down, that the victim has to get up. so, it is insulting to people to look at them as impotent children. uplift as a lot of traditional policies do. we think that -- it is crippling to people to say to them that you are a victim, your life is defined. therefore, your fate depends on what somebody else i does for you. center, we do at the

love and respect low income people in category for enough that we have the highest expectation of them. therefore, we enable them to be agents of their own uplift. we do not expect them to be dependent. bill bennett, the former secretary of education summarized it. he said when people on the left cc poor people, people and write cac of aliens. the challenge is do you want to be patronized or ignore? i think at times, speaker paul ryan is stepping into this to say that republicans and conservatives have been missing when it comes to addressing poverty. is what have heard from liberals are doing does not work, so let's cut the program. paul ryan is trying to change us narrative by joining with to give a voice to these voiceless people in these communities. and validating what they're

doing. so that we can begin to advance policies, not come from the left or right, but coming from grassroots leaders who are suffering. let the people doing with the problem defined what is in their best interest to help them. instead of always looking to experts, orde, professionals who design remedies for the poor, and then parachute them into the communities. host: let's take some calls. robert woodson is our guest. let's begin with dave, a democrat in fort myers for the. caller: good morning. think there is a reasonable conservative approach to end poverty in the united states would be to hand out -- or hand over george bush and dick cheney. i think we would save thousands and thousands of dollars. host: we will let his comments stand and move on. republican line. lori and carolina.

caller: good morning. if you have to know been to the chicago area and have had a chance to identify some of the problems dealing with the gang and drug infested areas. if you have any solutions to those problems. guest: we have. we had a violence free program. that went on the most dangerous high schools. it is one of the grassroots leaders there. group, they in his are doing a fabulous job of going into a movie worst high whools with young adults are serving as moral mentors and character coaches. they work to reduce violence there. but, chicago is interesting because it has been run for years. i have the same approach of parachuting in remedies to these problems without much change.

tweets, what is the republican plan to do with party? guest: i don't know. that is what car ride is trying to find. i know it is in the interest of poor people for republicans to come up with a plan, because they really need -- it is in the interest of the nation and the poor for republicans to be competitive in this area of reducing poverty, because when you look at the most severe poverty, it is occurring in cities run by liberal democrats. detroit, chicago, you name it. i think it is important for the nation, and for poor people for republicans to develop an agenda. speaker ryan is trying to do just that. host: in the new atlantic. can't paul ryan push republicans to prioritize poverty -- prioritize poverty? it said

poverty is not a policy area cut -- area that drives republican voters. guest: i think what paul ryan and other republicans understand is that you cannot look at thatca narrowly and assume you can just use demographic data. that i doo understand not know of anybody, democrat or republican that does not have brokenness and their live. a family member who is on drugs. of problem. all of us have challenges and brokenness and our lives. it is important for republicans and anybody, when you are looking at voters, you need to look at them not in a narrow said we-- paul ryan has need to visit people regardless of whether they are a potential that, forn you do instance, a republican in los angeles back in 1990 went into a

high crime east l.a. and establish a relationship. he built a center there. --ause he planted charitably charitably, he harvested politically. he was the first republican elected mayor and 35 years. so, it is demonstrated evidence that when republicans show up and do something to help the least of these, the benefit will be that people vote for you. host: there is a map in the new york times. it mapped poverty in america. the darker the blue, the worst the poverty. you can see some of the indian reservation areas. pockets out west, throughout the south. we tweeted that out at c-span wj. pamela in chicago, illinois. you are on. caller: hello.

i love your platform and your category. , republicans that have a tendency to group all people of color and all blacks no matter where they don't want to help your the president has tried to do things to help uplift the community, everything has been voted down. it hasn't even been brought to the floor. and help thefocus caucus realize the benefit of helping this community. the category force. for? he category guest: the president has not done that much to do with poverty at all. i think there was an article in the wall street journal beth reinhardt, looking at the 2012 election of the 100 highest

poverty counties in the country, neither the president nor romney visited emmy of those counties. 100. you have places in east ohio where there are dirt floors and no technology in a house. none of the candidates, neither romney nor obama visited any of the 100 lowest income counties, because they are transfixed on helping the middle class. i do not agree that the president has done so much to help low income blacks, or anybody -- in terms of low income. host: what does the government spend per year on anti-poverty programs. about $800 million. we spent trent d -- $20 trillion on programs. that is more than we have spent for every word that we have executed.

we could buy up all the agricultural properties with that money. so, the amount we spend is not related to effectiveness. washington, d.c. leads the nation. in 18 categories of poverty, we're almost dead last in terms of poor kids. there is no connection between what we spend and outcomes. host: we show this chart earlier. it is from the census bureau. poverty in the u.s.. , 46.7erty in the u.s. million people -- 14.8% of the u.s. is still in poverty. -- 10%african-americans of white people. guest: yes. what we need to be doing, is again, focusing on solutions. when jack kemp who is a mentor to paul ryan approached me some

years ago, there are examples of how there can be dramatic improvements. one of the worst public housing projects is in parkside in washington dc. -- residence with high crime the residents decided they are tired of this. under the leadership of kimi gray, there are three streets named for her, she raised five children as a divorced mother. cough of welfare in three years. center kids to college. in 12 years, she motivated the entire community to take responsibility for itself. they weren't getting the money that went to the housing authority. they hired their own people. there have been dramatic changes in those communities. welfare dependency is down. violence was down. drug dealers were gone. in st. louis they did the same thing. or a single scholar

government official ever came into evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. 60 minutes did not find it. some networks found it. none of the scholars that write about this did. nor has this been the subject of replication. oh these did not say are solutions that obviously work. what can we do to then take these and promote them throughout the country? the remediesse came from the people suffering the problems. not from the experts who just profit from the misery. host: from chattanooga. democrat. wanda. caller: good morning. know aboutng to things in the category you're pretty people in. for, i wasategory

wondering about when a person is 17e goes and has a child at and comments of the children getting the money, they have to pay the courts $50, so, when someone is trying to take care of their child, and they are in jail, they cannot get a job. i don't understand how that will help the child. children, they do not have support. when we were growing up, sports were the things that kept us out of trouble. one isi feel like if no really interested in what is going on, in the category for people. guest: i agree with you. one of the reasons i fell out of civil rights movement was on the issue of forced integration. i was supporting of strengthening neighborhood schools. that is what we have done.

we have come up with policies that and up destroying the social net worth. 1960, aberrant behavior or bad behavior was not associated with poverty. it is only since the 1960's that we associate crime, violence, out of wedlock birth with poverty. ther to that -- i think in 60's we entered a time of moral deregulation where we absolutely separated work from income and all of this. all the social institutions particularly in the black community they used to be intact. that explains how we were able to sustain life and prosper. those social institutions and responsibility was taken out of the neighborhoods like lady was saying and transferred to government or distant bureaucracy. so, people began to look not to their own neighborhoods or

institutions but they look to someplace outside for support. host: eric. california. independent. caller: yes. hello. i would like to say that you are doing a great thing. the labels of conservative and liberal that fit these things. came,re, when the crash three out of four houses had closure signs. section eight, we were increasing crime through younger people who are out of control. nots not so much whether or people have monday. it is a self respect. guest: i agree with you. i did a book some years ago called on the road to economic freedom. were i look at the history of blacks, how they survived and whatnot.

there were 20 blacks going into slavery who died millionaires. 20 that were born into slavery and died millionaires. because of their grit and determination. when blacks were denied an opportunity to open hotels, every major city had a black run hotel. the black community was able to survive and thrive at a time of segregation, then what is the problem today? it is a matter of will. it is a matter of self-determination. it is a matter of looking to yourself to uplift. everybody needs help. but, it has to start with you determining that you need to be an agent of your own elevation. saturday, the can't form in south carolina, jed looked -- jeb bush talking about poverty and his plan. senator bush: first, i think

what we should do is not just talk about laboratories of democracy, but mean it, do it. create measurements from the federal government. -- do not create resistance restrictions on how states create upper nobility. when people are stuck, their second poverty. the notion of some that somehow they want to be there, is ridiculous and wrong. in fact, we will never win elections if we folks on that. will become a minority party. i know people in this room do not believe that. if you start with the premise that the states, if they gotcha chance to do it in their own way as chris says, each community might have a different approach. are three big programs. the tennis program, the food stamp program and the housing assistance program to states, the state group federal relationship would be focus on outcomes. getting out ofre poverty, not how many people are stayin