tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 26, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EDT
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to put a finer point on your son chris' observation. i worked here 40 years ago as a staff member and was once called upon to set up a hearing and called the office of management and budget for a witness from the administration. the fellow said we'll send you the deputy under secretary of such and such and i said i don't really understand these titles. can you tell me who this guy is? and his answer will be the title if i ever write a book. he's at the highest level where they still know anything. the bad news is you and i are now above that level. deterrence has been a theory and a doctrine that's served this nation well for 70 years. it's been a huge, hugely successful theoretical construct. but the problem is, it seems to me in the modern day, is it rests upon a premise of rationality on both sides. does deterrence -- the theory of
deterrence work against a mad man, or a suicidal fanatic? do we need to be thinking about deterrence 2.0 because of that potential lack of rationality on the other side that wouldn't be concerned about the destruction of their country or perhaps they're possessing nuclear weapons and don't have a country to destroy. >> senator, i think we need to look at deterrence 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and deterrence in the 21st century, i think is fundamentally different than it was in the 20th century. deterrence in the 21st century involves all elements of national power. not just nuclear deterrent. involves space and cyber and conventional forces, it involves offense and defense on the strategic side of the house.
you have to look at the integrated defensive capabilities if you're talking about responding to north korea or iran, and that defensive capability because an essential element of our deterrent posture. >> we also have to think about who we're deterring. and what works. what would -- what would be the -- again, deterrence is an idea, mutually shared destruction but you have to tailor it to the other side. >> and you do. and i think if you look at north korea, for example, the unpredictability is the hardest to deter. how do you deter somebody or something that is unpredictable. it's very difficult. that's why you have to have a defensive mechanism that will ensure if they wanted to attack the united states, it will fail and leave the president all the response options with the rest of the capabilities. >> they have to know that. >> they have to know that so we have to make sure that is readily transparent to all the world and all our adversaries.
>> we have both the means and the will. >> to defend ourselves and to respond, if need be. >> a few months ago, a group of us went on the national airborne operations center and the thing that struck me is we went through a nuclear attack scenario simulation was that in that situation, a, there's a very limited amount of time for decision-making, and, two, only one person makes the decision, the president. there's no check and balance. no congress, no required consultation. is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. that's the constitution. >> and it is -- that's the sole responsibility of that person who will be making that decision in a matter of minutes. i think the exercise we were in there was 28 minutes. if it was a missile coming from offshore would be 5 or 10 minutes, is that correct? >> yes, sir. like i said, i love the constitution. i swore an oath to defend the constitution. in article 2, section 2 of the
constitution is one of the reasons i'm here is because the advice and consent clause in the constitution requires me to prepare for the senate to be confirmed before i move on. it also establishes the president of the united states as the sole commander in chief. >> and there is no advice and decision that could hold in the hands of the president the future of our civilization? >> two big elements in that clause in the constitution. one establishes the president and commander in chief and the other is advice and consent of the senate. >> but it doesn't apply in this. >> the commander in chief is the commander in chief. >> [ inaudible ]. >> that's the -- co-equal branches of government, okay? executive, legislative and judicial. and the president proposes and
the congress disposes. so i understand your point about the commander in chief. this administration has done more to ignore the congress of the united states than any administration that i have been associated with. >> going back to the naoc, command, control and communication, are you satisfied when talking about modernization, the focus is almost always on the triad. it seems this is an area that also needs modernization and strong consideration. >> yes, it does. the big challenge as we look at command and control in the united states will be the cyber threat which will be much different than when we created the current. >> should cybercommand be elevated to a separate combatant command? >> yes, i believe it's time to elevate it to a separate
combatant command. >> thank you, chairman and thank you, general, for your service to our country. i want to follow up to the answers on your advanced policy questions. what are the most serious strategic threats facing the united states today. and among your answers you mentioned the increasingly provocative and destabilizing behavior by potential adversaries like iran. what i wanted to ask you is why do you believe there's significant concern about the adversary of iran and the impact of the pursuit of their ballistic missile program which they've done quite aggressively even post-jcpoa. >> so i think you answered -- you provided part of the answer when you started talking about the ballistic missile program. there's three elements that concern me about iran in the
last year. element one, they continue to be the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. that should be enough to cause the nation concern. second is their continuing pursuit of new ballistic missile program and testing ballistic missiles over the last couple of years. and then, third, a statement after one of the tests early in march this year by a member of the iranian military that said we're building this capability to threaten israel. so we put those three statements together, and you look at the technology they're pursuing, that's why i'm concerned about iran. >> and their ballistic missile program from what i hear from your testimony, you believe this is a real threat to israel. is that true? >> they stated that it's a threat to israel. >> and what about, though, also our forward deployed troops in the european area and also our european allies? i assume it represents a threat to us as well? >> it does. >> and would you agree with what
dni clapper has said when he's repeatedly testified that tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons? >> i agree with that. >> and so i think we also need to focus on making our own homeland when it comes to their testing and development of ballistic missiles, would you agree with that? >> i think that has to be part of our missile defense. i believe that's the missile defense architecture in the pacific and needs to be in the atlantic as well. >> when we look at their even -- they've been even post-jcpoa agreement, testing ballistic missiles on multiple occasions. do you believe that their activities are inconsistent with the u.n. security resolution 2231 which calls on iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology?
>> that's more a policy question, but from a military perspective, i find that kind of behavior extremely destabilizing and threatening. >> how are we going to address their testing issue? what do you see your role in your command and ways we should be more aggressively pushing back on iran on something of deep concern to us and our allies. >> again, senator, i think a lot of that question is for the political realm. my job is to, if i'm confirmed as commander of stratcom, will be to provide military advice to the president, military advice passed by this congress. i think you're asking for my military advice. my military advice is that we always have to make sure that our capabilities to respond to an iranian threat are visible, powerful and ensure and the deterrent discussion a little while ago that no adversary will want to take us on, at least they will think twice and reconsider their actions before they do that. that's the job as the commander of strategic command and if confirmed, i'll take that seriously.
>> nang thank you, general. in the political realm, i would hope -- i've introduced legislation to impose real sanctions on iran for their ballistic missile program. i've been very disappointed the administration is, from my perspective, pretty much ignoring their testing of ballistic missiles. i wanted to follow up with you. would love to have you come, if confirmed, to visit new hampshire because we have the 23rd space operations squadron at new boston air force station, and new boston operates the largest air force satellite controlled network, remote tracking station and they provide stratcom with very important satellite command and control capabilities. so i wanted to extend that invitation and hope you'll take me up on it. >> i've been to new boston many times. one of the most beautiful bases in our country. it's a hidden treasure, but they do an incredibly important mission.
my wife has been up to new boston as well. there's amazing airmen that do awesome work up there. >> we're glad you're very familiar with new boston. they'll be an important asset to you in this new position. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank your family. thank you to all of you. stratcom recently provided a requirement letter related to hypersonic weapons systems. and specifically conventional prompt strike. are your familiar with that? >> i'm familiar with the broad topic. >> and i know some of this information is sensitive, but to what degree it is possible, what are your thoughts on the importance of making progress on conventional prompt strike? >> i think that from my position today as air force base command, i think that has a role to play in the future. if i'm confirmed as strategic command, i think that i'll need to work with all the combatant
commanders to make sure we get the requirements right. i see a significant role in terms of our ability to double any target on the planet at risk without having to move into the nuclear realm. i think there's a powerful requirement there, but it's just not a stratcom requirement. it's a requirement that i think all combatant commanders will have to be involved in developing to make sure we get it right before we start going down that path. >> the sooner cps transitions from a dod risk reduction project to a navy program of record, i think the sooner that's system will reach its initial operational capability. what is your view on the ideal timing for cps from stratcom's standpoint? >> i think from a commander of stratcom perspective, i think yesterday would be a good answer. i don't think there's -- if we had a capability to provide prompt strike, just think how it
would fundamentally change the equation to go back to senator king's question about what deterrence is. because now you have a conventional capability that can deter as well as a nuclear capability that can deter. i would like to see that answer be yesterday. >> the air force general i think has an historic opportunity to leverage research and development, common parts and lessons learned from the navy's recent program to reduce risk, enhance savings and field an extremely capable follow-on to minuteman 3. there's been some difficult back and forth on how best to leverage commonality across the two services, but when i go back to my home state of indiana, naval surface war center crane, our navy and air force personnel are working very closely on this. and we're doing incredible work for the air force, particularly in the area of radiation, hardened electronic parts.
i know collaboration between navy and air force is happening on a daily basis at the staff level. if confirmed, will you work to establish commonality and collaboration across the air force and navy strategic programs to reduce cost and risk? >> so if confirmed, i'll advocate for that. the commander of stratcom is not in the direct acquisition realm. that would be the service chiefs for the most part. i'm a huge believer as we build things for the future in particular, to make sure we can leverage commonality across those capabilities. i'm not a big believer in trying to go back and insert commonality in retrofitting because almost always that costs us an enormous amount of money. every time we modernize, whether it's a component, subcomponent or entire weapons system, we should look at commonality as much as possible. >> do you have any idea at this point where you see the greatest potential for commonality and collaboration? >> i think the greatest potential will be in the missile
technology of the future, especially the microelectronics side of the missile technology that will go into the future ground base strategic deterrent element that the air force is pursuing now to leverage capabilities from navy missile programs. >> let me ask you this, i think we're coming on a battle wave of 2020 to 2035 which is a ways off but we also have an obligation to try to help at this point. last year admiral haney said it currently represents 3% of dod's budget and the figure could grow to 6% in out years under current plans. how do you see the defense budget flexing to accommodate the things we need to do and how to prepare the next administration for success in this effort?
>> senator, i think the nuclear triad is affordable as we go forward in the future. but it should not be looked at as a blank check. i actually -- i don't like when i see the numbers that show up in the paper of a trillion dollars or $85 billion or $500 billion. i don't like to see those numbers. they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. if we say it's going to cost that much, it ends up costing that much. we need to define our requirements specifically, figure out what we need to build and then within the defense budget, because it is the backbone of what we do, it is everything that our defense department is based on, we have to modernize the triad. and i think the money will be there to do that. but we still need to do it smartly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, thank you for the effort you made in very thoroughly answering some advance questions which i've had a chance to review on page 24 of your answers with regard to
electronic warfare and spectrum operations. you say among other things, russia and china have each committed significant resources to electronic warfare capabilities and dedicated military operators. and then you talk about their layered advantage that each of these countries has attained. ijoo would you explain what their layered advantage is and enlighten the committee with regard to china and russia in this regard. >> senator, if you look at what china and russia have been looking at themselves for the last 20 years, they've been looking at the united states developing incredibly powerful conventional military that without a doubt can dominate any battlefield in the world. and so they have taken those lessons and started building capabilities to respond to that. one of those lessons is in the electromagnetic spectrum. they see us dominating that.
using gps, satellite communications. they see us basically conducting information age warfare where in the not too distance pass, industrial age warfare. developing layers of capabilities in the electromagnetic, cyber and space to gain a strategic advantage in those areas. our job is to make sure they never get an advantage in those areas but it's clear that's what they're trying to do from my perspective, senator. >> will you further say with our increasing spectrum dependence, assuring access to and freedom of maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum can no longer be guaranteed, this is an area where we must improve. what suggestions will you have for us in that regard? >> i will continue to advocate if confirmed, for improved capabilities in each of the domains i just described. space, cyber, as well as the electromagnetic spectrum. we have to build resilient
capabilities to fight through and respond to threats. it's no different than a threat to an airplane, a threat to a ground system, a threat to a ship. the navy has a layered approach in how they respond to a threat to the fleet. we need a layered approach in how we respond to threats in space, threats in cyber or threats in the electromagnetic space. >> that resell yens needs redundancy. is that correct? >> it can be achieved through redundancy, through proliferation of capabilities, it can be achieved through defensive systems that can defend you against such as anti-jam capabilities to allow you to fight through a jamming scenario, which is an electromagnetic spectrum operation. >> i read a novel a while back, i think published in 2009, entitled one second after by william forsten.
i wonder how fanciful that is. i don't know if you've read that novel, but the concept is there's an electromagnetic pulse which shuts down our entire gps grid and electric grid. and renders this country pretty much defenseless. how big of a layered approach would russia or china have to have to accomplish that, and is this just fanciful science fiction that could never happen, or is it something we need to be prepared for? >> i haven't read that book, senator, but -- >> i've described it. >> yes, you did, very well. the concern is an electromagnetic pulse that goes off in space. that's the concern. it is the most dangerous threat that a space officer, which i am right now, is concerned about because it is the most threatening and the most damaging. but if a nation in the world
does that, they have now reached a very significant threshold, and the response of the united states could be broad and very -- and more likely not a response in kind but a response in another domain. >> it would be more damaging than a nuclear bomb, would it not? >> it is a nuclear bomb, basically. it is a nuclear bomb in space. that's what creates the electromagnetic pulse. >> who has the capability of doing such a thing now, if they were mad enough to do it? >> anybody with a nuclear weapons capability and a launch capability into space. >> and how prepared are we to respond -- to prevent, not to respond in a mutually assured destruction manner, but to defend against such a thing? >> our nuclear command and control architecture, including the space elements of missile warning and satellite communications is very well positioned to respond and operate through that scenario. we built that into our scenario. the rest of our infrastructure is not as well prepared to respond. now the good news about gps, for
example, is that it is a global architecture, and we can go in another forum into the details, but there would be slight degradation of a single -- if a single electromagnetic pulse went off, it would potentially take out certain elements of the gps constellation but it heals itself as it comes over. so i don't want to get into too much technical detail, but it's fairly resilient because of numbers. our missile warning are very resilient because of the defensive mechanisms we built on them. together, they will allow the united states to continue to fly and fight. the concern is, what does if do to our civilian infrastructure. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, general. i would just say that your upcoming new position, if you are successful as you've been in selecting your wife and raising two fine children, you're going to do great. >> thank you, sir. >> with that being said, sir, the whole procurement system,
b-52, we built in '52, came into operation in 1955. built 744. still in operation, okay. we did total upgrades for $1.1 billion over that period of time. maybe a little bit more. then we come along and someone makes a decision we need an f-35. we're on track to spend $1.5 trillion. and we had the f-15, f-16, f-18. how come all of a sudden -- who makes that decision we are trying to get rid of the a-10 ward hog, which has ground support? all of the sudden, we spent $1.5 trillion. and it makes you think of president eisenhower saying, be aware, be very concerned about the industrial. as you know, his comments as far as what we do in procurement and defense. how do we explain that, and why is a 15 and 16 and 18 not able to be upgraded and continued service? >> so, senator, it's really not a question for me. it's a question for the
commander of air combatant commander. as an air force officer, i do have some opinions. i'll be glad to share those opinions with you. the f-15, f-16, f-18 are fourth generation aircraft. going up against a modern 21st century threat, they cannot penetrate many of the threats that we are going to have to be able to penetrate. >> what generation is a b-52? >> b-52 is at least a third generation weapons system. and, oh, by the way -- >> still the most efficient and cost effective? >> it is, because of the cruise missile because it can't penetrate either. we'll need to penetrate with fighters. we need a fifth generation fighter. we need the a-22 and the f-35 to penetrate those environments.
we have to have it for our airmen to fight and win in any conflict in the future. one of the reasons we need a b-21 is because the b-52 cannot penetrate. we'll need a penetrating capability out of the bomber and fighter. we'll need to handle any threat scenario. as for the cost, it should not have cost that much. i think any american who looks at the cost and is proud of that cost has not seen the big picture. it cost too much. but that capability is critical. and it will be awesome on the battlefield. it will create an advantage for the united states for decades to come. >> i have a question being asked by west virginians every day. does the president of the united states have the absolute ability and power to call for nuclear strike? without any input from congress, legislators, any input from generals whatsoever to negate that? he or she alone can call for that strike? >> my job as a military officer is to follow orders of the commander in chief.
>> so there's no checks and balances. you don't check with someone else to make sure. if you get that order from the president, then it's a go order? >> the president of the united states will ask me for my military advice. i'll give it as strongly and powerfully as i can if i'm confirmed, but he is the commander in chief, or she is the commander in chief, and their orders will be followed. >> so that person, whoever the president may be, has the ability, sole ability to call for a nuclear strike? >> they are the commander in chief. >> also, i'm very supportive of the national guard as you might know. i would like to know how you see that your sister the national guard's performance in space, missile defense and cyber operations, how they can be more effective. >> spectacular. but in many ways we've just scratched the surface. if you think about many of the missions we do in space and cyberspace, they are stateside missions. it's perfect for the reserve. some of our most impressive
cyber units are guard units because they can leverage the civilian workforce in civilian population. the guard and reserve are stepping up into the space area in new and exciting ways. i met with the head of the international guard and head of the air force reserve. we're looking at new ways to expand both space and cybercommand. as the -- if i'm confirmed as commander, it's a total force problem, everything that's we do. and we'll leverage the total force in every way possible. >> thank you, general. do you think that we're exercising every option and opportunity we have to enhance that with the guard or is there more than needs to be done? >> i think there's always more that needs to be done. i'm not exactly sure what that is but i just looked at the potential that's out there and realized that i think there's even more that can be done. we're doing a tremendous amount. >> thank you, general. >> i think you ought to read the constitution. nuclear strike, depending on the
circumstance, would require a declaration of war. only the congress can declare a declaration -- approve of a declaration of war. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and, general. congratulations and thank you for being willing to take on this task. thank you to your family for being here and for all of the service they've also provided. there was discussion earlier about north korea and the erratic behavior of north korea's leader. and we saw as you pointed out just this morning that they tested a new rocket engine to launch satellites. it's the latest in a succession of nuclear weapons tests and ballistic missile launches as they steadily increase their nuclear stockpile. can you discuss what you see as
stratcom's mission and operations to, as we look at what we can do to deter what's happening in north korea, if anything? >> i think we have two roles, if i'm confirmed as strategic commander, that we have to play. role number one is strategic deterrence and assurance mission for our allies. and i kind of lump those both together. the ability to deter our adversaries and assure our allies thad they are defended by the capability of the united states. i think it's extremely important. the second piece of that puzzle is to make sure we provide the right kind of ready forces that can allow the united states in concert with the other joint combatant commanders to respond to those capabilities across the board. >> senator inhoff earlier talked about the missile defense system in eastern europe as being one of the actions that might have contributed to russia's
aggressive behavior. do we see that the thad missile system in south korea has the potential to produce that kind of a response from north korea and from china for that matter? >> i am not sure, ma'am, if i can properly assess how china or north korea would look at that. from my military perspective, the thad missile does not change the strategic deterrence equation because it provides a point defense capability against a close-end threat. it doesn't impact the ability of a strategic force to effectively operate. >> do you think that's clear to china and north korea? >> i think we have done everything in our power to make it clear. how they perceive what we've said and what they believe, i don't think i can comment on that, ma'am. >> there was a very interesting segment of "60 minutes" on sunday night. i don't know if you saw it or not. it was talking about the nuclear deterrent.
and one of the people they interviewed was former secretary of defense william perry who -- they were asking him if there had been -- ever been a close call in terms of someone launching a nuclear weapon from the united states. he pointed to an incident in 1977 where someone put in a training tape that was misinterpreted. as you look -- and the reason i think that is so -- has so much resonance right now is because i think this campaign for president probably has had more discussion of nuclear weapons and who should control nuclear weapons than any campaign i remember since 1984. so as you look at the current nuclear command and control structure and architecture, are there any concerns that you have
about the potential for something unforeseen to happen for somebody to make the wrong call and a weapon to be launched inadvertently? >> i believe our nuclear command architecture is the most resilient, robust command and architecture that can be created by man. i think there are multiple checks and balances through the system that you have men and women in the loop that can respond to those kind of anomalies and make sure if it is an anomaly they can report that up. nonetheless, it was created by man. if it's created by man, there's no way to create perfection, but that's why we put so many checks and balances in the system. all the way up to make sure if we do have to give a recommendation to the president of the united states, that recommendation is clear and based on solid data. >> one of the concerns that i have heard from folks in the
foreign policy arena is that unlike during the cuban missile crisis and much of the other periods of our history, we don't have the same kind of communication channels between us, our military leaders and the military leaders in russia. i don't know if -- they didn't suggest that china is in that category as well, but certainly said that was true of the united states and russia. do you share that concern? >> i don't have enough information to really comment on it, except to say that i'm a big believer in military to military relationships. and i think that if we have military to military relationships with allies, friends, and potential adversaries, we're in a better posture to defuse the situation if something should happen. if i'm confirmed, i'll find out the details of what relationships there are right now, and then i'll advocate for improving those relationships in the future.
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, general, congratulations on your nomination. i think you're highly qualified. i want to also -- as we talked about, i appreciate your example at our alma mater and what you did there and stand for. sometimes our universities in this country need to see and respect the military and rotc, and i think you are a great example of that. i want to just continue on. i know the discussion has been a lot about missile defense. and i want to continue on what senator shaheen was talking about and senator inhofe. do you believe it's part of our job and your job if you're confirmed as combatant commander and the senate's job to anticipate threats to our nation and then be able to address them?
>> sir, i think it's the responsibility of any public servant to look at that always. my primary job if i'm confirmed as a combatant commander will be to make sure our forces are ready to respond today, but i have a secondary job to advocate for capabilities to respond to future threats in the future and, if confirmed, i'll take both of those jobs very seriously. >> so it's my sense that's we talk a lot about north korea here and the threat, and it's definitely a growing threat. but i think that the american people probably continue in general to see that maybe most members of congress as a regional threat to japan, korea, to the region. today's -- there was a "wall street journal" piece today that north korea successfully tested a high-powered engine for launching satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles. do you believe in two to three years the leader of north korea is going to have the ability to reach the continental united
states with nuclear weapons? do you think that's just a matter of time? maybe not two to three, maybe three to four, but don't you think the american people soon, maybe within your tenure, if you are confirmed, are going to wake up to the fact that this is not a regional threat. this is a direct threat that a crazy dictator from north korea has the capability to range our country with intercontinental ballistic nuclear weapons. do you think that's going to happen within five years? >> sir, i can't put a date on it. i've talked extensively to the intelligence community over the last couple of weeks. i don't have a confident date, but -- >> you think it's going to happen -- >> it's a matter of when, not if. >> shouldn't we start preparing for that now? >> we should. >> so the american people won't wake up and say, my gosh, nobody has even thought about this. >> i think we are thinking about
it, and we have to be prepared for it. >> i think we're not doing enough in terms of missile defense to prepare for this inevitability. can you give me your sense right now with 40 ground base missile interceptors in alaska, a couple in california. a new lrdr system being deployed. do you think we're doing enough in terms of missile defense to be able to anticipate a threat that we know is coming? literally a dictator who has no stability in his mind being able to range our country with nuclear weapons. are we doing enough? >> i'm a big believer in missile defense. we're doing a lot but i think we need to do more. i think that the number of interceptors we have, we have to constantly look at that ability of that force to respond to the size of the threat. i think the force of size is
correct today. i have some concerns about the size of that force in the future. if i'm confirmed, i'll take a hard look at that along with command and pacific command to make sure we understand what that response option is. >> i'd like to work with you on that issue. i think it's a critical issue on for the defense for our nation. a lot of senators are interested in it, and i don't think we're doing enough to be ready for a threat that we know is coming. and if that, you know, if we're not in that position to tell the american people, hey, we knew this was coming, and we took -- we took decisive action to create a strong missile defense, i think that's not what we should be doing, any of us. can you just describe in terms of the technical aspects how important lrdr -- we often talk about ground base missile interceptors but the radar systems we're trying to deploy. >> they're important. you can't target a weapon without the sensor. you need the sensor to queue
that. that starts with the overhead infrared capabilities. hands off to radars today. the radars we have are old. they need to be modernized. one of the most critical radars we're building now is the long-range discrimination radar. clear in alaska to be able to respond to that threat. it's a critical element of any future architecture in that part of the world. and we also have to look at the space base element. we need to be able to broadly use the global nature of space to be able to add a global tracking capability because that not only allows us to track but allows us to operate weapon systems more efficiently than just firing many at one time. >> thank you, general. i think you are highly qualified. i look forward to voting in favor of your nomination -- confirmation. >> thank you for your service. thank you to your family. i want to start with a little
bit about the b-2. in august of this year, we deployed the b-2 from whiteman to guam. at least the second time this year that we have deployed these aircraft to the u.s. pacific command area of responsibility. in march 2013, two b-2 spirit bombers conducted a long-range precision strike by flying more than 6,500 miles to the korean peninsula and returning to the continental u.s. in a single continuous mission. i know that you understand how important missions like this are to demonstrating our commitment and our capabilities and what an important role they have in deterrence, particularly as we look at the actions of north korea. they continue our adversaries continue to develop advanced systems which eventually could
hold even our homeland at risk. i know there's been a lot of discussion regarding the affordability of maintaining -- upgrading nuclear triad. there are some improvements in the communications systems of the b-2 spirit which will extend the viability of this flexible, dual use platform. what would be the consequences of a delay in completing the communication upgrades to the b-2? >> senator, i think we have to look at the communication upgrades of the b-2 in concert with the entire bomber force. right now it's probably the most important element of our bomber capability. so that capability is extremely important to maintain the viability now and in the future. but i think the best answer that we owe to this committee and to the congress is natural. it looks across the entire bomber force. i think that's a question the air force should answer but as the commander of stratcom, what i'll advocate for is an effective bomber force to handle all the threats we have in the
future and then it's the air force's job to say then we have to upgrade the b-2 or we can wait for the b-21. right now the b-21 is a little too far off to respond to that. but i think the answer has to be across the entire bomber force. >> we have to make sure we don't make the same mistake with the b-21 as we did with the 35. we started pulling back on the fa-18s and hornets but because of the implementation of a system that was way over budget and way out of time. as a result, we had vulnerabilities on our aircraft carriers we shouldn't have and we're continuing to scramble to make sure that we don't have those. i want to make sure that i make that point. in addition, i am really proud of the 131st bomb wing at whiteman of the missouri national guard. was the first national guard unit to be certified to conduct a nuclear mission. this is -- took a tremendous amount of work at whiteman and a tremendous amount of commitment on the part of the active air
force at that base, along with the missouri national guard. do you -- can i get your commitment today to continue this integration and continue to allow the guard to play this important role going forward? >> so, senator, i'm a huge fan of the total force were. the guard and the reserve provide a huge capability to our forces worldwide. so i pledge to constantly advocate for full integration of the guard and to all our military forces across the board. if i'm confirmed as stratcom, it will be inside stratcom. >> and i also want to talk about missile defense as it relates to north korea. the first ballistic missile defense test against an icbm missile range target will be conducted this fall. first time this has happened since 1984.
a second ground base interceptor was scheduled for fy 2017 but due to budgetary constraints it will have to slip to -- it was scheduled for 2017. it will have to slip to 2018. a gao report found a system delayed or removed 40% of its planned flight tested in reprioritized the testing plan because of the fiscal constraints we placed upon the military. if we don't stop playing games with what we need to invest in our military as it relates to oco and spending money off budget, what is going to be the result in terms of our capability, in terms of ballistic missile defense, particularly in light of what north korea is up to? >> senator, i think we desperately need a missile defense capability. it's got to be robust, tested. our adversaries have to be
concerned, north korea in this case, have to be concerned that it will work if they operate against it. if it's not, it's not there. therefore, just like in every other element of our defense department, i think we need stable funding, close working relationships with the entire congress, especially this committee, to make sure we understand exactly where we're going. i'm concerned if we go back and you had a hearing last week on readiness that if we go back into a budget control act level, that many of those decisions that we'll make will be bad decisions for the security of the united states. >> thank you very much, general. congratulations. >> thank you, senator. >> general, you are an outstanding choice for stratcom. you have been an outstanding and have done an outstanding job as the head of air force space
command. a subject that i understand a little bit about, and i just want to say that for the record. we thank you, and i look forward to you being our combatant commander. would you characterize your thoughts on the need for modernization of our nuclear arsenal, as well as our nuclear command and control. >> senator, i think it's -- i think all three elements of the triad are essential to the security of the nation. i think it is the foundation of what we built our entire defense posture on. each of those elements of the triad are aging out at a similar time. in order for us to have an effective triad in the future, we'll have to modernize each element. we'll have to modernize the capabilities for icbm, we need
an ohio class replacement program on the -- cruise missile, the long-range strike option. each of those has to be pursued. they have to be pursued in an integrated manner, and then we have to pursue the nuclear command and control piece on top of that. the nuclear command and control is the most important piece of the puzzle. and as we continue to focus on the delivery platforms which are essential, we just can't take our eyes off the nuclear command and control capability. without those we can't successfully have a nuclear deterrent. >> and, specifically, do you have any thoughts on the modernization of -- i said the nuclear arsenal, meaning the nuclear weapons. >> so i think as we look at the nuclear weapons, we have to consider the environment that we're going to operate in. we have to consider how many nuclear weapons that we need. we need to take a whole approach to looking at the existing nuclear stockpile as well as what we do in the future nuclear stockpile.
>> as we look at the nuclear weapons, we need to consider the environment and take a whole approach to looking at the existing nuclear stockpile as well as what we need in the future. if i'm confirmed, i would like to have some flexibility across platforms with those nuclear weapons. it's really a conversation meant for a different classification forum and i'll just say if i'm confirmed i'll work closely with the national labs as well as the other elements of the nuclear weapons environment to make sure that we have a solid plan going in the future. especially given the test environment that we're in. >> thank you senator. >> earlier assessment that the
growing importance of cyber warrants u.s. cyber command from a unified command. is it also your professional military judgment that maintaining a dual relationship with the commander of cyber commander is also in our best national security interest. >> that's my belief, sir. i believe that right now. there may be a day in the future where that's not the case but today is not that case. >> i thank you that that discussion continues. i was going to talk with senator reid and other members of the committee but i think we may ask you to come back and not maybe this week but later on to brief us on the information that you provided me with yesterday was quite -- disturbing isn't
once more we will have a government of, for and by the people. >> we're stronger together, and no matter what remember this love trumps hate. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on the white house with the first presidential debate live tonight beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with the preview of the debate and then the prebebriefing with the aud
aye audience and then at 9:00 p.m. the debate. watch any time on-demand at c-span.org or listen live on the c-span app. now two economic advisers for the donald trump campaign discuss the state of the economy. they also talk ability immigration, tax and housing policy and the 2016 presidential election. this is part of a day long event hosted by the steam boat institute. this is about an hour and 25 minutes. >> thank you for the introduction jennifer. it's wonderful to be back here i
am absolutely excited to motivate the panel. i will go from left to right and if you don't know her, she is the author of multiple new york times best sellers and including my favorite the forgotten man the history of the great depression. she was ahead of the growth project and that's important and she was in a previous life a wall street journal editorial board member. thank you for being here.
and from washington yawn versety school of law in st. louis, you started the career as a commercial trial lawyer. he is the author of job creation and how it really works and why government does not understand it. he lectures frequently and then last but not least steve more and he is a senior economic adviser to the trump campaign. if anyone knows what donald trump is stig, it's probably steve moore. he founded the club for growth and pressures lawmakers to grow for free market and limited
ideas. no priezes for the theme on the panel. so it's a call to unleash and it's an orp tune time. i don't know how many of you turned on the news this morning and saw that the growth rate is a whopping 1.1 percent. that's an aextraordinary thing to think about for a country that used to average annual growth double that after aturn turns. businesses are not investing, and we have half of the country. maybe i should not say half but we have people saying don't worry about it. it's normal. we don't need to unleash it. growth is secondary. we need to redistribute growth
from those that have it to those that need it. this is a basic question and a divide. it's an important divide and as we have flaerd the other speakers it's provoting a lot of political unease. we had the pea party on the right and now we have donald trump and hillary clinton and actually sanders in the form of hillary clinton. i want to start with a basic question. is this the new normal? is two percent growth the average percent of the obama economy really the best that we could hope for? is there something different about the time that we're living
in? >> it does not have to be the future normal or the first normal. i was excited about teaching kids and all kids should learn the rule of 72 and you can -- how quick you can double the economy if you increase one of the two numbers eight years, nine percent growth we can tech that and it's the -- of course we can chance and of course we can do it and i will
say one more thing and then let the gentlemen speak. probably the answer will not come alone from a policy solution together by policy exerts but a reset as uber resets the business. by an innovation that so inspires people from one of you that the whole mind set of the country changes. we can talk more about that, but of course it's still possible that you need the policy people and innovative excitement. >> before we go there i want to give people a frame work to think about this question, so what i hear from you is that we need to unleash the economic growth. not only is it osable but other things come but are you able do that in this current
environment. >> >> >> yeah, the biggest thing that we're facing is the government. we need an energy poll say we stop spending billion of dollars to the middle east. it's radical terrorism. maybe we should stop sending money to the countries that sponsor it. we could. we develop the interview we don't need the deficits. they don't need to be massive deficits. if we had better deals and enforced them, there would be a trade policy. we don't need sanction ware cities and a border that people
can just cross. the problem that you're talking about is a broader topic of what to address it would lift everybody up and have a big pie which is the way that we really get around the issue if we need the economic growth. we obviously need it. the policies that we're seeing now under the obama administration are problems that try and take the results and produce them without economic growth. they want to lift people up from
the bottom but want to do it without growth. >> yeah, but we have had country that is have done that. we were talking about japan and they're not a country that's not grown in 20 years. they're happy distributing the pie. what's the counter argument? >> well, there's a lot that we have in japan that they don't. it's earned success. since the 13 colonies broke from england and instituted capitalism and free market system, we went from being nothing to the largest economy and it's american appal lichl across the globe and we lifted a bid people out of poverty.
this is lifts the lives of all of the people. it's india opening up the markets and seeing incredible growth. this can lift world wide. if we back off and start to do it, i fear for the country and the world. i want to see any children the same way. >> i will clap for that. >> there's no question that you
mentioned that in the news this morning. the economy has officially grown one percent over the last six months. we have down shifted from two percent down to one. i don't know if you heard that some promised if donald trump wins the election, that they will leave the country. mary, i know you were skeptical about trump, but that's going to take you over the top. i brought a couple of thing in a power point. can you put that up? while i am waiting for this. i wanted to show you the problem. here it is.
i want to compare the record of reagan from obama. it's a nice experiment. as you know both came in during terrible time for the economy. how many remember the interest rates and the inflation. i would argue that was the worst period ever were for the u.s. economy and the great depression. the economy was implodding. it was to cut the tax rate and get it under control and provide stability and reduce regulations and in one sentence they would say that the reagan philosophy is government is not the solution but the problem.
and then the stock markets imploded and we had million lost jobs and then the presidents came in. it was a straight line and they took every page out of the playbook. then we had bam care and then we borrowed $8 trillion over the last eight years. we borrowed more from barack obama than we did there george w bush. we had three minimum wage increases and there's not much left to do. they trieder and the results are shown, so look at this. the black line is the obama record for the recovery. what i am doing is repairing the economic recovery. we have had nine or ten
recessions since world war ii. the black line is the obama recovery and grown 15 percent right now and then that's not the latest quarter number and the blue line is the average recovery. i looked at the last eight recoveries and said what was the growth? you can see even relative to an average recovery, this has been half of the growth rate. now, here is the killer for the liberals. look at the reagan growth rate and the difference there. we had 36 percent growth in the first years verses 15 percent under obama. now, if you're a liberal, how do you explain that? they did not have much of an explanation and the number that you see at the top 3.1 trillion, that mary is what we call the growth gap. that's the difference in where we should be if we had a reagan expansion verses where we are today. i would submit to you to all of
you in the room is why you see a middle class in america that's so frustrated and raged with both parties. the trump voters do not like barack obama but they're not happy what happened under george w. bush. i think the more important of the growth rates is what's happened to the wages for the united states. so for 15 years i thought it was an agenda for the united states. now, you nailed it with the policy prescriptions that you talked about and thin it was can we get from one percent to four percent growth? yes. i will tell you how you do it. i wrote a called and we have an opportunity to take america from being an energy import country
to be not only energy -- i think that i was here two years and said we could be energy dependent but could be the energy dominant country in the world and produce more oil, coal and gas in the world. that just does not have a huge implications for the economy. think of the millions of jobs that we produce. why in the world do we send money to the terrorists countries that want to kill us? hillary believes that somehow we're going to power an $18 trillion economy with the wind mills. two, week talk more about this and the tax reform agenda and
then the third i would say and andy i want you to talk more is the regular burden. >> you're taking the question out of my mouth. >> we sit on the trump leadership counsel where the great ceo. you get rid of that burden, big thing. i told donald trump just two weeks ago when you're e leblthed president, we're going to put 50 executive orders on your desk and you're going to sign the first hour you're in office and appeal every illegal obama one.
>> we have established that it's good and that we have grown much faster than we have in the recovery and steve has talked about the reasons why. when he listed the experiment, he did not list dodd frank but did end on regulation. andy, i want you to talk on this and amity i will go to you. how much of the regulatory burden accounts for the growth? >> a ton. their lot of studies out there about trillions of dollars that are -- that american businesses have to bare. it's like a huge tax. it's a tax that you don't see. it's a silent tax. since the end of the great depression, we have created the branch of of government and it's
a fourth branch that the government controls through aappointments and directives and influence and this -- look you may not like hearing me say this but barack obama has been the most affective president of the lifetime and tied for the most affective president. everything that he wanted to do, he accomplished. he went to that fousrth branch f government and then you amend obama care and that's been devastating for the american business and they have delayed things because they do not work and now the whole thing is falling and collapses under the assumptions and then you have the department of labor that's issuing new rules for over time and that's very very hurtful to the franchise and makes it difficult for them to run the restaurants. >> how exactly? >> well, if you're managing a restaurant and you're making
$45,000 a year, you can make as much as the salary in the bonus and make $90,000 a year. however, now we can't give you a performance base bonus but pay over time. when you hire a general manager you hire them to run it like they own it. that's why you give them this incentive base bonus. it's a difference between a job well down and then a job down and taking long to do it. now you're going to someone else and you're a general manager and go off the line and no longer in the crew in the restaurant and worked the way up and now you still have to ask the guy above you if you can work more than 40 hours a week. >> that's the so called devil wears prada regulation. it's an incredible deterrent on
people. you have to take an employee up to 48,000 to be exempt from being over time. that means that cannot hire someone that's promised but weak because he will waste too much of the business's amoney. it's the way to separate people and when there are in fact less productive. i want to say two things before we move on because mary has it in hand and she is right. i wonder sort of how do we get here? we talk about tax all of the time but tax did not resinate a year ago. if we were here we would have been debating in the child credit mattered for the campaign and the child credit does not apparently matter to republicans or democrats as other things.
in my analysis the thing that is have changed is the bail out of 2008. and we always bail them out. that was a bipartisan era and no one can make the case for a low cap gains or carried interest being treated or cap gains with a straight face until we promise that we're not there to bail him or her out at the next crisis.
the voters are not fools. they know -- you know that business generates growth. if they know that it's going do that, they can do that and i think the bail out discussion has to go before the tax discussion. >> did that allow the left to own a narrative of the crisis and then the prescriptions for how to solve it? >> absolutely. >> you can blame the banks. >> yeah, what's the difference in the parties if they both bail out to a large extent? that's what -- that's what i would suggest next time around. the second point that i want to make and i they senator sassy made it too. there's an amnesia among young people. history tells it all. human nature does not change. when you study what they did back then and what happened, you
have a better argument for your child and your child has a better argument for what might be done and the recommendations and what andy and steve are going to put forward. i just want to say one thing about the great depression and that i gave to. it's such a great thing to study. we talk abdomout a rsession and need not have been great. it could have been a short recession and painful perhaps. it was not two years of double digit unemployment. that's as simple and every field
and agriculture and we get it in the case where the man wanted to i don't know what, fed the animals his grain on his property and then the federal government said that's interstate commerce. we must regulate you. this was in the middle of world war ii, but it was part of the new deal, so i do think it's coming upon us to make history less boring for the kids so that they can see the record and that's the redisbugs and never advances over the media. >> you know i think that -- i aagree completely and i think that it's a crime in the neck of a lot of americans that look back at that 2008 period and say wait a minute, republicans are supposed to be the part of the limited government and you
bailed out. i get so frustrated with my friends there are bush people. i'm like wait a minute. you're probably the administration that was there of all-time and that's the bail outs. the bail out os wes were a comp violation and i think that a lot of voters will not trust republicans aagagain and i want everybody to sign the pledge. [ applause ] >> the reason that i'm bringing that up is because it's
interested and hilt erinteres interestinterest because hillary believes in that and it's more taxes. if you look at two periods and we have the economic growth, it was periods not when the government expanded but contr t contracted. does anyone know the biggest period in the history of the country? it was right after world war ii. government spending went from 45 percent of gdp down to like less than 20. it was a massive demobilization and so on. all of them said oh my god, this is going to cause the greatest depression of man-kind. instead, it was a massive expansion as the government spending fell, the private sector went up. the other time that we had big
economic growth was in the 1990s and the clinton era. we can create it but what happened? but when newt gingrich came in government spending went down to 18 gdp as government spending failed, private growth went up. we have to put them on a leash and we will get it out of there. >> yes, i agree with that. we're in an agreement as you can tell on the panel and that's all well and good. we said that it's given by the policy and then the left owned that narrative and then the problem is the banks and not the government telling banks to lend to people that can not afford homes. those institutions are still
there. >> what warranted that there was a problem. you were there and i was there and people said this is a wonderful program and this is amazing statistics that we have to get out there. one of the people that blocked the housing reform and reigning in fannie and freddie mac. if hillary clinton was part of the filibuster er to block that. when she brings up the housing crisis, there's no one with dirtierendir dirtier hands.
>> so just the review, we have had much stronger recoveries. >> one thing that's crossing my mind is that i'm going give a talk to some bankers soon and that was the fed before the fed. new york clearinghouse and the question that they have asked is basically should banks talk back? in general banks have been intimidated and they get the billion dollar fines or they just die a slow death and the
smaller banks. what i notice is when i studied the great depression is that the banks begin and the companies begin to talk back they begin to speak a little louder ahead of the chamber of commerce. it was a real relief when people like you began to speak. did anyone notice that the university of chicago put out a statement and saying that there's no safe spaces at the university of chicago. and then they're not there and we also feel good al morning
do and into consideration and the public safety and environment and we will just -- we will direct the agency heads to do it and get rid of the bottom ten percent now, he did go in the speech on the economy and touched on this and thank toss the idea for me. it's something that i would like for him to come up and i think that we can actually take the band down if we can get rid of all of the junk that we have at the federal level. >> would that have an affect or impact on the investment than the tax reform? >> no, we need both.
when businesses invest, you invest when you get a return. you don't invest because you're going to get it back. well, if you're after atax income goes down because the taxes goes up, then you're lisz likely to invest. if the income comes down because the minimum wage goes up or vuf to pay over time and then you have to do the regulations and put it 50 feet down the street and then the city wants them and if you're occurring the expenses, it makes the return lower. every time that you lower the business return, they do not open up the business. the hard part is to prove what does not happen. this is a big problem that we have on the right with the conservative policies. a good example of that is walmart. walmart promised to happen three walmarts in washington dc. they opened one.
when dc took and tried to take the minimum wage up, they went into the city counsel and said that we're not going to open the other two and we may have to close the one that we opened because we can't save it in business. this is the kind of things because they committed to build the restaurants we know that we did not get the growth. so from those regulations increased and when the taxes increase and energy cost increase and people are not buying because they did not get jobs and raises, businesses don't invest. >> so regulatory form. >> well, let me give you another example of this. by the way it's an amazing tribute to american business and owner and they're able to grow in this environmentment i mean truly i don't know how you do
it. you can do the clean power plant rule. now, everybody is for the power plant. ladies and gentlemen, this is the rule that has shut down coal plants across america. it's one of the most senators rules that's in human. i think that colorado is a coal producing state as well. in virginia -- i don't know what's happening here but i can tell you what's happening in my home state. there are towns that are third or fourth generations coal towns. by the way, shame on the republican congress for not standing up to these regulations. i mean they should be -- i mean we elected these people and they have not done it. trump should take the cam ras to the town and show people. once you have vibrant and then the coal minors and then there's the unemployment line and these
are enough. we care about working class people. they don't give a dame about the working class people. the first is to resend the law and 50,000 coal minors back to the job. three of the five largest coal companies are now in bankruptcy. we all believe in the creative disruption. sometimes they go bankrupt and this was a design by the left. they told us that i was going to put the coal industry out of business and then this is real scary and now it's the left are saying that we put coal out of business and who are they coming after? it's the coal and gas. >> so executive orders cutting ten percent of regulations and the power act. >> i want to mention when you
don't respect immigration and reform. as opposed to family base. so i observe new york and the change from bad to good. particularly the change in queens and that was the middle class of nice people that all ran away and then came the immigrants that were more skills based. that's to say that they were here for economy reasons and we were not interested in training. they got on this one train called the seven train and rode to their pharmacy class and then they rode to their job and you could see them in the morning of the 658 car and in the train
there were 16 ladies all going to school before they went to their job. just like the people that you know that go to community college and have the job. these people eventually had enough money to buy the depressed priced environment of queens and made it a vibrant community. everybody says why did new york get better. it was the mayor giuliani and the tough crime position and that was important, but it was more important and an open opportunity of the immigrants that came from all over the world but have indian and caribbean and asian and also africa and said that we're here to work and here to build a city. we're not here to fight and the city had a complete reset. some came from mexico. it's ideas and opportunity for the young people.
they came and now they're as wealthy as anyone else actually. it took one generation and that's what the us would look like if we had a skilled base program. >> would trump embrace something like that? >> well, i think trump and it's toxic to use the word, so let's stop talking about that. we're not going to deport 11 million. we're not going to deport 11 million people we're all proimmigration and most of the people are angry about immigration and most have said that they're going do something about it and have said nothing. these vote is are angry about that and have a right to be. poll situations should keep the promises. i do think to get the reforms, we do need to do nothing about
it. most of us agree that we want immigrants to come in lawfully. there's no reason that donald trump cannot win back a big percentage of the voters by saying that the hiss tannics, i want the vote. we're not going to deport you or the family or cousins. people have to come in and we're going build the wall if donald trump is elected. we're going have big gaits. >> is it really just skill based immigration? >> yeah, there's aa labor shortage. >> yeah, what's the view on this. you deploy a lot. >> the system is wonderful and it used to be that we had people in the restaurants and that eyes was coming in at 20 percent and
then it's not we were out there trying to sell illegal immigrants. we have it. we can not go back and verify the former employees because there's a lot of them and look like you're discriminated. we're going forward and hiring a population that's here legally. >> so what is it? >> e verify is a system where we can send in the information to the government as the social security administration and it's yes, this is a real person and that's a real number. it did not -- strange as it may seem to people in the room that have ran the small businesses you could not do that four or five years ago. this is like a new kind of interesting thing that we brought in that really makes it for us to hire the immigrants that are here illegally and these are hardworking people and i'm not saying that people would not work in the rest ranlts.
we have restaurants all over the country where there's whites, blacks and hispanics that are born here and then it's going to go one second and then seasonal workers and that's not part of what we use. >> i want to say one thing on the skilled workers. the opportunity to work here should be by those that love the american idea. the problem with family based immigration and that's lindon johnson gave us that and it's all about passion and community. opportunity gives us results that are passion nitd.
if you make it about earning the way, a lot of them came here with the huge skills and then earning the way with an emphasis and then the among that fwh the postindustrial economy and that's great. and of course we want to do those things but we can not afford it to build the society that can. we have got to focus on the skills. >> so, okay. growth is good and other recessions and recoveries are strong er. we're in a session and it's happened before. we have to speak up and the aagenda going forward should be executive orders and the immigration reform. what about the three letter word
tax. is all tax reform equal? >> well, i mean you have larry, andy and steve moore. that's a pretty good line up of the economy. we're going to put in place a tax proposal that's important. this is really important about what is wrong with the -- she wants the raise the capital gain tax and steve had it right there there should be a policy. we have to fix these and hillary
wants to raise them all a. if you have not seen this, this is hillary's easy tax reform. the black is the u.s. business tax rate. we're at 36 f percent in the united states. we have not clanged that ain 30 years. those are the countries that we compete against. those are in india and china and all of the countries. look at what they're doing.
now we have -- look at this. this is a disgrace. the united states has the highest business tax rate in the world. we're the land of the fwree and we have the highest tax rate in the world. we're at close to 40 percent and the rest of the world is at ahalf of that. that does not work anymore, right? we have seen you write about this all of the time walgreens is talking about leaving. i mean why are -- we don't have to scratch the heads and say jeez why are they leaving? they're leaving because the corporate tax rate is so high. our plan is to take the rate from 40 percent down to 15 percent. we're going to go from over night to the highest in the world to the lowest. that 15 percent is not going to be able to the corporations like
electric and every small business in america and that's the heart. >> we often talk about the tax rate, but there are others that will help release it and what about things like expensing. how important is that and the money. should we be talking about that too? >> well, it's huge and going to help so much and i think what -- and steve touched on it but what is really important about the inversions is that if you're a german company you want to in vets it into the united states and you're bringing it in and investing it. if you're an mourn company, it's the motors and you're making a hundred million dollars and that's 35 percent tax. you're not going -- what are you going do with the sun not going to bring it back.
that means that you don't invest it in the united states. companies are leaving because of the tax rates. you're going get taxed on the american income no matter where you're located. the problem is that in this competitive world market and the ability to use cash to generate anywhere is huge the question is and this is more to your point marry, what approach is best. the hillary clinton approach. this woman is seeing no problem that the bigger government cannot solve. look at her website. every solution is bigger govm. what is different? you tell american companies if you leave, we will approximate punish you and force them to
stay and prevent them from bringing money back here. how about we reward you for staying. if you bring it back, we won't over tax it. obviously the approach that steve wants to take is the right approach. you have to be an idiot not to know that's the right approach. that won't work. it won't work. preventing them from doing it is get a tax break to keep them skmeer not punish them. >> amin a way i want to say tha mr. trump is lucky to have these gentlemen. >> thank you. >> how do we get to four percent growth? that's so hard. what would bring that -- let's
be realistic. if we cut the capital gain tax to five percent, we would have the four percent growth. >> why? >> because u.s. and foreign, it would be like coming here to invest in the american or international and sometimes international companies do not pay the taxes. sometimes they do or work with company that is do. if we cut the capital gain rate to five percent or two percent, we're going have four percent growth and stronger. then we can do the social security and then fool around with them and we would all be fun. it's not rocket science to get to four percent growth in this country. it's just a political exercise. i do think it starts with the commitment to government being smaller and including those bail outs. tax policies and mechanics are
there as well. >> steve, does trump have that raid in the plan. sn is he going to do that? >> have what? >> capital gains. >> yeah, we did not mention obama care. we're going to appeal obama care. one of the things is that it's evil is that it's financed with a 3.8 tax sur charge. first they raise it for 15 to 20 and then raise it from 20 to 23.8 and we're getting rid of that sur charge. when you cut the corporate rate you're reducing the taxation on income. one of the quick things on four percent and why it's so important is because i have learned this by bob barkley of all people. if we go from one percent growth to four percent, every one percentage that you increase
reduces the debt over two years. and conversely i don't care how much you cut, you can cut every single program to the bone, you're never going to get to a balanced budget. you have to get the groupth to three or four percent and you're not going do it by growing the government. you can't do it. by the way how many people are here and i know that i talked to them and how many people are here from the great state of texas? well, you have the right model. do you want to see how to grow the economy from 2007 and this is the most amazing statistic from 2007 to 2013 for six years the lone star state and great state of texas under great governor rick perry and texas created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. wow, how did they do that? they have a -- by the way is colorado a right to work state?
>> no. >> we have to make them that because that's a basic right of every worker to join a union. you look at what texas does and they have a light they have a light touch of regulation. what's the income tax rate in texas? zero. you get governments out of the way as you were talking about, andy, and we could -- the goal is to make america look more like texas and less like new york. right? that's how we grow the economy. [ applause ] >> just to put a cap on what amity said about capital gains tax, and take what steve said about spending being cut during the clinton administration. remember, the democrats talk about, well, we raised income taxes during the clinton administration, there was this incredible growth. what they don't tell you is cut the capital gains tax and where did we get all of this tax revenue? from capital gains tax. >> yep. you're exactly right. >> so spending was down, capital gains tax was down, and the
economy boomed. and so this is exactly -- >> and we did welfare reform and welfare reform was huge too. >> you mentioned obamacare. is it reformable? >> are you asking me? >> ask andy. he's the expert. >> you got to get rid of that sucker. look, it's -- just not only does it hurt businesses, but the economic assumptions are absolutely un -- you can't defend them. they're not fees lk. you can't tell people that you don't have to have insurance until you get sick and expect them to buy insurance before they get sick. so you've got all these healthy people who you want to buy insurance to offset the cost of insuring people who are unhealthy, high risk people, and it's just not happening. united health care is pulling out of obamacare. aetna, pulling out of obamacare. >> which the left will use as an excuse to go to the single payer
system. >> they set up 23 coops, these nonprofit insurance companies run without any obligation to make money. 16 of them are out of business, and 16 of them are in serious trouble. they got $2.4 billion from the government, from you. they lost it all. they didn't make any profit, and they're out of business. what they're trying to do, so obama -- and for those of you who were suspicious that obamacare was an attempt to get to a single payer system, guess who in the journal of the american medical association proposed we put a public option into obamacare. public option would be a government-run nonprofit, which would compete with the private insurance companies. of course, it will drive them out of business because they actually have to make a profit and the public option doesn't and we'll be left with one government system. it was barack obama who wrote the article and hillary
clinton's website came out in support. so this is the economic assumptions under obamacare are collapsing, it doesn't work, it can't work, it will never work, it doesn't make sense, we need to repeal it and reform it. trump has a seven point plan that outlines where he would go. it needs to be fleshed out. paul ryan has a really good plan, john goodman has a good plan. we can do this. we just need to elect the right president. >> so the summary there is that obamacare is not unleashing american prosperity to go back to the theme of the panel. but you say trump has a plan, yet i've only heard him say, let's get rid of state restrictions and selling insurance cross border, we're going to repeal obamacare. that's kind of it, steve. is there really a plan there? >> i'm not an expert on health care, but i'll just say a couple quick things. i mean, the most amazing thing, everything you said andy, is right about obamacare but if you want one sentence about how horrible obamacare is, we provide people with incredible
incentives to buy the policies, giving them all these taxpayer subsidies and clubbing them over the head with these penalties and they still won't buy these policies because they're so bad and you are in a death spiral in obamacare and the big problem for hillary right now, liberals are frantic right now with worry that this thing is going to come apart literally in the next 45 days. >> does that mean that trump doesn't have a detailed health care plan? >> i'm not avoiding your question. what trump would essentially do, first of all, you allow insurance people to buy insurance across state lines. that's an obvious thing. hillary won't do that because she's in the hip pocket of the insurance companies. by the way, i have to say this. i will never hold a candle for any of these insurance companies, they're the ones who sold us out and gave us obamacare. i'm sorry, but i think these are ridiculous. but the other thing you do is you just move towards a system. the problem with obamacare is twofold. there's no competition, and you
have these mandates plans that everybody has to buy. i have to buy the same plan as andy. you have to buy the same plan as me. let a thousand flowers bloom. let's have, you know, a thousand plans out there, people can buy whatever plan they want to. yes, we're going to kpofr everybody in america. that cat is out -- we can do this. we can cover every single american. we're a rich country. >> so there isn't a detailed plan yet. but it would be a market focused plan. >> there is a detailed plan. i actually have an article coming out in forbes early next week that talks about this at the end. >> can we preview it? >> number one, go across state lines, number two, malpractice reform. if you don't start talking about malpractice reform, you're not talking about bringing health care costs down. ask any of your doctors. they're also both trump and ryan would use tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier to purchase insurance policies. they want to give the states -- by the way, most -- you hear all this, so many more people are insured now that we have obamacare, 90% of them are on
medicare so we didn't need, you know, all the penalties and the mandates to expand medicare, right? >> and half of those people don't have access to doctors. >> exactly. medicaid is the sing worst insurance system. >> both of them would turn medicare administration and management over to the states, so i mean, there is a detailed plan. there are a number of factors that trump and ryan agree on. ryan's plan is more detailed, i think, as you would expect, and i'm hopeful that trump will adopt that. or john goodman, you know, has a similar plan that i think we also could -- so there are plans out there to replace it. we need to repeal it. it's a disaster. you can't pass something on a bipartisan basis that never gets vetted through committees that you don't read that's going to take over 17% of the economy and think it's going to work. it's not going to work. we need to replace it and there are plans out there to replace it effectively with free market principles that will increase competition and improve patient
care. >> have we missed anything on the agenda to unleash american prosperity? >> can i say one final thing? then i yield my time to the audience. some of this will be solved in the next 70 days, but a lot of it won't. we're grateful to you for your commitment to longer term discussion of reform, longer term look at political philosophy, whether through this institution, steam boat institute or others, some of us would like to see it all fixed by november. it probably won't be. and if we can bring ourselves to commit to education and so on, i think we'll be well satisfied with the longer term investment as well. >> wonderful. that's a nice place to end. but not end the panel. now, this session of the panel, we're going to go to q&a. we have mikes in the back. there's that lady. please state your name, your
affiliation, and a question. no statements, please. if you make a statement, i will ruthlessly cut you off. >> by the way, let me just say one thing quick when we talked about universities and how corrupt they are, i just wanted to do a big shoutout to bruce betson who's been one of the great administrators. what you've done has been amazing. thank you. if we can do that at every school. i will say this, as a parent of two, and bruce, you and -- who's the perdue university president? if i were donald trump, this is not trump's agenda, but i would do this. i would say, hillary's idea of giving college to free for everybody, the dumbest idea i've ever heard. if you think college is expensive now, wait until the government gives it away for free. but here's the point. i have two kids in college right now. it's costing me $60,000 a year per kid, one of them goes to northwestern. the biggest scam in america is how much universities and colleges are charging our kids, right? and it's like people like bruce batson are saying, if i were trump, i would simply say this.
we're going to only give federal aid to every college/university president in this country has to vow to free tuition for five years and they can do that very easily, get rid of bad professors, get rid of tenure, by the way, that's one of the stupidest systems ever done. this is a big issue for americans. you get these kids, they're graduating with $100,000 of debt right now. >> you also have obama nationalize the student loan industry, which drove up the prices. >> they wouldn't need those loans if we freeze tuition. >> enough. we need to let the audience ask those questions. name, affiliation, question, and sort question. we have -- raise your hand. right in the back. yes, sir. >> my name is steve house, my atilgs is i'm the chairman of the colorado republican party, and my question is, i've got some concerns about monetary velocity in the economy.
our family's in banking, cash flow velocity is so low and getting lower. do we have to fix that? is it going to cause a problem? and if so, what should we do about it? >> that's a steve question. >> not an expert on monetary policy. i do think that -- what do we want from our monetary system? we want clearer rules, we want a stable dollar. and i think that's it. you know, this idea of everybody guessing what jenna yellen is going to do, we've put -- what was the liquidity, $3 trillion in the economy, it's had no effect on growth. i just want trump to put somebody in here who will basically follow a price rule. but i'll say this, though. look, i do not think -- and i know some people in this room may disagree with me -- i don't think our problems right now are monetary. i don't. i think the regulatory and tax and this kind of blank -- wet blanket that we're putting over businesses and you solve those problems and i just don't think -- monetary policies are not idl,