tv House Freedom Caucus Discusses Tax Reform CSPAN June 10, 2017 2:45am-3:43am EDT
museum,t library and where we go inside for a look at his personal office and artifacts with the museum's director. museum opened in june of 1940 one. he was still the president, and this became the northern oval office. he had an inquisitive mind. book in here was selected by fdr to be in this room. this room is almost identical to the way it was on the day fdr died. nothing has changed. " atq&a watch --watch "q&a 8:00 eastern on c-span. now, members of the house freedom caucus discuss their tax policy proposals and economic growth initiatives. caucus members include chair mark meadows of north carolina,
and david bratt from virginia. this is about an order -- an hour. >> good morning, and welcome to the heritage foundation. this is the sarah allison auditorium, and we thank you all who are joining us on c-span or our website. for those in-house, we would ask as a courtesy that you silence your mobile phones. for those watching online, you are welcome to send questions or comments to us at any time by simply emailing email@example.com. hosting our guests tonight is jack spencer, the vice president for heritage's institute for economic freedom. mr. spencer oversees heritage's research on a wide range of economic and trade issues. he previously served as director of heritage's economic policy studies and spearheaded our work on lending taxes, regulation, energy and the environment. prior to that, he specialized in nuclear energy issues.
please join me in welcoming jack spencer. [applause] jack: thank you, john. welcome to this conversation with the house freedom caucus. what a great day to be in washington. the sun i believe was shining. i think i saw the sun shining this morning. the oppressive washington humidity has yet to set in. and i'm not sure, but i think i even heard a bird or two chirping this morning. it is not just a great day to be in washington, it is a great time to be in washington. we have a president who is not just threatening to shake things up, and i don't think i am stepping up on a limb here, but he is actually shaking things up. we have a congress that is talking about shaking things up. thank god, they are working to -- repeal the obamacare
monstrosity. just yesterday, members passed the choice act, to repeal the economically destructive and morally bankrupt dodd frank regulations. and paris, we cannot forget paris. what a day that was last week. getting out of that liberty sucking quagmire was a victory for all of us -- for us all. [laughter] jack: liberty-sucking quagmire. that also goes for dodd frank, by the way. those efforts cannot come quickly enough. if our goal is to reestablish an america where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish. part and parcel of that america is when americans get to keep their hard earned money. when washington takes less. not only does that leave the politicians and bureaucrats with fewer resources with which
to meddle in our lives, but it us -- gives us more resources to get the economy humming again. that is why tax reform is every bit as important as the repealed -- the repeal of obamacare, dodd frank, or getting out of paris. it is not easy. we know what we want. we want lower tax rates. we want to remove the tax penalties on saving and investing. we do not want to burden america's businesses with heavy taxation so that they become noncompetitive. fairness, transparency, and simplicity. a lot of folks have ideas on how to achieve these common goals. unfortunately, these differences too often the come barriers to success. her oury cannot allow ancillary issues to derail us from our common objectives. we need to find our common ground on this issue. that is what the heritage foundation wants to help us do.
we had chairman brady speak here a few months ago, laying out his plan to provide a strong foundation moving forward. on july 13th, we will be hosting secretary of the treasury steve mnuchin to talk to us about tax reform. today, i am excited to host members of the house freedom caucus, for them to give us their thoughts on tax reform. without further a do, let me introduce our guest. first, i would like to introduce the honorable jim jordan from the great state of ohio, and his colleague also from the great state of ohio, the honorable laurinda davidson. we also have the honorable dave bratt representing virginia. a district where i spent a fair amount of time, and i am very happy you were there, sir.
and finally the person i want to have say a few words the , honorable mark meadows representing the district of north carolina, and chairman of the house freedom caucus. chairman meadows. [applause] and finally the perst to have say a few >> it is great to be here. it is always great to join so many of you who are here. i see some very familiar faces. it is always good to share a panel with people who are a lot smarter than i am. that way, when the difficult questions come in, we will just refer them to some of my colleagues. in a few remarks, i would like to set the framework for where we think we need to be so that you can ask the good questions, and as we start to get more into some of the details of what we envision with tax form. i want to complement chairman brady, and his foresight to get get the discussion going. anytime you put out a blueprint, it is a bold move.
do that,he minute you everyone will find reasons it won't work, not why it will work. likewise, to have this administration put forth an idea of what they want to do with tax of form, we have to applaud it. the minute you do that again, though, there are people saying why their plan won't work. we have tried to be good listeners over the last several weeks and months, to find where there is consensus. some of you who are here today are tax reporters. you probably know more about the levers that can be turned up or on that.d but here are a few fundamental facts. -- there is not consensus for the border adjustment tax. the sooner we acknowledge that and get on with a plan that actually works, and actually can build consensus, the better off
we will be. it is not anything where we have taken a formal position against the border adjustment -- even though i have one of the colleagues on the panel who will argue that we are divided in the caucus. the have some who believe it is a great idea, and some who believe it is not a great idea. but the political facts are, there is not consensus to have support for the border adjustment tax. what we hope to line up today is the principles that we believe the majority of the freedom the majority of the gop conference, and the majority of the house can get behind, to not only lower taxes, but also have true tax reform. the second thing is that time is critical. chairman jordan, as i fondly refer to him, a good friend from ohio, introduced a bill this real reformoks at
in terms of welfare reform. that reform has the potential of creating some $400 billion in andnue that we can allocate move across. so, i look forward to hearing more from him on that. here is what we have. we believe that time is of the essence. taxhat, we need to get reform done sooner rather than later. by then, we should have a real proposal that we start debating before we leave the end of july. but if not, we have already taken a formal position. we believe we need to stay and through august until we get it done to make sure we put the priority for the american people first on the legislative agenda. i see from a lot of the heads that are nodding that you believe we should stay here and get it done as well. so, i am encouraged.
i believe there is a foundation of coming together. we will be laying out for principles -- four for tax reform that can bring consensus. amongst somedebate of us in terms of what may or may not work. thank you for joining us. i look forward to having a great discussion. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first question is, you started saying that there are smart.eople who were not if i look at it, it would leave one of us who is the dumbest amongst the crowds. i was wondering if you could tell us which one? >> i will lay claim. i'm clearly the dumbest. >> i was talking about my colleagues. i don't consider your colleague.
we will put you up there in terms of your ability. >> we will let the audience determined that. let's have a conversation first. do any of our other panelists have anything to add, or some initial remarks? all right. let's get to it. think the brady plan is something we are all interested in. as you mentioned, there is a lot of good stuff there. you also mentioned the border adjustment tax. adjustmentborder tax, is that something the freedom caucus generally likes? is it something you can get behind generally? >> i think to answer that, the in terms of a corporate tax rate cut, as long as it applies also to those in small businesses, where we start to look at those who have llp, sole proprietorship.
a lot of business gets done there. t for is a corporate cu just the big guys, it leaves a lot of main street out. look at repatriation. my advice would be to do a repatriation over the next 20 months, where you allow the repatriation of earnings to come back at a 4% rate. we look at it truly, not only , but the fullte amount in chairman brady's plan, the problem comes in when you take out the border adjustment. how do you -- as the businesslike, typically, i have not made those decisions. a lot of the big corporations do not make decisions that way. a lot of small business guys do not make the decisions that way.
but having it separated, the bonus depreciation in place now would be prudent. doing something on the expense side and allowing the expense to be deducted, and finally, you have to make sure that you do something for moms and dads, anson uncles, kids and grandkids on main street. one of those, whether it is the three-point structure, or for many of us, doubling the standard deduction actually puts money back in the wallets of people on main street. r principles, we could come to an agreement on in the next few weeks. we can start having real debate on legislative tax in the months to follow. numbers youhe rough may be shocked to know that in this city politics intervenes.
we are still working through health care, but as of two weeks ago, mitch would say i don't know if we don't have the votes. that has changed in the last couple of days. that is trillion dollars there that will go to tax reform, and the border of adjustable piece is another trillion dollars that we need. all of this plays in, and we have a budget piece right now and on defense we argue about $50 billion. that seems like a big number, but the other two numbers i gave you, a trillion, we roll over those. that is 200,000 billion dollars -- that is 2000 billion dollars. we have a vote in a week or two, and this plays into what we are talking about. if you get rid of the border adjustable, we need to come up with a trillion dollars on that side so we don't break the deficit wide-open open. a lot of us has some flexibility
, because we know for the next generation, this is a once in we are pro-growth people read i want to -- pro-growth people. we want to make sure we keep the full momentum moving on everything, health care, tax him and the budget. >> i would say that one of the big things that we alluded to, is that we cannot lose right, and bankrupt our country. we do have to get the tax reform to match. frank that we just passed in -- to match that dodd frank reform that we just passed in the house. i get the politics of why it is important to link to the average household. take-home pay for folks has been stagnant. but, the debt -- the doubling of the standard deduction, or the payroll tax for workers -- we have to get the workforce engaged. we have to get labor involved.
in monetary policy, they have rich did as far as they can, and it is distorted a little bit. we are in a. where monetary policy will be at odds with what we are doing. it makes it that much more urgent that we get our fiscal policies to militants the -- fiscal policy stimulative leslie. we cannot wait until the end of the year, because it will be -- it will have a lack. -- a lag. lastly, when we talk
fare tax. i do not love it, but i love a lot of the things in the package that it and apples. i do not see how you pull it off -- it enables. i do not see how you pull it off politically. >> there are two principles, one, let families more of their money to read what is not one of those principles is in you tax on the american economy.
this concept of revenue-neutrality is not included. it is a way of saying that the tax burden stays the same and you shift around who pays what. it always fits in this town, but middle-class families always get the shaft area when did -- the shaft. when did republicans add this idea? letting families keep more of their money is not a cost to government, it is called freedom. so let us focus on that principle. let's focus on technicality. tax policies that are conducive to produce and growth and letting company best letting families keep their money is what we should focus on. you cannot get tax reform if you
that currently exists in the house of representatives. >> thank you. if anybody wanted to applaud the common on deficit neutrality, i think that would be appropriate. >> we appreciate what harry said yesterday on that, notwithstanding that remarks from my good friend it from ohio. >> we have talked about the importance of corporate tax reduction.
and the importance of building momentum in the -- for the middle class in these appointments. so they also feel like they are winners. the corporate tax would benefit the middle class, but we often do not talk in those terms. my question to the panel is, a. are there ways that we can do that? the second part is, how do we -- setting that aside -- momentum for tax reform? these are big changes that we are talking about, and receiving the groundswell support from your constituents can be difficult to get. >> a lot of young people i see in this audience -- how many of you have had economics? supply and demand like this? jim just said tax reform on the personal side putting money back in your wallet. that is good. what is the major problem in the
country for the past 30 years? low productivity growth. the car will go like this, with little changes, but then it will go back to normal. you always say that you have to fix the supply side, but that is business. the wide gap in politics that we have in this 80, the left will mock and ridicule and make fun of the supply-side. who is the supply-side? it is everyone in business. so, the left is mocking the supply-side when you have to and send -- incentivize. incentivize the suppliers, so all of our incomes go up. i hope that donald trump can use his bully pulpit to do that. the supply-side -- how many of you heard about the economist? that is good. her argument is it is a moral phenomenon. capital accumulation, scientific resolution. itneed to take pride and say is a morally good day.
there are of cause a lot of legislative rarities, can we talk a little bit about what our best what your broader priorities are and how tax reform fit into that? >> a think that the budget, mr. jordan talked about the budget and everything coming together -- i think that on tax reform we need to agree on four principles. we have budget, budget reconciliation, numbers that we have to assign in order to do appropriations, and that comes with a perfect opportunity to bring all of that together, so that it forces estimate critical decisions that are incumbent on one another. if we cannot come up with a number, or budget reconciliation instructions, then that should influence your decisions on tax reform and all of that. we are at a critical time to make decisions, not talk about making them. if you hear me talking about it, it is four principles within the
next four weeks. jack: this last question, rains pains me. the senate is talking about delaying repealing some of the obama taxes. if we do not get rid of them it makes tax reform even more difficult. what does that do to this whole effort? >> it does not help it. there is nothing we can do about that right now, that is the united eight senate. we will have to wait and the what comes. what i do know is that would make the job company get it. our job is straightforward, do what you told your voters you would do. the bill that was sent over
there did not accomplish the root -- what we wanted, but it was a step in their right direction. we hope they can repeal it, because that is what we told the voters we would do. jack: all right, let's open it up for questions. if you could give us your name and affiliation, and keep the questions precise and short. >> you mean, make sure there is a question there in that commentary? [laughter] >> thank you for your time, i am here on behalf of the bilt coalition. i know that chairman meadows you mentioned that with the elimination of the that you would favor some form of full expense? >> thank you. great question. as a caucus we have not taken any official position. we had a almost two our debate
last night about the budget, and it is on of the best debates that you will find on capitol hill rid everyone thinks the freedom caucus -- that we have the same ideas and everything, but a fight can break out any time. as we look at that, here is my concern without the interest deductibility. you have to make two assumptions. if we are doing full and immediate expensing, you are assuming a cash scenario. it only benefits those who have large amounts of cash sitting around there would the average small business, many times they do not have it, so they have to
go out and borrow money. that is the fundamental question. how do we do that along with -- how -- what do you do with the 17-$18 trillion in commercial/investment real estate that is out there? i call it a reverse-china problem. they are building all of these buildings that are staying empty. almost immediately, you are creating a problem in your commercial real estate market, by making a long depreciation for the commercial, and immediate expensing for the new. if that makes sense. so, we would have to adjust that. my preference would be to accelerate depreciation schedules, but i think looking at the expensing of interest, or doing and either-or type program, we would have to look at. i am a numbers guy and i can make an argument both ways. that is why we are here, to hopefully hear some good rings. >> i think this is an example where you look at real differences in the sense of -- is it -- the status quo is not to deduct interests. then you have to before you take depreciation of this, -- or that. the beauty of that is there are
no hoops. you have -- for me if i can appreciate an investment, or i can 100% expense the interest, i will take the interest -- the will take the interest -- the investment. i would rather write off the building, with or the asset intensive -- the asset-intensive thing, -- by leveraging. i will take expensing the investment over x using the interest all day. -- over expensing the interest all day. i do not disagree that expensing the capital asset
maker or immediately, will not -- it is good juice for the economy. jack: yes sir. >> thank you, i have had the privilege of working in be reaganomb -- omb and owned a couple of businesses. the government is overhead on the economy, and i want to remind your colleagues that taxes are stewart -- the regulators are stewards of the public trust. i know the democrats believe the public trust. opposite -- that the government permits you to make money. i have the big art -- a had a take argument with the carter
administration, and they absolutely believe it. it is reflective on all of their legislation that comes out. i think that reminding people and your colleagues that what you are doing is overhead, providing the necessary services that the public needs, and that the free enterprise is what enabled that is the right thing. jack: thank you for your service to our country in your previous position. >> thank you for your service to our country in your previous position. the interesting thing is right now at gdp growth of less than 2%. around 1.8 or 1.9. yet we are growing the government at 4.9%.
that is what the cbo has suggested. cpi is growing at little over 2%. one of the things he had talked about the other day, and i would love to take through credit -- full credit for it, but it was a conversation with steve moore, -- it is to look at a cap at two point 5%, and overall cap. if we did that, and overall cap on government spending at two point 5%, you would end up with a gdp growth at 3%. you would have a $3 trillion tax cut and the balancing. it is about fiscal restraint, and you make a good point. jim? u.s rep jim jordan [r]-ohio: we had this a few years ago, where you limit the size of government relative to your gdp, and it makes a lot of sense. inside the house republican
conference, it is a way that we can move forward, but it also is nothing very rid the assumption in the budget projections, is 3% growth. to get that you have to reform the tax code, we know that is broken. you have to deal with obamacare which is a drag on the economy. him and with all of that, you still cannot get to 3% growth if you do not have a labor force. i have heard this for years all over ohio -- in spite of all the stupid things going on in washington the last eight years, we are still creating jobs. we cannot find the will to work. is where welfare reform is critical. it is good public policy. i don't think you achieve that kind of growth if you do not have a labor force to get you to the productivity numbers. it ties in with that as well, which is why the as a group ours worrying -- this is to be the kind of growth if you do not solution to get us -- which is
why we as a group ours being that this is a great solution. >> i want to agree with everything that jim's had. on the spending side, this room is educated on the basic numbers. 20 trillion in debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for young people such as medicare and social security in solvent in 2035 -- 2034. all federal revenues, would go only to mandatory and entitlement programs. all federal revenues, meaning there is nothing left for the military, education, estimated deficit, in that period is 1.2 trillion. that is the entire discretionary budget. we are going to deficit-finance the entire government in about
15 years. which means we have to reconceptualize everything, and get it through politically. that will happen tomorrow, and that is why you young people better help us think this through, because you are -- your futures are on the line. it is a pretty dismal picture, we are facing some tough decisions. jack: it seems like an appropriate time to talk about one of our publications -- our blueprint for a balance. a federal budget that will give you more than enough cut, to balance, and we would argue that everything is gray you would still end up in 10 years with a massive government. he will not let them means dividends so there are lots of got up there to do, so we just need folks like you all to carry them out. >> you know it is an "igotcha" question whena
the guy jumps out of his seat. >> the numbers are great, but underlining all of this is some significant deaths barrels. marriage rates are at an all-time low, and a declining birth rate. if we do not address these major microtrends, we cannot grow the economy. how can we ensure that budget policy addresses these microtrends that have significant implications for our economy appeared in we are talking about linking tax policy in terms of labor participation. i have introduced a bill, similar to jim, that gets at welfare reform. we spent close to $150 billion a year on these programs, on around 92 programs. but this is one that we would say -- it is a link data. 80% of poverty is a if you graduate from high school, work a full-time job at any wage, and have no children outside of marriage. $850 billion year on these programs in the united states speaker.
culture but politics is not going to solve the solution. leaders where be it is good or bad. that is the one high point. we see it dead as an idea. >> a tax policy for a social policy. should there be a penalty? no, you cannot make a penalty. facts to be accurate in terms of what did you head. the other part of that is just picking winners and losers. we need to be careful that tax
policy does not create an adverse issue when we're looking at this. i would be against any marriage and all t that is out there, but at the same time you can try to put in tax policy that promotes something and adverse consequences. >> debts rise, get rid of the marriage penalty and incentivize work. the welfare system is don't get married, but have more kids. so, we have to incentivize work. paul and i traveled to in -- italy to see our son-in-law and daughter but also see our grandkids. i am just a country boy from ohio, and it was 5 p.m. and i said to my daughter, let's go out to dinner, you don't have to cook. and she said, dad we cannot. and i said why not? i'll a -- i will pay. she said no, the restaurants
aren't open. i said, it's 5 p.m., how are they not open? she said it best not how it works here. they take a break and open back up at evan 30 p.m.. whoever -- 7:30 p.m.. whoever heard of that? when you have policies that this disincetivize that economic principle, it is not good for our culture. we need to find how this is the ties into our culture right now and help us move forward. >> it is not the government that provides the solution, -- we need to find how this is the >> it cannot be a distant and a disincentive. i got you.
>> someone raise your hand they a. >> hello, i am lindsay. two points of clarification on as you brought up. i'm guzman jordan on the idea of tying welfare reform to a taxa bill -- congressman and jordan -- congressman jordan on the idea of the tax bill. >> i do not think as to be deficit neutral, i am just saying that it is something that collects in the 11 years i have been in congress, this is the latest we have ever done a budget. we have never done a budget in june, except for last year, when we did not do a budget.
we are at the same point. there isn't any agreement on his ending number for this fiscal year. there are three different camps in the republican congress and we can't get an agreement. what i am saying is that we think there is a way forward with this plan to read we know it treats tax payers with respect, and helps with labor economics which we have to have to get 3% growth. a win-win-win across the board. >> but the you not need a deficit neutral bill to get it through? >> some of the tax cuts could be temporary. but we are hoping to get it close to that. jack: now we are getting wonky here, and i know you were a tax reporter before. i think what you can do is with the welfare reform proposal that we have, will get some increase in revenue.
if you look at the four points that we laid out, in putting all those things together, at the back of the envelope analysis is what it is -- it should get is there. if it does not, what you do is you look at the tax is the way that we have. you have them expiring in year 9 as the bush tax cuts did. 90% of those tax cuts ended up being permanent. as a fallback position, you write reconciliation instructions, and you be specific. we need to include jim jordan's you have them expiring in year 9 idea, which will help us find that debate and lead us toward that decision that would need to make over the next four weeks. >> my other question was about
repatriation over the next 20 months that you did last. are you talking about the next 20 months from the enactment of the tax bill, or a separate repatriation that would come for this larger tax reform? u.ss rep. mark meadows [r]-n.carolina: thank you for clarifying, i think we make it part of that. i also think that you make the tax cut that we have retroactive, so you have them actually affecting the economy is quickly as possible. i do not see you doing a repatriation as a standalone -- it has to be part of a apprehensive four-point plan. thank you for clarifying. >> and the secondary clarification, are you talking about a de-repatriation? >> i do not think you make anything mandatory. i think at this point, 8%, if it is an enough i think it creates , in my opinion, another 380-$400 billion revenue.
jack: next, -- jack: next, -- >> i am from the liberty group. when he testified in front of the budget committee, he said that there were $300 billion of unauthorized spending programs that had expired, 38 programs. thank you for clarifying. >> and the secondaryi am curiout process. i am curious about the budget process. what is the likelihood that those programs actually get not funded in the 2018 budget? >> slim to none. i think one of the most important reforms is gary farmer as a bill.
and use the power of the purse. none of these funds should be used. they spent over half $1 trillion in years and it should be appropriated. a lot of these agencies would go away because they are not appropriated in a given year. >> thank you. we have time for one more question. [laughter] how did you get to do that? we talked a lot about reconciliation and deficit neutrality. have you talked about expanding the budget for about 25-30 years, so you get the more economic impacts of the taxes. help the ease -- help ease those procedural barriers?
it certainly allows us to be open to looking at the revised models. changes thato any make sense but that does not get do inst -- you don't appropriations process, without a budget, and you cannot have her conciliation without a budget, neither can you have a tax reform and without a budget. right now the tax but -- trump budget focuses on defense, but appropriators are saying that you cannot lower this number or that number. then you have a bunch of us like the numbers that the trump budget put forward. you have three basic groups that cannot agree, and we know it
happened last year. until you get agreement on that, we can do all of the structural process changes that we want, but we will not move forward. what unlocks it all is this budget agreement, and if anyone can come up with a better idea than what we're putting forward, which is due this welfare reform which is due this welfare reform that saves money, that helps families -- if someone can come up with a better idea, we are all years -- we are all ears. >> i will just add to what jim said. there was a political angle to that as well. people think there is this right wing or left wing debate, and that we all hate each other. i met bernie sanders and compared it with the trump phenomenon. "drain the swam." -- drain the swamp." whenever we put in
process stuff, this room is all full of geniuses, or article one people. we put in a balanced budget, it gets 50 votes. leadership on both sides have to ok these processes i had of time. leadership has to say yes to that. but, the swamp is addicted partly because 75% of the budget -- you cannot touch. mandatory entitlement and the rest of it. we are just locked in to this -- there is all this money out there to be had, and you think it is adding there, we pay billions to dead people. we have colleagues that went and
found that money, and it turns out it is going to someone else, tennis the mother pot -- to someone else, to some other part. tools we need to lock ourselves into disciplinary moves for the long run. >> what jim is talking about, lining all of these things up so we can move forward, the structure that exists today is a status quo structure. i have been here a year and -- one year ago today -- >>[applause] one year anniversary. you look at the structure, and we had a rubric doing mergers and acquisitions strategies -- you look at the strategy and we have laid it out have a party laid it out.
we have a party platform. right here in the playbook. we have strategy. the structure is designed to preserve the status quo. we have to really look at the structure and they -- is this structures something that will hold over from when democrats ran this place or is it really going to change the status quo? jim is talking about one of those important paradigm. one is the labor market, but too, we need to get this -- but two, we need to move from the discretionary to mandatory. discretionary has been reasonably checked, but the mandatory growth rate of ending is skyrocketing -- of spending is high. mandatory is growing, and many of the programs are in that mandatory piece. if we -- if you qualify we spend that money with no cap. if we do not get after a mandatory spending, we will bankrupt our country. that is not compassionate, and we should not let that happen. everyone talks about intellectually, but day today we
preserve this structure that is everyone talks about our country. jim talked about things that we need to do for our budget numbers through it have hundreds of jobs in my district that could be filled tomorrow, but a person would need two basic criteria -- pass a drug test and show up to work. a pretty low bar. good paying jobs, substantially paying good paying jobs. we need to do that for our workforce. the other thing we need to do is make some decisions.
it is time to make decisions. these four principles in four weeks, let's agree to it. there is a budget deal that could happen if we adopt jim's plan. we will work on the numbers, but only if we make some decisions to do it now. i think the american people have waited enough. jack: thank you very much, what a great way to end the program. [applause] glass how are you. >> how are you. where have you been all week . >> i have a quick question. >> could i grab you for a quick second.
murphy of florida sat down with sees in for a freshman profile interview. she represents the seventh district. >> tell us how you got into politics and how you did? u.s. rep. stephanie murphy florida: i got into the race for months before the november 2016 election, and i am at hurt a public's -- at heart a public servant. given the rhetoric that was going on, the dysfunction of government that was on the much angst, it was manifesting its else in unpleasant ways. layer on on top of that, the shooting happened in my district. it felt like i got called to