Efficiency as much as any country ever well. Inre are fewer workers chinese manufacturing today than there were 20 years ago. So, success if and when it comes is going to come from various kinds of service work, areas kinds of greater customization. It is a tragedy that on one hand areare saying and you right, i understand why you are saying it that there may not be enough work to do. There areer hand, several million kids in this who profoundly need individual attention and mentoring of a kind they are not close to getting. We do not have a way of bringing the people who want to Work Together with those. I do not think it is traditional government that will do it. I also do not think it will be turning the country into some kind of libertarian paradise. With that, thank you, Larry Summers. We will be coming back to the ceo council in a moment with congressman paul ryan. Personal tweets from members of congress on the iran deal announced last night. Kevin mccarthy says i caution the president not to oversell the deal with iran. Says it is corker time for congress to hold the Obama Administrations feet to the fire on iran. Tennessee representative steve cohen says steve it will be good for israel, peace, and america. Senator Chuck Schumer released a statement talking about his disappointment with the deal. Then a statement from eric cantor. This morning on cnn, secretary of state john kerry looked ahead at what is next in negotiations with iran. I do not think it is problem until we solve the nuclear problem. The only down the road is over the course of the next six months while we work to solve the Nuclear Program. Solved, hopefully establish a basis for proceeding forward on other things. But right now, we have made it very clear the International Community requires a resolution of the United Nations resolutions that have been passed. The questions the International Atomic agency has, all of these things need to be answered. We are trying to set up a process by which we can verify, know what we are doing, restrain the program while we negotiate the comprehensive deal. , we will take a look at the United StatesNuclear Weapons arsenal and policies live at noon eastern on cspan. Back to the wall street journal ceo conference with the chairman of the house ceo committee, paul ryan. Ladies and gentlemen, the chairman of the House Committee of the budget, paul ryan. [applause] editor ofitorial page the wall street journal. Welcome. Thank you for being here. We know you have been a friend of the ceo council. It is great to have the year. It is great to have you here. I want to bounce off of you the start of a couple of things the president said. You spoke in strong terms of the problems we have had with government by crisis. Yet he expressed optimism about this budget round, avoiding repetition of what happened with that unpleasantness. Can you tell us now that there will not be a another shutdown or another debt limit . How we avoid the shutdown, whether we can have an agreement, or we have a continuing resolution, either one of those scenarios will prevail. We will not have a government shutdown. The debt limit is later on. We do not know the timing of that. Jack lew was able to delete do what we call more measures that could be late spring. You will haveve the kind of theatrics surrounding that as well. Why do you think it will be within youris time own conference . The speaker didnt want the crisis that happened the last time. Correct me if i am wrong. I do not think that you did. Yet you could not control your own members. How can you prevent that from happening again . That is correct. Now. Care is here the reason it happened, from our perspective, is now people understand why we fight obamacare so much. We were doing all of these oversight hearings seeing this program was not ready for prime time and the damage that would come to the people we represent. We wanted to do everything we could to stop it. Many didnt think it was the way to stop it. It is clear that the shutdown does not stop obamacare. The government did shut down. It did not stop obama care. I do not think that will be repeated. That is in the past. It is clear that that will not stop obamacare. The thing that we feared what what happened are now happening. Not get in the way of the government shutdown. We will keep funding at current levels if need be and not have a shutdown. That will not fire up your members even more to say now we have an even greater knowing incentive . They are not related. You are negotiated with senate democrats. Their position is, all you need to do to get a deal, to get them to move on entitlements, is eliminate tax expenditures that tax subsidies they call raised the carried interest up to the normal income tax rate. If that is what you need to do to get entitlement reform, why not put together that deal . That is not what they are saying. Theyre not saying theyre willing to do entitlement reform. Not are signaling they are interested in entitlement reform. You give us the tax expenditure reductions, we will give you something on entitlements . I dont see that. Let me back up to what i was going to say. If this becomes about raising taxes, we are not going to get anywhere. The president already got a big tax cut in january. 600 billion. That number is higher now. We are very serious about tax reform. Ways and means is moving tax reform. Max baucus is working on tax reform legislation. That is were taxes should be dealt with. We do not want to short change tax reform. If we take tax loopholes and put them in this budget process, we are shortchanging tax reform. Our goal is to get our rates down. Our goal is to get to a 25 rate in International Competitive system. We do not want to short change that. The loopholes are needed to bring those down to grow the economy and get people back to work. On the spending side, we are willing to trade spending cuts that are across the board. Were willing to trade those for smarter spending cuts. That is a trait we are willing to look at and are discussing now. Youre willing to ease the sequester limits. If we can get entitlement reform. We are having conversations. We do not have an agreement. We have differences of opinions. You mentioned one of them. Were going to try to work out differences. The bottom line, what we ought to do is something that is good for the deficit. Are we reducing the deficit or not. That is point number one. I more than happy to cut spending in a smarter way to replace these acrosstheboard cuts. Do any a way that produces more deficit reduction. That would be a step in the right direction. It wish of the government can work in function even divided. It can do that, and theyll be a good sign of confidence. It is nice to show that the parties can function on a basic level. We are not going to raise taxes because we think it is bad for the economy. It takes pressure off the kind of fiscal discipline we finally have, getting spending under control breed it is only under control in discretionary. We would like to bring reforms over there if we want ease discretionary problems. If you cannot get that deal you described, would you be able to accept an extension of the sequester . That is what we will do. You would consider that . We will take the cuts we have got and the fiscal discipline we have. There is a smarter way of doing it. We cannot do it that way, we will stick with a we have. Let me ask you about what Larry Summers said, the government doesnt do two things well at the same time. Spur growth, reduce deficits. Right now, given our figures, government does not spur growth. Growth does reduce the deficit. We have tried that playbook for five years. Look at the anemic growth we have. The spending stimulus is not working. Deficits, morer tax increases. It puts more pressure on Interest Rates in the future at the expense of progrowth policies like lowering taxes and regulatory reform, certainteed. All of this temporary stimulus answered the uncertainty facing businesses, robs about tax props up tax rates, raise their deficits, which adds to more uncertainty and the higher taxes. Real progrowth policies, lower our tax rates. That would be growth. Look at this Incredible Energy boom we could have in this country if we get behind it. Energy production is going up on private land. What if we could respond with the same thing on federal land . And regulatory certainty, which stops this boom from happening. These things are growth. Those things produced faster growth, and a lower deficit. Youre not prepared then to declare victory in the short term on the deficit. That has to be a priority . Yes. We do not see these as trade offs. Faster economic growth, more jobs, progrowth policies, not borrowing and spending. Let businesses breathe. Lowering tax rates on the margin. That produces more growth and reduces the deficit. I do not buy the premise of the question, which is it is either deficit reduction or economic growth. Another agenda item, Immigration Reform. We get conflicting reports from republicans. We hear the speaker say no votes this year. Somebody else says there might be a vote this year. We want to get this done before the election. Maybe not until after the primary. Where do you stand on Immigration Reform . Is it something that we can see getting done this year . I am for Immigration Reform. I am for the house form of Immigration Reform. We will not take the senate will bill. I think this is all progrowth. I can going to whole thing about go into the whole thing about birth rates and labor markets. The point is, we are denying our country from having a lot of intellectual capital to help us create jobs. I think if we do Immigration Reform right, that is progrowth policy. Im advocating moving forward on Immigration Reform in a stepby step way. We will do in a process that guarantees the will not melt the not come out with the result of the senate bill. That is what the speaker was talking about. The way the house is going to work and proceed is a stepby step approach, getting the border secured. We just not trust the word on this. It has to be actual and verifiable on border enforcement before other things can be triggered. We want to move from a chain migration. A familybased system to an economicbased immigration system. And, we want to make sure that we have a system that does not grant amnesty, or create a moral hazard. That helps respect the rule of law while dealing with people who are not documented. We think there is a way to do this. It is in the senate bill. It is not amnesty. It transforms our system from a familybased system to an economicbased system. I want to do it this calendar year. Knowing that calendar and being involved in budget negotiations which will take up early december, there is not enough time to do it. You do not think there will any votes this calendar year . The longer you wait, the harder it is to get it done. I agree. I wanted to get it done this year. It is not because we do not want to do it. We are literally losing our time because we have budget negotiations. We have a farm bill. We do not have space in our calendar to do it. We are serious that the house will proceed with Immigration Reform. We will do in the way i just described, that guarantees that we do not, with a senate proposal. Is a majority in the house fora pathway to citizenship the 11 Million People currently undocumented . I would say no. The way you describe that is if we are giving somebody a jump in the line. As if we are giving an automated person adocumented pathway ahead of someone who is here legally. Here is what i would describe. What we have been envisioning is a person goes on probation. Like probation, there is assimilation. Pay taxes. Pay a fine. English, civics. You cant be on welfare for a decade. Have to have a job. After the border is verified, after that time in five years, then you can get out of probation on that keep having a work permit. If you want to get in line to get a green card like any other immigrant, you can get in that line. You are at the back of the line. We want to preference the person who came here legally and did things right from the getgo. We do not want to person came hereve the person who came illegally a jump online. That is not a path to citizenship. Half of your conference would call what you have described amnesty. I do not believe it is amnesty. It is such a laborious process, it respects the rule of law. The reason they want to map in this way is we do not want to create moral hazard where we tell people just wait, and we will wipe the slate clean in a decade. We want to make sure we are not in the same place 10 years from now. We want to have the enforcement guaranteed that works along with a change in legal system from chain to economics, a system for the undocumented to get right with the law in a way that does not reward them from having broken the law. We believe that is the way to do it. It respects the rule of law. The reason why we want to map it out this way is because we dont want to create a moral hazard where we say wait and congress will what the slate clean a decade. It is about a 15 year time line before you become a citizen under what i described. I hardly call that amnesty. You watched the virginia governors race. Ken cuccinelli lost election but he won by so many points. Can republicans continue can they regain the presidency without doing better among minority voters . And how does the Republican Party do that . Forget about the electoral college. Forget about demographics and what republicans should do. What is the right thing for Public Policy . What is the right thing for a public person to do in office . That is to fight for ideas that work for everybody. So where i believe we have a lot of room for improvement as a party is to show that we have better answers for fighting poverty. 46 Million People in poverty, highest rates in a generation you know, we have known each other a long time. We have better ideas for fighting poverty and for revitalizing our inner cities. We have to be constructive on Immigration Reform. That works, is good for the economy, respects the rule of law, is inclusive. Immigration is a good thing for this country. It is what this country has been built upon. I think we need to speak to all of these issues because it is good for some lyrical cac the american idea. It is how we get back to a program of, equal opportunity upward mobile society which america has always been. It hasnt been in these stagnant times, but we have to show that we have solutions to speak to that and to every single person, no matter who they are or where they come from or the color of their skin or their gender. That is the right thing to do. If we do that, then hopefully those medical benefits will political benefits will accrue. You were a National Candidate last time. You have that experience. There is a lot of discussion among republicans. You hear it all the time. The next republican nominee for president in 2016 has to be a governor, somebody like a Chris Christie or john walker or John John Walker or scott walker or john kasich. Do you agree with that . No. [laughter] why not . You have this mess in washington. The Approval Rating for congress is 12 . The republican electorate looks at that and says i dont want to redo that, change deck chairs with somebody else in the other party. Lets get somebody else who has a reputation for governing and put them in the chair. The resume isnt as important to me as a person, their quality of ideas and their record a of reform. I want to make sure that we get a person who will be a standardbearer who can go the distance. I am familiar with what going the distance means. It means a lot. It is not easy to do. But also somebody who will be a good standardbearer, who will be strong on principles come inclusive on ideas, and gives , what i call fullspectrum conservatism that speaks to each and everybody. Because i believe this country has just a handful of years before we go down the european path, before we become the social welfare state. And we have to turn this Growth Engine back on. The good news is that it doesnt take a lot to turn things around and get this country growing again. I dont think we will have that with this administration. We just wont. I dont think the president has the philosophy or the disposition or the temperament to do that. Im hoping that we can do a few things to make this divided government work. But to fundamentally fix what is needing fixing is doable. It will take somebody who knows how to do it and could do it. They could be a governor or somebody from the federal side. Who are there were they doing and where their gifts . That is what is important to me rather than what is on the resume. You were in iowa recently. No doubt investigating the ethanol program. And you did say that you would look closely at making a run yourself. What is your mental checklist . What are you looking at when you make that decision . I was keeping a commitment to a friend in iowa who had an who is the governor of iowa who asked me to do almost a year ago. Its nextdoor, wisconsin, nearby. No. The way i look at this is this. If i am going to do a job in the majority, as the leader of my party, trying to fix these current problems, i cannot let my mind be clouded with personal ambition. Because, if i do come i cannot if i do, i do not think i can make the decisions to govern in the majority. Right now, i have a job to do on behalf of the people who elected me and the responsibilities given by my caucus. I will focus on that. After that is done, i will take a look at those things, do the kind of soulsearching it takes and make the decision. The question is that i have to if i have president ial sized ambitions. To win the white house and get the nomination, you have to really want it. And people say we dont know if you wanted. I have a young family. I have been a policy guiding guy in congress. I have focused on my famil