spending and what is likely to happen in congress. she points out that trump's tax cuts and spending policies would add over $5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years. there is a $12 trillion difference. what is the reality to these tax cuts? mr. cantor: i think we are in a new reality now, if i can pick up where penny was going in terms of lacking confidence and the anxiety out there, i do think the context within this new administration comes to the table is one after an election that i think was largely influenced by the fact that growth in this country has slowed over time.

as we know, the country was used to, 470, almost 80 years post-world war, 3.2% growth. given the size of our economy, a reduction in that to barely 2% annual growth is a lot of absolute dollars and has a lot of absolute impact on people's job opportunities and outlook. that is the context within i think trump comes to the table. he has already said growth will be number one priority. elizabeth, you talk about the tax reform. i think regulatory reform, the president-elect authority said, he has tasked his transition team with the kind of executive orders that will be necessary to send a signal that the regulatory burden will be examined and lifted after a cost-benefit analysis, doing too much to aggravate the outlook for investment. as penny said, it has been suffering of late. in terms of tax plans, you do not know.

the great majority of trump's plan has not been there. a better guide is to look at another plan put forward by the house republicans, and speaker paul ryan. they been working on that for a long time. the foundation of this tax reform plan was in place when i was there and before. this country has not seen tax reform since 1986, the likes of which we are looking to see happen. you have united washington in january 2017. i believe that signals that things will get better. ms. bumiller: what happens on the hill? is mike pence going to be the liaison, is he going to let the house -- is he going to let

congress drive this? or will we have a white house push? mr. cantor: as we all know, the system designed by the framers of the constitution was one of checks and balances. they will be influenced by this process. obviously influenced by the congress and white house. i was in the house during the bush administration, when republicans ran the town. the influence of a strong white house, produced the capital gains tax reduction that produce the repatriation holiday that occurred in early 2003 or 2004. you do not know how it will all play out. but the strong figures in the house, working on tax reform for a long time. mike pence was there for 12 years, he was part of the discussion. listen, this is a town where our government works. when it is unified.

i saw it in 2009 in 2010 when obama came in and the democrats controlled the town. that is only got obamacare, the stimulus bill. so i think you will see a lot of activity in the next year. ms. bumiller: let me turn to trade. how did advocates portray -- the public sentiment turned so strongly against trade, can anything be done to rebuild this incentive for global uneconomic it -- engagement around the world? sec. pritzker: let's think about trade. the united states is only 5% of the world market. 95% of customers are around the -- outside the united states. we have to trade with the rest of the world. i think what has happened in the

rhetoric is the conflation of trade and trade agreements with issues of globalization, the status of the individual and their ability to compete, automation, digitization. we need trade agreements. trade agreements are how you shape the rules of trade. and they are very important. the trade agreement that was negotiated, the transpacific partnership, tried to protect american labor by raising labor standards outside the united states, by raising environmental standards outside the united states, helping small businesses by clarifying their rules. making sure e-commerce could flow and data could flow easily.

and lifting 18,000 tariffs throughout the region. china has publicly announced it will do its own multilateral trade agreement. they will use their one vote, one road program to consolidate asia into an economic territory that does not include the united states. that is not good for american businesses. it is not good for global businesses. what the next administration does, beyond just say no, i do not know. it is not a path forward that is sustainable for job creation both here and in the united states, as well as economic growth here. ms. bumiller: your take on that? mr. cantor: i have been a free trader and someone who supports trade deals in the past. so we are in a new day. my party, the party that has carried the free trade agenda over the years, has now found itself in a new position, given the white house and a president-elect that had been very hostile to tpp in particular.

has said think trump as american jobst first. it will be much about trying to protect american employers, and boosting the business environment here at home so we can attract more investment. some reports have indicated the president-elect will open bilateral negotiations between individual countries. perhaps the tpp, a lot of countries have been subject to its negotiations. clearly a lot more room to go in and bilaterally negotiated. the impact regionally may not be felt the way tpp had the prospect for u.s. influence in asia to manifest itself. so we will see. but the trump administration and american jobs first. back to the issue of tax reform,

one of the underlying debates right now has to do with international tax reform. how do we go in and position the u.s. as a destination for multinational corporations so we can remove the senate for things like that? a lot of discussion is about this border adjustment tax, how we will treat imports. i know many of the luxury brand here today, if you have manufacturing facilities overseas and are now looking to see what will happen with imports in this country, that is a very important debate. the disadvantage we feel now could be rectified by an adjusted tax, does not mean good things for retailers here. sec. pritzker: the border adjusted tax will lead to retaliation.

president-elect trump putting attacks on china and goods from mexico, that could lead to a fallen gdp by 4% to 5%, that will lose 7 million jobs. it will also increase unemployment is somewhere around 9.5%. that is not good for america, either. having spoken -- the chinese were here last week. they basically said, do you think that will happen? you know what we will have to do? we will have to retaliate. it was not vitriolic, it was like, you will force us to take those positions. we cannot act unilaterally and expect there will be no reaction. ms. bumiller: should the u.s. get into a trade confrontation with china at a time if it needs china to help with north korea? and it helps north korea slowdown.

did you raise that with of the chinese? sec. pritzker: look, the challenge we have our rtwo -- two very different systems. china is controlled from the center, with state-owned enterprises, and industrial policy. in the united states we have a free-flowing policy and set of rules and regulations that allow much more flexibility. we're trying to mesh those two systems, the two largest economies to work and lead. it is very difficult to come to consensus when you come at the issue of the economy from such different positions. we have worked very hard, a strategic and economic dialogue, working through president obama

on trying to address these economic issues. but it is a real challenge because of the difference in the way we approach how the economy functions, a very basic level. that has led to real challenges. take for example fielded -- steel dumping. we had to have a huge increase in enforcement, with the chinese dumping steel. we have now seen a bottoming out of that and we are seeing job in price growth again in steel. but we have a significant problem and the world is trying to say to china, you cannot do this. you cannot take your excess

it around theump world because it is upsetting the global equilibrium. the other approaches with the new administration, i do not know. but it is a complicated balance. you have to think about what reactions we can tolerate. mr. cantor: i think what we have seen thus far from the campaign and the newly elected president-elect and his team is, a lot of the rhetoric, his twitter traffic, a lot of the language, that has an impact for sure. but when you look at what he is doing, you look at the picks and the cabinet so far, like nikki haley for u.n. ambassador rice. this morning, tom price for secretary of health and human services. these are mainstream republican conservative individuals that are much less in the extreme than perhaps some of the rhetoric surrounding donald trump has been. so we will have to watch to see.

no question he has tried' in a way, do we want to pick a fight with china right now given its importance with north korea, i am sure that if you ask, they do not want to engender some type of world war or big conflict. but again, his whole m.o. has been, i want to get a better deal for the american people. that means we will be strong again. we just do not know, there is not a lot of certainty. when you are looking at this, that adds to the risk right now. as we will see, come the first 100 days, we will have a better idea. >> let me follow up on tom price.

he would drastically change the affordable care act. there were be less people insured, i assume you would agree with that. it would be much reduced. some of the 20 million would lose health insurance. can you explain how that would work? how that would be good for business? mr. cantor: i am not so sure you can assume that. obamacare was constructed in its design of a mandate from washington, and once washington require the purchase of health care insurance, there necessarily came the definition of what compliance was.

that had driven up the cost, which then required a subsidy in order to pay for the subsidies for the imposition of all the obamacare taxes. that is what will go away. what will come in place -- what you will see repealed are the exchanges, the mandate. in its place, is going to be a system that is much more focused on the private sector, and in fact, for those people who have obamacare insurance now, will a likely, if you look at the plans that are out there, whether it is in tom price's vehicle he has worked on for six years, you will see a workaround in terms of getting affordable tax credits and ensuring that provisions like never denying anyone for pre-existing conditions is entirely valid. in fact, the way you "pay for that," with extended coverage in existence now, the way you pay for it in the new regime without a mandate is you pay for it by limiting and capping employer exclusion of health care benefits.

>> what does it mean for change? >> we were in florida last week talking to big trump supporters, saying they really liked the affordable care act and did not want to take it away. mr. cantor: i think even trump himself said there are provisions in obamacare, i am never denying anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions, or allowing 26-year-olds to stay on their parents plans. this is going to be a very complicated discussion. you heard kevin mccarthy, my successor as majority leader just say on the news this morning, that obamacare repeal will be first up in this new congress.

ms. bumiller: so you repeal obamacare, what happens to 20 million people on obamacare? mr. cantor: the details have yet to be realized. because, when is the effective date? and what is the requirement to replace it? that is a debate that is ongoing. do you put into place -- that can only happen if the senate has the reconciliation process to benefit from, thereby reducing the voting threshold. we have to see what congress does. clearly, the predictions that people will lose health care, this will be a different kind of health care. i think that obamacare on the results of this have never lived up to the promise that was given. we can see a congress that will

unite around replacing it any meaningful way. ms. bumiller: let me ask one more question about iran. if the u.s. walks away from the iran deal, which trump has

threatened to do, what other signatory would do? would they ignore that? what they make any imposition of u.s. sanctions meaningless? and what would be the global economic consequences? sec. pritzker: first of all, i do not know how the rest of the world reacts. but it seems to me that one of the most important players is israel. israel has come to a position that there is definitely benefits from the deal, that is one thing to keep in mind. i have no idea how this plays out. iran is not an our portfolio of things we focus on. it remains to be seen. as i step back and look at this notion of disengagement around the world, we have to think about, what are the long-term implications of the united states taking positions that are interpreted as either protectionism or disengagement? and is that good for the u.s., in terms of the worker, our people, our economy, and our national security? ms. bumiller: any response to that?

sec. pritzker: i was in the middle east last week, both in israel and the gulf. i can tell you, there was a lot of discomfort with this administration in terms of its iran policy. our sunni allies as well as israel. they were taken aback by what this administration did with the regime in iran. there was trust toward the team in tehran. if you talk to the prime minister in israel or government and other areas of the gulf. when trump comes in and says he will rebut the agreement, i am reminded of the peter teel quote from the republican national convention in cleveland when he said, we may want to think about not taking trump literally, but taking them seriously. i think the spirit of it. there will be a lot of pressure from american business. i am sure any of you in the room are based here. if you saw the house last week, when around passing the iran

sanctions act. i do not see any diminution of the force, forcing iran to abide by its commitment to get rid of its nuclear capabilities. there is enough in the agreement in terms of enforcement consequences that i think trump can probably arrive at a de facto ripping up of the agreement, to expose that iran has not been in compliance. we will see if he is using that or a frontal attack on the agreement. ms. bumiller: and with that, any questions from the audience? over here, and if you can identify yourself and wait for the microphone, thank you. >> i live in london, but i am french. do think the policy will stop

inflation? that would have consequences on the heavy debt around the world. sec. pritzker: we are not really seeing inflation right now, growing dramatically. the question is, you can paint a scenario where you can see inflation growing. but with the dollar becoming stronger, it is putting a check on inflation here in the united states. because it makes imports more competitive and is having a challenge for u.s. competitiveness. you could imagine if we go and believe in our deficits and overcommit, in terms of expenditures, that you could have an inflationary environment.

i think that is why you see the fed looking to become more active. but it is something to think about of the policy is being formed as to how inflationary it will be. ms. bumiller: anyone else? here in the second row. >> i have a question to mr. cantor. i do not live in this country -- but over the last few years, america has lost its power in the world and ability to influence. for the most part, trump said he

would tear up trade treaties, the iran treaty, walk away from everything which engages the united states to the rest of the world. do think that will increase american power or reduce it? mr. cantor: i go back to my maxim, watch what he does, do not necessarily listen to what he says. i believe it goes back to trying to get a better deal for the people of this country. i am not so sure that you can take at face value the statement that he will rip it up. he will focus inward. these deals give him an opportunity to demonstrate that he is a negotiator. he has written -- i am not so sure he will have the luxury of turning his back. what i have heard from businesses and governments around the world is, over the last several years, there have been questions about america's commitment.

when you have something like sequestration in place that limits the defense expenditures and you talk to government and citizens in asia who keep reading and hearing about the u.s. pivot to asia, how do you reckon -- reconcile those two? we are not increasing defense, but we will be a counterbalance to the aggressive posture of china -- how does that reconcile? i would not be so quick to say that you can dismiss america's role, or say that we would put domestic issues forward. because we are global now. we live in an interconnected world. if we're going to talk about

putting america first, it will be within the context of this new economy. ms. bumiller: arthur, hello. >> thank you both for being here, i appreciate that very much. mr. cantor, a question for you. a few months ago, in february or march i was at an event that arthur brooks held. >> i was there, too. >> i thought i saw you there. if you recall, the spirit, there is a feeling there was no way that donald trump would become president. now, the press got this wrong, we have owned that. we clearly were out of touch with what happened. but so did the republican party in a major way. i was hoping you might help us understand that a bit. mr. cantor: i have gone this wrong all year, two years. i was cochair for jeb bush. i thought he would be the

candidate and win the election. i was wrong, as well. some would say, i mean -- my personal story, i had an unscheduled departure from capital hill and was defeated in the primary by an unknown. and frankly, that unknown was also bullied by crossover support from the democratic party in a big way. buoyed by crossover support from the democratic party in a big way. one third of my primary election was by crossover votes because that day there was no democratic primary. virginia allows for the crossover vote. it showed me, i was as surprised as any. i think it was the beginning of what we saw manifest itself in this election. there was and still is a huge swath of people in this country that feel anxiety and are fed up. they are fed up in a variety of ways.

i know you have heard about the mainstream media and people always being told they are wrong. but i think it goes back to the economics, and the lack of opportunity. my party did not get that, either. you know i have always said, we , have had difficulty trying to connect the policies of a free trade, the policies of the new 21st century, digital economy. how does that benefit a lot of people out there who just do not have the skills necessary to meet the demands of the economy? what do we say to the single mom waking up this morning in eastern kentucky when she does not have good job prospects? our party says, well we can have

and -- both parties said, we will impose trade adjustments and pass the free trade agreement, and here is a little money on ta. that does not cut it. we did not have the answers for those people. the democratic party did not have the answers. this will be the biggest challenge for the country, going forward. mr. trump has presented himself as that leader that reflects -- you know -- this swath of the demographic and a large part of the country. so we will see. sec. pritzker: i have one comment. i think there is a couple of things. i think first of all, we need to double down on things that do work for people. i think it is about people. i think one of the biggest challenges we have is, americans are unhappy. half the electorate was angry and half was scared. and, i think we are going through a massive change, you can see it in your own industry,

in the media industry. we are going for a massive change in our society, affected by globalization and automation and digitization. we need to help our people figure a way through that where they feel there is a confidence in their ability to gain opportunity, support their families, and have some modest aspect of the american dream. right now people do not feel that and we do not have a system that is coordinated in a way to be able to put that together. we do have programs that do positive things that we should double down on. whether that is apprenticeships or advanced manufacturing. we need to paint a picture, what are we doing in various communities? whether that is world communities, or communities like

the southside of chicago where there should be job prospects. i do not think either party answer that question. and that is going to be laid right at the feet of the next administration. i want to see a congress that works. i am tired of everybody bickering and nothing getting done. ms. bumiller: thank you both, thank you to the audience. [applause] announcer: follow the transition of government to on c-span as president-elect donald trump select his cabinet. we will take you to key events as they happen. watch live on c-span. listen on our free c-span radio at. >> on newsmakers's weekend we will hear from top republicans and democrats on the house judiciary committee.

they will discuss community relations with police and their role in police accountability and enforcement. watch sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. wantsi decided to spend more time. trying to understand how this man could finish 21st out of 39 at west point in therefore historicaliewed as a intellectual lightweight in a historical intellectual lightweight in jet he said of himself, i must apologize, i spend all of my time reading novels. >> sunday night, the life in career of the 18th resident in seatsok "american you lee : a life of ulysses ." sses s grant

>> he said, i look forward to in aime when you can eat car, it do everything the same as the rest. it took 90 years for that to come. rent was the last united states president to hold those kind of views. in his weekly address, president of outlined the 20th century cures act and talked supports the legislation. then the republican response talking about replacing and repealing the affordable care -- affordable care act. president obama: high everybody. on the first day of my administration i promised to restore science to its rightful place. i told you we would unleash american innovation and technology to tackle the health challenges of our time. over the last eight years we

have delivered on that promise in many ways, both big and small. making health care more affordable for all americans. right now we have a chance to put our best minds to work in a big-time and big way. there is a bill in congress that can help unlock a cure for alzheimer's and cancer as we seekingand help people treatment for opioid addiction. it is called the 21st century cures act. it is an opportunity to save lives ended as an opportunity we just can't miss. this bill would do a lot of good things at once. it will make real investments this year to combat the heroine prescription drug epidemic that is plaguing so many of our communities. drug overdoses take more lives every year than traffic accidents. and deaths from opioid overdoses have quadrupled since 1999. under obama care, health plans

in the marketplace have to include coverage for treatment. but there is more we need to do. for nearly a year, i have been calling for this investment so hundreds of thousands of americans can get the treatment they need. i'm glad the congress is finally getting it done. the second thing the cure act does is make significant investment in joe biden's cancer moonshot. i set a goal of making america the country that ends cancer once and for all. i put the vice president in charge of mission control. this bill will allow us to invest in promising new therapies a end new ways to protect and prevent cancer. joe has done an incredible job. this bill is a chance for congress to do his part two. we will be giving researchers the resources they need to help identify ways to treat, prevent, and cure all kinds of brain disorders. alzheimer's, epilepsy, traumatic

brain injury. it also supports an effort we started to bring doctors and the data together to develop treatments and health care that can one day be tailored specifically for you. that could lead to some big breakthroughs. the cure act includes bipartisan health reforms, including important programs for suicide prevention. and we are making sure the fda incorporates patient voices, your voices into the decision they make as they develop drug -- as they develop drugs. that is what the act is all about. this week the house passed it overwhelmingly and in bipartisan fashion. the senate will vote in the next few days. and i hope they will do the same. as it sign it as soon reaches my desk. like a lot of people i've lost people i loved deeply to cancer. i hear every day from americans whose loved ones are suffering from addic.