business that we're in. and we look at that and track that and understand the trends of efficiency in there. recent studies like by the university of texas regarding shale gas developments in upstream emissions, i think, is starting to work on this issue to clarify that some of the statements people made aren't true and maybe those emissions aren't as pie as hemo-- as high as people thought. ..

is a look at a small slice of that, not full picture and so far it doesn't look like a catastrophic issue. the one to take on the second part of the? >> i agree with our questioner, whichever scenario look at, it usually comes out as the biggest potential contributor addressing global change concerns. that's true whether it's a developer or developing world. one of the sort of, the dilemmas are often struck ask low-hanging fruit. suppose would these measures are, we would all be financially better off. why doesn't it happen in practice? i think that's the big conundrum that we face. i think there's a number of different aspects your one this has been mentioned by howard which is pricing. there's two sides to the. one is subsidized fossil fuels and the other have some kind of

extra now the price is to convey the truth level cost of carbon. the other is pollution. the higher the return. i think the other issue is standards. we could be much more aggressive in requiring standards for efficient building codes, et cetera. another major challenge is financed. in many parts of the world, in the developing world industries may want to make investments to improve the efficiency. banks are not willing to live. this as an unconventional proposition. where is the collateral? >> i have the same problem. i installed solar panels on health and i could not get a loan. i had to get some creative financing to do that. >> so you understand what we're up against. we have quite a number of projects where the work with banks in the developing world. we provide a credit line and technical assistance to capacity building so the bank employees

can learn how to assess these kind of projects and figure out whether or not there a good investment. we provide finance to basically kickstart the markets. if we do enough of that it will become self-sustaining. it's a huge issue. there's this conundrum around the low-hanging fruit. having said that i think in the developing world, because the size of the unmet energy needs are so large, we can get all the way there. i think in the developed world we have contribute a lot. that's why we're seeing it being so flat. the rate at which demand is growing relatively small compared to what we can deliver through energy efficiency. in the developed world, developing world i think they can flatten the curve a bit but the curve will still be going out. we need to think about this estimate of what's going in pl play. >> during this presentation you didn't touch upon the 10-foot

pole. let me ask you. two weeks ago i drove from here in washington all the way to ottawa canada. we at the same time -- in the united states, right close to the border it's 360 -- $3.60, $3.70. after you cross the border because $6.50, $6.70. the canadian and u.s. dollars are almost equal. so nasty is that price per gallon? >> price per gallon. they just estimated for me, a little bit different. they use the same conversion for the u.s. gallon and a leader is what they told me that's what he does. so given that, i started coming

in from using the canadian oil as long as they could and then when i crossed the i bought a whole thankful, you know? >> is like the equivalent of going through new jersey. >> my question is, if canada is an experiment and the politicians there have the guts to put all that tax -- they keep repeating everybody, my friends and i talked to at the gas station, we have a high tax. that's why it's so high. if that is the case, something is happening to those graphs you put together. u.s. is a big consumer. what will it do to the oecd numbers there? and will that bring the biggest consumer in the oecd market a level lower? that with those resources can be used in the other area.

>> again, i think the u.s. has among the oecd countries probably one of the lowest taxes on motor fuels. i think that's $6 in canada, under the weather was ontario or québec, but if you went to europe it would be probably hire. that said, i'm an old person and people have tried things in a states in terms of taxation of energy. i remember president george h. w. bush, and the famous read my lips no new taxes, and he agreed to a 5-cent per gallon gasoline tax as part of the budget deal. i don't know if that's why he wasn't reelected, but he wasn't reelected. that's a fact. and then i would member very well when i was not at eia, more

involved in the policy process, the clinton-gore administration came in and developed a proposal for a tax which was a pretty substantial energy tax speedy's it was like 25 cents a gallon or something. >> substantial. and in the end they did not get it. and effect they got a 4-cent gasoline tax increase, which was a think the last time the federal gasoline tax has increased. >> so it's a political question. would've drive down our consumption? >> if you get over the politics -- [laughter] what town are you sitting in? you are in some alternate universe. the decision made that seems to have been made, because again, no role in the decision wasn't the focus has been on dealing with fuel economy standards, very substantial increase. to some extent that may have

driven fuel economy past what people might choose at the current gasoline prices. obviously, with very high gasoline prices you might choose greater fuel efficiency. so it might be the case if you raise gasoline prices, there might not be any change in the cars that people buy. there could be a change in the amount that people drive, which i think is one of the questions. but you also get at that about the people drive, a whole host of other policies. you can change, again, we wouldn't propose any of them but you can change the way that people pay for car insurance. a lot of people spend $800,000 a year on car insurance. right now it's mostly bought under an all-you-can-eat type of policy where you your check at the beginning of the year and you drive all you want. putting that on a per mile basis, you know, versus some

gasoline tax, you know, might actually have a larger effect. you know, we can just, economies are good at something. us in politics that matter. assume i have a can opener, but -- [laughter] you know. i mean, you've got to get real about this stuff. i would think. >> all right. a question from over here. >> aaa -- aaas fellow. i guess my question is mainly aimed at vivien, but the second is for everybody. i have this image in my mind of a lot of the non-oecd countries, and i saw what happened with telecoms when they went from zero to sell. and bypass the way that we did things. and i wonder if there's some opportunity for them to do something similar with energy, or with electricity?

we've seen some solar hot water things going on moving very rapidly and bypassing what we did. so i wonder if you could discuss that a little bit. and i have to say i was a little discouraged to hear hydro and not solar in places that seemed to me to be maybe very warm and potentially getting very dry. the other scenario i missing with those same people as possibly massive migration. and i wonder if people can talk about how, what that might look like with an energy or emissions impact possibly going from a first, or a third world to a first world quickly with consumption. so those are my questions. >> yeah, suddenly the study of the revolution always invites a lot of comparisons. like temple of sending off with energy? the revelation western medic in

several ways. it radically board down the cost of investment you need to service one subscriber. so that would fix investment which was a difficult thing to finance, was largely dramatically reduced. and the of the revolution i think was a commercial revolution, the prepayment revolution, but that you could buy these smart cards that you didn't have today consumer credit risk, that you very much administer your own spinning if you control your own spending very much. to me it's the combination of those things that really revolutionized telephony and the development world and africa is the most startling example of the. in the case of energy, there is some signs of innovation going on at the moment but i don't think we're quite on the threshold quite as dramatic as that. one example i wanted to give was a program we supported at the world bank called lighting africa, which is all about off grid solar products. it's saying there are millions

of people across the developing world who are probably decades away from seeing a grid-based electricity connection. but actually by developing solar products that are coming and very steeply in cost towards the five, five to $10 range, they could actually have modern lighting after dark since it was a little device that i could hold them and and i can charge of during the day in the sun. the world bank, personal takes on the regulatory barriers for these things to be imported at low cost into the countries and in this for the quality assurance so that consumers know if they spend $5 afford then it's abortion, and will get a product that will deliver a service. is meant very little in terms of investment for us, and yet over a very short breed of time we've reached about 4 million people in africa with these products. so this is an example. we are also working with the cellular industry, which is a major demand of energy in rural areas. and using these as anchor customers and having power then

delivered to their doorstep of villages using charged up the batteries are charged at the small shore station that supplies the committee patient tower speak we're doing a lot of experimentation. but most people in the government will tell you it's great to have a solar lantern. it's the first up on the ladder but this is, delimited what i can do with it. it's not productive energy. i can't run a sawmill. i can't run a sewing machine. i can delighted energy related applications. it's a welcome to wages and boost and accelerate that there is a basic level of access, but it's not the whole story. we still do need to continue to work on that much more challenging space. >> one of the examples people sometimes bring up for that kind of thing is what it does enable is, is better education. people can read at night. i wonder, are you saying that? is that a big impact? >> that's a very, very important aspect of it because children in africa basically can't read in the dark.

it's the evening when most of these tasks are done. so these kind of products and make a huge difference for reading and literacy of those things. >> if the non-pollination can put massive -- knob our nation, why can we do that in africa? and also down the line? >> i want to respond to your other point. we are actively engaged in the cellar space, both of these off grid products and mentioned were also to rural electrification with solar home system. we've reached about too many people in bangladesh with a very successful dealer based, solar home baseball. we do large-scale grid-based solar and where experiment with concentrated solar power, which promises to provide a more stable supply of energy because you can store the heat in a concentrated solar power plants are less subject to when the sun is shining. the concentrated solar power technology is still very expensive. it's very much at the

experimental stage upwards of 20 cents per kilowatt hour. the solar photovoltaics have come down costs very, very dramatically over the last few years. even so there's still in many parts of the world not competitive with other forms of renewable or conventional energy. we see them as being competitive more and rural locations, islands, remote landlocked locations where the cost of other forms of energy is much higher. there's still quite a way to go before they are competing with other kinds of renewable and conventional energy on the grid. >> the reason other renewables band is then relative to everything else is just expense. so i guess one thing you cannot -- rob, it's hard to anticipate but if it could be a technological breakthrough that would bring the price way down, how quickly would you be able to

redraw these graphs? i think of it takes a long time to build infrastructure. are you confident by 2040 things look pretty much like this? you think if there was a technological revolution, i can do fracking i guess for natural gas, that you could really change the shape of what you're seeing in? >> breakthroughs in technology can radically change pictures. the thing about the global energy picture is the scale of energy is so large, it's not like the technology has to evolved than it has to have time to accelerate and penetrate. that's a bit of a known. you can find parallels but the cell phone example is a great one. it's a very lower, and much lower cost -- the individual introductory cost is smaller as well, so that's an analogy that doesn't always transition. clearly, it would have a difference. we don't assume breakthroughs. you can't in this but you do

some costs come down and become more competitive. solar costs come down. the wind costs come down. nuclear costs come down. we assume all those pieces change. but still it remains an investment, a long-term investment. when you talk about power generation you're not just talking about the generation system. you're talking about the wires that go from there to the consumer. and so the whole infrastructure buildout is significant and takes time. it takes the right and policy environment. the world bank is an expert at this because you worked in the number varies. so we would expect technology to evolve, and a matter of fact i was a don't bet against technology. >> i so you pull up a graph. you want to say a word about that? >> one thing i would say, draw the distinction between areas where demand is growing fast and areas where demand is not growing very fast. because in an area, so let's say

it's not exactly right, but let's say there was no broken electricity demand in the oecd. been in some sense to the extent we can stop existing plants and falling apart, there will be economically viable as long as there are variable costs, fueling costs alone because there are -- because their capital causes our debate is less than the total cost of the alternative. that's the difference from this side of the world where, again, if load is doubling every eight or nine or 10 years, then you need a lot of new something. and they'll be the new coal competing against the new solar or the new gas competing against the new hydro and the new nuclear competing against -- so it's one thing to really understand that when we talk about economic competition, there's often this sort of comparison of what are called levelized costs of different technologies. but, in fact, those can be

relevant in some circumstances and less relevant than others. there may be other reasons that existing technologies are displaced in places like the united states where demand is not growing, but the notion that the capital plus operating costs of these new technologies is going to be lower than just the operating costs of the existing. that is a tough hurdle. it can happen. it happened with copper telecommunications, you know, wire and fiber optics where basically if copper, telecommunications wire caused global warming, the problem would be sal because people were putting in fiber optics as fast as it possibly can. the advantages of the technology and its cost and its throughput were so compelling, bu that peoe did need a fiber optics convention in order to install fiber optics. but again, it's like the analogy to cell phones. it's just a question of how good

is it for energy. the electricity from the old, dirty plant when it reaches your house with a wire is just as good as the electricity indistinguishable from the electricity from the clean, renewable technology, even the cleanest renewable technology are just the somewhat clean renewable technology that our friends at the world bank are also willing to support. so it's very hard to sell it to end users on the basis of your getting something different. cell phone provide better services in some ways as discussed by vivien, a solar intermittent resource provides kind of in some ways less better services, that you can get around in some respects through smart grids and batteries and all this stuff. >> let's take some more questions over your. >> my name is max gottlieb. i want to turn it back to the focus of all the more of a domestic energy policy question.

just seven to 10 years ago we were spending millions and looking into developing importation centers for oil and gas, fearing we would have an energy resource efficiency. now, with the development of certain shales, we have the possibility of exporting oil and natural gas. now, i won't speak for exxonmobil but some producers would like to have an exportation, from the exportation policy, while some manufacturers and producers of goods would like to see exportation not as abundant so that we can keep prices low here and possibly her return to more production-based or at least somewhat of a return to production-based economy. now, i'm personally from west virginia with both of natural gas and a struggling economy that would love to see some production-based jobs. >> what is your question,

please? >> i was getting -- were d.c. it going? what policy d.c. most efficient use of that energy? >> i can't speak for exxonmobil or the u.s. government. [laughter] i think the world bank would not want to weigh in spent exxonmobil, we are interested in doing both. we're building a chemical plant down in texas to take advantage of the expanded gas supplies and gas liquid supplies. but we actually are prepared along with any commercial venture where we think exporting gas is also very viable. we think the resource base is very substantial in the united states. it can support a wide range of opportunities. >> next question. >> we are running short of time. >> i'm a jefferson science fellows. i have two questions. actually the first one is closely related to the last one.

i live in north dakota which is a booming energy state, and when you talk to people in my state, there seems to be an attitude of the sky's the limit in terms of producing oil and natural gas and coal. so i guess i'm interested in, for question one, what portion do you really think we can provide strictly from domestic sources? the second question is very different. it's driven by the fact that i'm a computer scientist and have looked at the smart grid, and the use of smart meters and smart appliances and dynamic pricing, time and date pricing schemes by utilities and constraining the grid to bring more efficiency to the grid. some curious on your take on the potential for smart grid solutions. >> smarts to reduce energy. i find that certainly using my

apps to find cars and things like that there is amazing how much energy you can save just with information. do you want to take on question one? >> question one, is the sky the limit? is a limit. the question is how close to limit it is. we are starting actually tomorrow to publish monthly looks at six of the key shale basins that produce oil and gas. i think shale gas is pretty well established. oil is, tight oil technically which is not exclusively from jail but other types of formations is well, it'll get behind and i think it's still fairly early in the game. but there's a potential of significant, significantly increased production.

as someone once said about nuclear electricity, it will be too cheap to meter. will also be too cheap to meter in north dakota? i doubt it. but there's potential for at least for a while for production to continue to increase. >> i'm sorry we are running so short of time there but i do want to squeeze in more question your just a minute or two later. >> i work for senator chris comes from delaware. i have a quick question. how quick the answer is is the deepest. under what conditions you think we may see the emergence of this synthetic fuel production, either domestically or internationally? >> rob, do you want to take that one? >> i tried to stay out of the price environment but think he synthetic fuel, synthetic fuel areas is really, we are experimenting with biofuels right now. speaks synthetic fuels being taken hold -- cold and converting it to you put it in

your car. >> and energy intensive and has a significant dream house gas production footprint keeping on how you manage it. but biofuels is a great example. that's an area where we're working with, with animal matter in some form -- sorry, plant matter in some form into fuels. they are privy to not be very effective. particularly the second generation is still very expensive, small developments. we are not necessary seen the benefits out of the first generation. and so i think it's going to continue to be an area the size. a lot of time we spent looking at it, gas to liquid account is another alternative. it's expensive but it is being done on small-scale around -- the our investment around the world but not a large-scale developing at this stage so if this stage so i feel been everywhere technology continued to mature to try to bring the cost down. >> i might be more optimistic strictly enough than my colleague. i don't know that it will

necessarily be gasoline or diesel, i think there's some interesting ways of producing maybe methanol, maybe other users. actually ethanol from non-oil fossil fuels or non-oil biomass. so again, i agree that both full synthetic fuel to get diesel for our patrick gaspard get diesel fuel out of coal is a pretty expensive proposition. a lot of it depends on the price gap between the different feel to again going back to the natural gas markets will have to work out. >> i'm afraid we're out of time but that was a very lively discussion. thank you all for coming and participating. appreciate it. [applause] >> the hearing will be live at 9 a.m. eastern right here on c-span2. also a convention health and

human services victory kathleen sebelius is expected to testify about the insurance exchange rollout as early as next week. friday night see spent road to the white house coverage takes you live to des moines, iowa, for remarks by texas senator ted cruz. he will be delivering a keynote at i was republican reagan didn't. that gets underway live friday night at 8 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. >> just hours after the japanese attack on pearl harbor and before her husband addressed the nation, first lady eleanor roosevelt was on the radio talking with america. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i'm speaking to you tonight at a very serious moment in our history. the cabinet is convening and the leaders in congress are meeting with the president. the state department and the army and navy officials are then with the present all afternoon. the japanese ambassador was

talking to the president. japan's airship for bombing our citizens in hawaii and the philippines, and sinking one of our transports loaded on its way to know why. the members of congress will have a full report to be ready for action. in the meantime, we the people are already prepared for action. for months now the knowledge that something of this kind might happen has been hanging over our heads. and yet it seemed impossible to believe him and possible to drop the every day things of life and feel that their was only one thing which was important, preparation to meet an enemy, no matter where he struck. that is all over now. and it is no more uncertainty. we know what we have to face, and we know that we are ready to face it. spent watcher program on eleanor roosevelt at our website,

c-span.org/firstladies. orsi saturday on c-span at 7 p.m. eastern. we continue our series life money as a look at first lady bess truman. >> neil degrasse tyson on america's call for scientists and engineers spent as nasa's future goes, so, too, does that of america. and if nasa is healthy, then you don't need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do because they will see it on the paper. there will be calls for engineers to help us go ice fishing on your robe where there's an ocean of water that's been liquid for billions of years. we will tak dig through the soue of mars and look for life. that will give me the best biology. look at the national portfolio. it's got biology, chemistry, physics, geology. aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers.

all the s.t.e.m. fields, science signal to engine and math. represented in the nasa portal. a healthy nasa pumps that. it is a flywheel that society casts for innovation spent over the past 15 years booktv has aired over 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> u.s. chamber of commerce president tom donohue on monday said his organization has not made any decision about challenging incumbent republicans in 2014 but the chain would do whatever it takes to keep the house under republican control. he commented on the latest round of budget negotiations, health care and immigration. hosted by the "christian science monitor," this is an hour. [inaudible conversations]

>> here we go, folks. thanks for coming. our guests today are tom the -- tom donohue and bruce josten from the chamber's executive vice president of government affairs at the gym is the world's largest not-for-profit business federation. both inhibit our guests before and we welcome them back. esther dardinger's lead the gym since 1997 be before they serve for 13 years as president and chief executive officer of the american trucking association, prior to his tour at the ada, he was group vice president for ages. and an earlier chapter of his life his deputy assistant postmaster general and vice president of connecticut university. is a new york native and has a bachelor's degree from st. john's university. and an nba from a delphi. bruce josten is a senior government and political affairs executive started in the chamber's new york office as a telemarketer in 1974. he can be our position

well-equipped for a rapid rise with a degree from harvard. he oversees six major divisions within the chamber. so much for biography. now on to the early process portion of program. we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting but in short, no find a become a breakfast is underway. there's no embargo when the session ends except that our friends and c-span have agreed not to air the session until one hour after the breakfast inns. we would like -- if you like to ask a question to the traditional thing and sending a subtle nonthreatening said and i will be happy to column one and are. will offe offer our guests to me some opening comments and then we'll move to questions from round the table. thanks again for coming. >> thank you very much. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thanks for getting up on an early monday morning. out the brief and you can then have at it. thank you, david.

we always enjoy coming here. it's the one place you can have a conversation. joining me as you saw is a bruce josten and also tom who handles all of our team indication issues which more congregated every day. i know the buzz is still all about the c.r. and a dead deal, who won, lost, who is up, who's down, what's going to happen next. but i would like to open today's breakfast by looking a minute to the future. and, of course, the business community over all, the immediate crisis has been resolved although we are all planning now for the next three rounds of this. however, temporary and imperfect the current agreement is, it gives us a chance to think our way through this and get ready for what's next. the fact is we've got a lot of work to do in this country and we need to get back to it now. we need to fire up our economy and speed up the recovery.

we need to get our fiscal house in order, include if you don't hear anything else from me, we have got to reform our entitlement system before it eats us alive. we need to modernize our health and retirement, immigration and regulatory systems so that we can continue to ramp up our productivity and reclaim and what i would say accelerate our competitive edge. we need to get d.c. seizing the extraordinary opportunities we have in this country today to create jobs, drive growth and generate government revenue as. how? by developing all kinds of energy. more on that in a minute. and by rapidly expanding our commercial relationships within the two biggest trading blocs in the world, europe and asia-pacific. and to act on these underlying challenges and opportunities, the kind of spending and debt

standoff we endured over the past few weeks will repeat itself over and over again. our debt will pile higher and higher. so the chamber is going to focus its efforts on a few key opportunities and a few key challenges. first the opportunities. immigration. we are in a good position. they're still an appetite to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year. we're not sure we, we will extend this year a few months, but we are really hot after it. there's still strong support amongst the public and lawmakers in our nation, our economy and our businesses and our workers need it more than ever. the chamber is keeping of the push for reform, an opportunity to show the world we can get everything done that we can all benefit from. energy is another major opportunity. you want more jobs, faster growth? revenues for an end to government coffers and manufacturing renaissance,

stronger national security, then take advantage of the vast energy resources this nation has been blessed with. we've got to tear down barriers to exploration and development, and put energy to work for the good of our country, and then there are still some challenges. overregulation is a big one. we've got to move on this very quickly before it consumes us. by the way, we need regulation in this country in an orderly society does. but when the regulation becomes bigger than the thing where trying to regulate, it gets really worrisome. we have a threefold approach to dealing with this. work with the cost to advance legislation that will restore balance and sanity to the process, work with the agencies to improve the regulations that are being drafted, and when all else fails, sue them. the chamber will not hesitate to take the fight to the court.

as many of you know, our tracker could there is something to write home about. -- our track record there. before i conclude i should say a word about obamacare. it's a prime example of regulation run amok. the intention of what people set out to do was write. what we ended up with was more than we thought. we are finding ways to fix the obvious flaws in the law, and i expect the administration will join in some of those. while continuing to search for general reform that will lower cost, improve care and expand access. let me and where i started. in addition to these key priorities that i've just highlighted, the chamber will of course be very focus on the budget talks established by last week's agreement to reopen the government and lift the debt ceiling. who knows if those talks will succeed? but they damn well better. but at the very least as another

opportunity for some serious truth telling. to our elected officials and to the public. the truth is that unsustainable entitlements are the root cause of our deficits and debts. and by the way, please note, that is no administrations fault. it is a demographic reality. we are all living longer. to our more of it. let me give you one number. 10,000 people who retire every day this year, comes to 65. and every day for the next 17 years until there are 77 million of them. figure it out. the truth is we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. we have a growth problem and the fundamental and time reform and comprehensive tax reform are the way to address that. and until we face up to these hard truths and take and neither harder step of acting on them,

any future negotiations on the budget, on the sequestration and the debt limits will be basically disconnected from the actual needs of the country. i know a lot of you are anxious to hear what we think about 2014 and how it will impact the chamber political engagement and the next cycle. i'll do my best to answer those questions as fully as possible while avoiding the ones i don't want to answer. with that let me take your questions. >> let me start with one you may not want to answer. "the wall street journal" reported last week that the chamber is considering taking aside the republican primaries next year in hopes of replacing tea party considers with more friendly business i've met this. having given tens of millions of dollars to republican candidates you're researching 2014 candidates might be viable next year. where does that effort stand? >> well, a quick look at the history of the chamber's political efforts show is

engaged in primaries on a regular basis. we have no idea what we're going to have on the table. we still have to see who is running. we still have to see what happens in the next activity on the deficit. we still have to see what the circumstances are. we have a formal process to doing this. we will pursue that process. we will do whatever seems to be the best thing for the country and and for the american business community. it's not about party. this is about how this country is going to be run, how this economy is going to be driven and what role we can play in that. >> ism it's a safe assumption you are disappointed with the tea party faction. there was a key chamber vote alert last week saying groups calling for default are clearly less interested in the main

street concerns of businesses large and small. d. feel badly use by some of babies born in the 2012? >> no. we are not a single issue or a single vote organization. we worked very hard for as long as i've been there and as long as bruce has been your, to go after the issues concerned to the business community without crippling the country. i can't stress enough what he default on our foreign debt, not on the debt in a private debt, not on the debt to the federal reserve or any of that, but a real default would put us in a position that changed our position around the world and increase our interest costs and that put us in a very, very challenge of creating jobs and running our economy. we continue to say that. we fundamentally believe it, and

we at the same time thank the members of various different other groups -- i don't like to say tea party. we've all source of people that are weighing in on these issues that come from all types of groups. i'm not sure they are all tea party. i'm not really sure what that is, but maybe that's what republicans and democrats are like. they are not all the same. and we think many of the issues that some of these folks have raised are really important issues. what are we spending? what is a revenue stream? what are we doing about health care? what's going on in this country? but we do believe to advance those interests by putting the country's whole financial system at risk is not a good idea. >> we will start with -- >> i want to ask you about how has the chamber --

[inaudible] >> seriously, i'm glad to have a lot of people trying to get into this issue and getting serious about it. hopefully, we will be able to bring them to a consensus, not on the issues. people have a lot of agreement on the issues, but on the best way to move forward. the chamber continues to do well. we've had an extraordinary continuation of our success in the courts. go back to the end of last year when we had the last one of these debt and deficit issues. i look at what happened on the tax side. i look at what happened on the

sequestration site. i've looked at all that and again way instead, we continue to do well. the most important thing to understand about your question is the two things that we actually do. we are advocates, and we build coalitions of people. and groups to try to get something done. no one organization makes anything happened in this city. bruce josten and his team are probably the best people in this city on building coalitions, bringing large groups of people who differ on other issues. together on specific issues to achieve some consensus. i still think we are doing very well. and i welcome more people to come in and wrote the boat. but if you are rolling, then you've got to be playing.

[inaudible] >> let me back into that question. my own background let's be happy particular clear look at infrastructure and the nation's ability to move its goods and its people and its information. and we have for the longest time avoided taking steps that we need to take to strengthen our infrastructure. steps that would not be driven by incremental expenditures by

the broad population, but would be paid for by user fees. and until we get smart to understand that if our infrastructure is not working well, no matter what part of it is, then it dries down our productivity, increases our accidents, and it has a very negative effect on our society. and by the way, this is one issue that none of us would lose sight of. we drive on the streets in this town. this is the world's capital and any day we'll fall into a single. that should remind us that we need to go forward. make one of the point if i might. i've been in this town a long time. if it's important, its contentious. if it's important and it's expensive or the demands difficult decisions, it's

contentious. contention comes for three reasons. number one, if it's hard you will have disagreement. number two, if it's hard angela disagreement, you better get out there and if you're in the congress, it's a great opportunity to run fundraisers and do things like that. it's a reason some of these things take a little while ago. and, finally, and very, very importantly, sometimes these decisions are not easy. you have to debate them. you have to sort them out and have to figure out what the body politics will stand and what the politicians will vote for. and that's what we do. if there's no contention, we're not looking at the right issues. >> i would have to think of that. one, with respect to the club and the heritage, they have always felt in the way you articulate. that's not new as you know, historically. with infrastructure the problem is far, far bigger than how your question related it.

everybody in town, the administration, the republican party and the democratic party refuses to belly up to the reality that you need to find to tom's point infrastructure. we in the unions and others have been calling for more than a decade to raise the user fee. and inflation index it. but as even ray lahood said last week, the former transportation secretary to this administration, once freed and able to speak openly, he called again for the vehicle mile tax what sh he was chastised on whee was transportation secretary. so everybody is against how to deal with that issue. it's far greater than the tea party. every member of every party, and the entire administration refuses to fund it. they all call for funding and they all call for spending, but they all refuse to pay for it. >> one fact, 20 years since we

had an increase in the federal fuel tax. what kind of a car were you around the table driving 20 years ago? what were the miles per gallon? we are collecting almost half the revenues we were and have not increased in 20 years. spent i want to go down to the shutdown as well. i wonder how much it will factor into your activities going forward, apart from a key vote. >> if you're interested in what we're going to do, we will continue to talk to the members and to our members around the country, and to the leaders in the cities and states where we are very, very active about a rational settlement on the issue of budgets and debt. we will obviously start and end with the question that there is

a gorilla, an elephant in this room that nobody wants to look at. and it is the entitlement expenditures over the long run. and by the way, there is nothing, nothing as big and as compelling and as challenging as it. and what we so they want to do is tell the truth. let's start by telling the truth here. and then when you look at all the rest of it, it's a small problem but if you look at what's happened in the next 10 years, we are going to increase our government outlays by a minimum of $2.5 trillion. that's the governments numbers, not the chambers. those numbers when we get there you will find it will be about 21 or 22% net available at what will be a $6 trillion expenditure. they will be about 20% available to run everything in the government accept entitlements and payments on the debt.

that's challenging. >> peter? >> the obama administration is prepared to -- [inaudible] the administration may put off these issues. >> as we listen over the weekend and sort of get going with a more energy today is this pressure on the administration not to judge any entitlement. by the way, that's an interesting approach. we could just leave it a while and then we would have the next american revolution. have you ever talk to your parents and grandparents of what they think about social security and medicare? in some instances medicaid. they say they i want to me. they must pay this. well, they don't must pay you.

and we have a moral responsibility to get on this. and i hope that the administration, in spite of the pressure on them, begins to understand that. [inaudible] >> i think there are a couple of reasons for that by the way. i think froman, who is now the trade rep, and we've got three, four, pretty hot trade deals going, he's all over the business community in a constructive way. i think the new secretary of commerce has been in business for a long time and she's everywhere. and i think the chief of staff has community with his background on the hill is bringing more people into this and sending the president out to visit. but more important i think they are more quiet catherine's and

pulse taking. and i think we are in better shape than we were. >> on immigration, you said that's an opportunity. with the speaker being as weak as he is and democrats as they are -- [inaudible] what is the realistic reason for that speak us that the question and this principle. we already have a deal out of the senate. remember, we've got another whole year plus of this congress. all of the arguments in the house have been on budget issues, on issues dealing with the debt and sequestration and health care. generally, there is good feeling about the efforts that have been

made in immigration. and by the way, we're doing this together with the afl-cio here and if you put the business community and the afl-cio together, or the labor unions and the more of them, guess what? it is a significant interest group. but there's a lot of support and not as much opposition. look, we've got to get a few things done in the house. i do think you'll pass a great big comprehensive bill but i think they would do three or four more things that have to be in that bill and then will have an opportunity to go to conference. but the best thing about it, just think about it, pass a bill in the senate, passed a bill in the house, go to conference, get a result in of the president sign it. hey, government still works. >> i would suggest that the speaker may be stronger today than he was four weeks ago, number one. he got a standing ovation last week. the conservatives who are fighting them for a month said

no one would challenge you know. i think he's in a better position letting the air out of the proverbial balloon, if you will. that he had to kind to do. the chairman of the steering committee like the speaker has said all year he does intend to move in immigration bill. as a former immigration attorney, and he's been very positive that discussing pathways to legal status going forward. i think the of the concern we have is a committee with a pretty crowded agenda. from immigration to marketplace fairness, a tight timeframe while we have the first i'm going to guess clear the decks of these three new cliffhanger deadlines december, january and february. they will not be that much in the fall. >> by the way, you know what's great about the chandra? bruce and i agree on all the important things and we argued by the things along the margin. i keep saying i think you're probably right, bruce, but to

get to february-march stuff, bring it back closer and closer. everybody is looking for something positive to take home. >> another issue that's been sort of brewing, that's been brewing in congress, especially the democratic side is a push to raise the minimum wage. you're seeing a walkout by fast food workers in many cities. i wonder how the chamber stands on the. i know if we raise the wage periodically over the years. is this something to be fighting? is this something you're taking a position on now, or will in the future? >> one, we didn't support raising the wage in the desert, okay? we had an op-ed in one of the papers locally about it. as you know, the mayor vetoed it. saving some important jobs, what i could read, 1000 people showed up for three or 400 jobs. with historic or not supported

raising the minimum wage and we've done so for all of the economic reasons. it is the first up on the rung of the ladder. it does have some displacement effects, particularly for the least skilled people in society. so i would imagine we would again engage. i do see that being a hot issue through congress, however, anytime in the near future. >> i wanted to ask about -- [inaudible] how serious a threat do you find that to be, how credible a threat to? >> well, i don't know senator cruz. and we are all getting -- watching. i sort of think of him as a tennis player. you know, if you're going to rush the net all the time, you better have a lot of motion to the left and the right. he hasn't proved that to me yet.

but he has his right as a member of the senate to get out and push the things he supports, or retract or insist the things he doesn't support and we'll try to work with him wherever we can. remember the issue. it's not the substance, it's what is the result and how are you going to try to get it done and we will see where it goes. >> when you say work with him, what sort of -- people are assuming the community would like them to sit down and shut up. >> that might be one thing we could work on. [laughter] spent what sort of leverage do you have over him or could you bring to bear over him?

instead of telling everybody how he's going get it done. >> we're going go next to anthony and john, neil, and alex. anthony? >> thank you. i was wondering how the chamber would -- [inaudible] mentioned in your remarks. i want to get your thoughts on president's climate change plan. i guess, specifically,epa's -- [inaudible conversations] >> bruce and i will split that. the way we want to advance our energy agenda is, first of all, a matter of education.

as a mere 15 years ago, -- or less we run around saying where are we getting the energy? from nigeria and the far region of the world. we have a real problem. what with know now, across the board we have every kind of nrnlgt. more than anybody else. it's assessable. we have proven in the last few years we have created a couple of million jobs. just in the last year, in the fracking business, the states picked up $63 billion in income tax, royalty, and individuals that were a part of that with very little stuff coming off the federal lands. you know, we always keep talking now, the administration talk about well, we're going open up the lands. but you don't see the permit. what we have to do is continue the effort to explain to the american people that without

hydrocarbon, we're not going have any jobs. i mean, sure we are all for green energy. we have supported 300 separate green energy-type of bills and projects. many of them didn't get done. we supported them. the fundamental issue is do you think you're going to back away from using hydrocarbon. it's not going to happen. look what is happening in europe. they turned after the nuclear power after what happened in japan. they are increasing the amount of coal they are buying. we like it, we want to sell it to them. while we're using natural gas and try to clean the way we use coal. it's an education, away, -- , by the way, it's a happy education. we're not doing what we try to do in entitlement when we tell them we have to turn the dial back back a little bit. we are telling them we have to turn the dial up. it's going to attract all sorts of manufacturing to the united states. it's going create automatic -- all sorts of job.

it's going help us clean the air. i really think this is a phenomenal opportunity for us. bruce will tell you about the few bills. >> well, i'm sure you know we are suing on the greenhouse deal with epa. a lot of courts have withheld the massachusetts decision dealing with tail pipe. they were silent on -- we think they took latitude in making the decision to go after that. so that this is a process argument legally which the supreme court, obviously, agreed with at least in context in accepting the petition while they rejected so many other petitions. we're not the only one, you know, involved in that. i suspect going farred the judges will ask it be consolidated to one brief would be my guess. that's where that is. we have a extreme legally with how they're approaching it. having said that, to tom's point. we supported essentially energy

e fresh sincerity-type of legislation including the one that is stalled in the senate right now. portman which we would like to see get out as well. we'll don't do that. i think it's important to recognize that is the united states is a single reduction in the green house gas emissions than the countries already to go. if you go back to the kyoto protocome. we're ahead of that. we have achieved it through technological innovations. on the one hand with respect to fracking. on the other hand, we reduce the cost of energy per unit output and manufacturing by close 50% in the past two decades. we'll do that. >> we have done the same thing on mobile. we have driven up mile per gallon. we have done what everybody is talking about doing and hasn't done.

>> [inaudible] some of the chamber's -- [inaudible] agreement and al the prospect for -- [inaudible] >> let's go to the trade promotion authority first. i think this is a growing and very positive sense in both house with both parties. sufficient votes. they know we need it. they know we're going have to have it. we have to find a place on the calendar if tomorrow we had one of the deals coming down the pike and ready go. we didn't have trade promotion authority we would get it. even though they want to doctor up the bill. they know if it isn't -- nobody is going to sign a bill on the other side if they think it's going in for three-year haircut by the house and the senate. on the -- on the bill with the e e.u. and europe this is a very interesting issue. the reason we're so intent about

it is europe, as a an area is our largest export partner. you know, canada and mexico are a largest individual countries. europe is a huge export partner for us. they're in the can. their economy is flat or worse. and according to a lot of economists there, it's not going get much better soon. by the way, it happens to be china's largest export partner, and if their economy is down. that's going hurt us. we're expanded exporting order china. so this is an important thing for everybody to do. and there is generally good feeling in both parties. by the way, it's going to be hard for the unions to oppose a tbil with the european region because they've been telling us for years and years and years

that's the way we ought to be running our economy. they're not going have work rule and labor issues they would have with someone else. we are thinking we are making progress. of course, in a perfect world, by the way, you can't find any. if anybody has some, bring them. we may have done it and done something on export issues including tariff and trade facilitation and so on. when you're doing a trade bill and everybody wants to jump on. we have to do procurement, finance, services, and then so i think we're moving very much in the right direction. remember, then there's the transpacific partnership, which is going, there's a big deal on services with some 50 countries. there's a facilitation agreement. by the way, all of those -- it seems in some way going to get easier as we start resolving issues in one that can apply to

the other. this, along with energy, is a great opportunity for this economy. >> mr. mckenman. >> do you think entitlement problem comes home to roost. in other words, you know, you think there's a possibility of a deal this yew year but not a really good one. when does the hand of the washington get forced on that issue? >> [inaudible] yeah. bruce just mentioned that the social security disability system goes bankrupt in 2016 or '15. but the real issue. the real issue gets very, very difficult after another four years or five years because then you come in and have to use draconian meths. right now we can do a lot of stuff to make it work better, and we're not talking about getting rid of programs.

we're talking about changes along the margin which make a huge difference. nobody is talking about going in and changing everything because somebody is going to retire next thursday. we've got find a way to do it going forward. if we fail to do it and get down to 8, 9, 10 years, i can't see anything but really difficult times for all of us. by the way, remember where the numbers come from. they come from the government and the united states and the only problem with them, if you talk to the medicare overseers and others, they'll tell you that some of the government numbers are a little squishy and probably worse than we're looking at. [inaudible] >> what do you think the likelihood of getting it fixed in the next four or five years is? in other words maybe in this administration? i believe we'll find out.

the president spent the weekend saying he's now open, as he did before the shut down, once the shut down is done to negotiating everything on the table. including entitlement and budget. ryan's protest vote, to me, was more a statement vote against that deal. it didn't address the long-term problems. i think we'll find out in the next few months whether or not a framework evolves out of negotiation to take us where your question ends up. >> we have about 20 minutes. we're going go to neil monroe, alex, mark shields, cathy, and susan. neil? >> thank you. sorry. -- [inaudible] very complicated but sunday that -- [inaudible] make it harder for republicans to sign a deal. is there any concern on your side that this will make it

immigration deal -- [inaudible] >> i have serious concerns about trust all around in town right now. which suggests to me the way you get out of that problem is with serious leadership not with a lot of talk. and we need leadership in the business community, we need leadership in the house. we need leadership in the senate, we need leadership in the white house. the president, after the deal, was -- his first comments were he wanted to get on with a number of issues. the first thing he said was an immigration bill. if he wants to do it, he will advance it in part by supporting it but he will also advance in part by helping us, getting involved, and helping us come to a satisfactory and a progressive -- meaning moving forward, set of solutions on taxes spend and entitlements. he will not get there if he

doesn't do what he said he's going do is now get involved and negotiate on these issues of high significance. [inaudible] >> the president would not -- play a central role in the budget -- [inaudible] >> they do that, don't they? if he plans to get a budget deal, history is very clear. the most successful administration, i won't even say presidents. the people that get intimately -- those that get intimately involved in leaving and working with the other leaders in town to get these things done. and there are a lots of things on the agenda. and the president would benefit, in my opinion, on becoming more

active. i think it would give him a better chance to get a good result and send a signal that not only in these areas but others here and around the world he's going to be more active and i think that is in the interest of the united states of america. at the same time the president publicly stated in a recent meeting that i've been in at the white house across the chamber. my proposal on cpi and others dealing with entitlement and reducing cost of medicare is still on the table for negotiation with the republicans. can't be both ways. >> alex? [inaudible] >> go back to whether you will get involved more aggressively in primaries next year. do you worry there's nothing you can do? a will a lot of conservative groups pointed out if you get a candidate -- and republican primaries don't intend to work out very well. do you worry about that? there's nothing you can do? >> no.

>> do you elaborate on that? >> no. [laughter] >> okay. >> but i don't worry about it. we will see what cards are dealt, and we will react in the best way in the interest of the american business community and the american country and our fellow citizens. >> mark? >> jon, taking note of the cooperation with the aflcio provides that 50 years ago, this country dealt with -- [inaudible] and that was racial segregation. and the leadership of that movement, as you and i both know, we came was under the organized labor. at considerable cost to themselves.

[inaudible] just looking at historically. can you give us an example with the chamber has taken, plans to take sort of an unselfish -- [inaudible] >> well, first just to continue on the history lesson, we have been very actively engaged in two ways with labor. we might with them on a lot of things. it's sort of, you know, they're the -- gladiators with them on one group and another. we have huge activities going on as we discussed a few minutes ago on the fracture in this country. and many of the labor unions are significant supporters in the coalition. we work on a host of other issues. sometimes a little quieter than publicly.

we do a lot of stuff. we have worked on immigration with with many of the labor unions. we find ways to work with people on both sides. the question of whether we have in mind a great move forward like this country found i.t. -- itself in for a series of reasons. i was thinking about this myself. you and i are getting old. we have been sitting around thinking about things. [laughter] for the 50th anniversary on the martin luther king issue. i thought about two things, first, i thought what martin luther came to give the speech -- you know the tight of the speech was about jobs. and second, i thought if there's one place where we have not achieved that objective, at the great sacrifice he offered is we really have heard that community

in term of k through 12 education. if you don't have a fundamental education it's very, very hard to compete in a world that was then. it's much, much harder to compete now with all of the demand of the manufacturing sector and technology and global economies. and so i think if there is a place where we can achieve some historic movement, it's going to object in education. and, you know, the unions, the teachers unions are at odds with many of the other unions about education. and certainly with union members who, in many communities, are frustrated about the education their children are getting. while other communities are getting -- in the public sector, are getting phenomena education. i think some coalition between

unions and business -- we're working together on this. between democrats and republicans between every group in this country has got a fundamentally say every child should have an opportunity to get a quality education. they can't compete without it. this could be the next big thing. >> another question. -- [inaudible] to support the bill to avoid default and the shut down. was this vote, in your view, a line in the sand. as you look ahead to next year and whether to get involved in primary and the support. and along the lines we'll have -- in two weeks, voters in new jersey and virginia go to the polls on the two governor's races. i'm wondering for you think the races tell you about the state of the republican party right now, and if there are any lessons for next year's midterms. >> the first point i would like

to make -- i think that's a good question. the first point i would like to make. when you look at the vote, how many people voted for and against in the house? it's a free vote. everybody knew they were going as many democratic votes as you needed to get it there. a good number of those who voted were either making a statement, as ryan was, or -- or, they were voting to avoid an unnecessary primary. but when we get down to the serious business at hand of voting on the critical issues for this country, i think you'll see a more attractive ratio of votes for and against. second, let me take the issue of the states. we generally don't do -- we're involved in the state supreme court, state attorney general. and every now and then a governor's race that we believe

is fundamental to the national interest of the country and of the business community. i don't know what is going to happen in those races. terrorist a lot of money from coming from around the country in to those races because people are trying to position themselves -- not for '14 but for '16. the whole question of what we're going do really comes down to this: we're not looking at -- remember, we don't do -- everybody, we don't do presidential politics. can't be all around the world the way we are, talking to heads of state, giving talks, and be playing in presidential politics. we don't do it. we do the house, the senate, the state supreme court, state attorney general, and occasionally odds and ends that run across our major issues.

but, you know, we really believe -- we really believe that it is in our interest to be vigorous in those races. and our first deal is sequential is 2014 is the house. let me be saying we don't do presidential politics. let me say something that sounds a little bit about like presidential politics. on behalf of the american business community, given u -- a choice i would not like to see the administration with the white house, the senate, and the house. i think it would be a long two years. and so you could be sure that we'll be very vigorous in the house. we'll also participate in the senate. we'll support -- to some peoples' discomfort. numbers of democrats in both houses. the bottom line is it's all

about the economy. and for us all about the american business community and all about the country. remember, 101 years ago we were founded for two things; to help and support the american business community, and help our country when it's in trouble. >> cathy? >> could you give me a sense of the timeline. what evaluation of the landscape are expecting? when, when will you pull the trigger on saying this is the depth we're going go. this is how vigorous we're going go. and finally, what is the funding level you're saying you need? we're going need two times, three times what we've had in the past. >> the honest answer is sometime next year. we had -- we'll start in q1 we have nine regional public affair task force that name to the national public -- that ultimately consolidate and

make the recommendation to the chamber's board. the board meeting isn't until essentially end of february, early march. to tom's earlier point, we're doing internal research here and on the ground. we're obviously going to share the information with the task force as well as gain their own. and that process will start the first quarter. we haven't even had an enforcement meeting yet. >> hiring up to do that? we have exmanned -- expanded our regional field staff by three up from about 14. and we've got three more pending that we plan to hire shortly. >> we will approach these races based on the experience we gain last time around which we do regular i are. -- regularly. we're expand, with as bruce indicated. our staff on the ground. we will further expand and use

-- we will continue our effort of engaging state and local chambers at the much more aggressive level than in past years. we will hire some consult assistants where needed and spend what it takes. [inaudible] the business community has -- let me give you a fact -- we have all kinds of members. we get 300,000 little members. we have all the big companies, almost all of them. and there are democrats and republicans all through the business communities. there are democrats and republicans all through the chamber. so while we -- the press in particular, as always built this relationship between business and republicans. i spend as much of my time

talking to democratic leaders because, you know, we have traditionally known where some of the votes were going to be. we were looking for how we could, you know, -- if i didn't spend a lot of time talking to the union leaders how would we have made deal in the senate on immigration? i wouldn't worry so much about labels. what we need do is talk to those who are leaders or portend or want to be leaders and going forward. it is our business to deal with everybody that has got a role in that from the white house to the leader in the senate on both sides and the leader on the house on both sides. i'm not particularly worried about some great failure of our relationship. seem to me they are getting bigger. anybody who wants one. let me ask you -- en--

>> where should we go now? >> thing is fairly clear. we should, as we would with any huge, huge piece of legislation, we should take a very clear look at what is working. what is not working, what needs fixing, what needs time table challenge. what needs reconsideration. i've said all along and produce -- bruce has said all along. there's no way you're going get rid of the bill. i mean, so suppose somebody could get the votes to defund if in the house. i don't think you can get the votes in the senate. and sure as hell couldn't override a veto. whether you thought it was a good idea or a bad idea, you probably ought not spend lot of time on it. instead, we believe there's lots that can be done to make this bill more what it was originally intended to be instead of what

happened when, you know, the people that got in to start writing this bill took a good idea and just continued to write and write and write. we have now got bring it back to a reality. [inaudible] >> i think system of it will work. i'm bag little smart about this. i think some will work if we leave it alone for awhile. they have to face up to the fundamental questions, will they do it on time? whether it work? and what the hell is going to happen to the computer system. >> last question, eleanor. >> you said a minute about so you spend what it takes. you didn't want unified government. i would assume it you want to keep the house republicans. secondly, the president has put suggestions about entitlement reform out there, but he seems to want revenue in return. would -- simpson bowls --

said you have to have the increase revenue. would the chamber and business community support closing loopholes or some sort of way of getting rv new to get a deal? >> you go first. i'll go second. >> sure thing. all along, we knead clear we're not an opponent to increase revenue. there's a lot of way to increase revenue. to your point, yeah, the president has said that. i would say his chances of getting another tax rate increase on top of the $$6 20 billion in january. is equivalent to the republicans trying to defund obamacare. it won't happen. >> there are a couple of -- >> not say you can't get the revenue. okay. [inaudible] we should dynamically restore tax reform and new jersey, which tom has mentioned at length has huge opportunities generate revenue. the immigration bill could generate revenue. >> i think it's important

understand that in the upper income brackets, there are huge hidden taxes. for example, you know people over in the higher incomes, i think it's over 250 individual and over 500. they pay on every dollar of revenue they make all the way to the top in medicare. and so many of them have added 4 or 5 percent to the overall rate. if you look at obamacare, there's another point in there plus a 25% negative effect on the capital gains tax. there are taxes hidden all over the place in addition to the ones we have recognized. the bottom line here, we're willing to sit down and talk about ways to continue to strength strengthen the nation's economy. ..

that make it better for companies by giving up some deductions to get some benefits. we are wide open to talking about fixing this country. we are just not wide open to continued this deal. harry reid said we won't talk to anyone and thus we get $8 trillion worth of new income tax. good luck harry, ain't happening. >> i hear you talk about the top brackets and all the studies recently that showed growing

inequality in income and assets of the country and i wonder do you think there's a certain point where it might be bad for business if the middle class is so hollowed out and there is increased wealth all on one and? >> by the way i think i was listening to your question very carefully and then you got to the right question. am i concerned about the middle-class? hell yes and that's what i'm talking so much and mark and i were exchanging about the education issue. issue. there are great opportunities for people. we have taken away 45 jobs in manufacturing. they are gone and they are never coming back. information technology process engineering robotics and supply-chain management. we could still hire one or 1.5 million people today to go into the manufacturing business if they had adequate education

and additional people that we would get through infrastructure. my view view is there's a lot we have to do about the middle-class but there's one thing we should never do. we should never say that we are going to do what lennon thought was a good idea which was to screw down the people that make money and pay the bills to make everybody feel good while you kill the goose that lays the golden egg and thank you egg and thank you very much. >> thank you tom. thank you bruce. a strong close. [laughter] >> thanks for coming.

c-span's studentcam video contest asks what's the most important issue congress should should consider in 2014?

>> i think we are getting a complex message. we are in the middle of the sociological revolution. young women are told they have to have a great career. they have to be great mother said they have to be then. they have to be good looking and manage the house well and there is a sense of entitlement. i can do everything better young man does and that includes having a glass of wine or two after work, drinking to wind down and women tend to medicate depression and anxiety and loneliness. i think there's a lot of anxiety in this generation in terms of how do i manage it all? when we look at who is drinking the most we are seeing professional women be educated women and i don't think this is what gloria steinem had in mind.

the supreme court earlier this month her to campaign finance case on how much individuals can donate to political candidates or parties. current federal campaign laws restrict the aggregate amount an individual can contribute to all federal candidates in a two-year election cycle to $48,600. and $74,600 to political parties. the oral argument in the case of mccutcheon versus the federal election commission has just under one hour. >> we will he'll argument in

case 12536 mccutcheon versus the federal election commission. ms. murphy. >> mr. chief justice may it please the court. contribution limits are an attempt to legalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest space of congress imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption. these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns it hypothesizes are addressed by the multitude of direct and dice are conventional conventional -- >> how is that? >> it imposes numerous measures. for instance we have few american traditions on the air making contributcontribut ions for a candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures with a candidate. their proliferations restrictions on creating

multiple pacs designed -- >> all of those were one but for one of ugly versus valeo and i guess the court thought something could happen like the following. candidate smith can only give him $2600. he has a lot of supporters. 40 of them gets a -- in each of the 40 puts on the internet a little sign that says sam smith pac. this money goes to people like sam smith. great people. now we can give each of those $45,000. they are not coordinated or established by single person and each is independently run. we know pretty well that total of 5000 times four will go to sam smith. what does that by late? >> there a couple of problems with that your honor.

first of all their base limits both, be given to aipac. >> $5000. >> and of what a pac can give to a candidate. >> $5000 so all we have is my $5000 going to the pac so 5000 times 4000. how much is that? i am not good at math. >> into mark and proliferation. >> there is no air marking. the air marking requires that you write on a check or in a company letter that you want the money to go to someone. >> actually it does not. the fec in earmarking regulations are broader than that. if you have a pac that wants to contribute to one candidate -- >> they will contribute to several because they will get more than 100 trades be in that case you don't have the traceability you are talking about because there's more money coming into the pac that can find its way to anyone

candidate. >> i would say if you named the pac after a particular candidate after the hypothetical assumes i would be surprised if the federal election commission wouldn't come after you for earmarking. >> lets say this one. you have 100 pacs and each of them say they are going to support the five candidates in the most contested senate races. there are really only five contested senate races and 100 pacs say they are going to support those five candidates so a donor gives $5000 to each of those 100 pacs which support those candidates. the pac divides up the money. $1000 goes to each candidate. the total of all those pacs $100,000 goes to each of the senate candidates in the five most contested races. 20 times what the individual contribution limits allow.

>> a couple of responses to that your honor. first of all we are talking about no coordination between the first person who makes the contribution and the candidate leader on the receiving end. >> he knows all of his 100,000-dollar donors. there aren't that many of them and he they can keep them all in his mental head and a rolodex. >> they are contributing to a pac that is contributing to multiple candidates. >> five most contested senate races a person gives $100,000 to each candidate so if they win become the five senators that are most attuned to donors and he knows who is giving him $100,000. each of those five senators who gets in on the strength of these contributions that are 20 times what the individual limits allow. >> i don't think it works to think of these is direct contributions in excess of the base limits because the pac has

limited itself and how much you can contribute. see what we are trying to do and it's hard to do and a court that what we are trying to do in both our cases is that we look at the rules and regulations and what she discovered and it may be wrong and i will look at it again if there has been no significant change in the air marking rules or any of the rules you are talking about but for one. the one change, the one change is the change that all contributions made by political communities established or financed or maintained or controlled by a single person who count as one. what you're seeing in these hypotheticals are simply the construction of the cicely the same situation that existed in buckley while being careful to not have one person control 4000

pacs which is pretty easy to do. if you want to say is this a reality turn on your television set or internet. we found instances without naming names where it certainly is a reality. >> to responses. there are changes in air marking more than what you have suggested because the restrictions and regulations cover more than the statute itself and specifically they cover instances of a pac that is only contributing one candidate which is where a lot of the concern comes from. >> and just wanting to be clear what your answer to justice kagan's your hypothetical. it's part of your answer in the hypothetical she gives contravening earmarking? >> it composes of earmarking concerns into liberation concerns. if we are talking about a pac -- >> part of your answer to the hypothetical isn't real or isn't

going to happen or it can't happen under the existing law? >> that is part of the answer. i don't think it's realistic scenario under existing regulations. >> with the other side concede that this is true? >> i doubt they would concede that it's true but i think if you look at it and you have a bunch of pacs getting contributions from the same group of individuals who are going to run into the earmarking and proliferation restrictions but the other thing i would say -- >> and imagine if you have a pac that says we are going to give money to smith and that's bad but if you have a pac that says we are going to give all the money you contribute to us to smith and jones that's okay or smith jones and three others. it seems to me that is earmarking. >> exactly. if you know it's a contribution -- >> you think is earmarking a pac that gives money to the five most candidates in the five most contested senate races i don't

think any fec would say that's earmarking. >> i may have an overly suspicious mind that if i saw 100 pacs rise up and all of them said exactly the same thing, we are going to make contribution to the most contested candidates in the five most contested senate races i would be suspicious and maybe the fec would also be suspicious but they didn't spring up independently. >> i think that's absolutely right. >> suppose the number of pacs and i forget the number and justice kagan's can give an example say we are going to get to congressional and senatorial candidates who want to cut down on governmental spending and we know we have for people that are like that. [laughter] >> at that point you know we have a court that is not saying with any certainty what they are going to do. it's not the target there because the pac might be

spending money in different ways that are not operating as a conduit for circumvention so i think that he gets again to why this doesn't happen with the coordination you need. >> there are 150 house candidates with completely safe seats, all right? there may be 30 or 40 or something like that in their party who don't have safe seats so the 150 get together and they say we are going to run a joint fund-raiser and anybody can contribute $2600 to each of these mandates, 150 of them are right? that makes $450,000 then these 150 candidates with completely safe seats transfer all this money to the one person who doesn't have a safe seat so that's about $400,000 and double it for a primary in a general

election that's $800,000. if all goes to one candidate from one donor because of the ability for candidates to transfer money to each other. >> that is not legal justin kagan -- just as kagan. the candidates do not have the ability to transfer money. >> they can transfer from a candidate to an election. >> that's a contribution. that's a hard conservation limit on how much they can contribute that this gets to another problem which is there is an overbreadth of the problem because if you're talking about the scenario in your scenario there's only one person who can make a contribution. at that point after the first $2600 -- >> you are exactly right ms. murphy. one person could make an 800,000-dollar contribution to a house race where $800,000 goes a long way and then what these 150 candidates can do is they can do

it for every single other candidate in a contested seats so take your 30 or 40 house contested seats and it becomes a conduit for single person to make an 800,000-dollar contribution to a candidate in a contested district. >> even if you accept this scenario for all of these candidates are independently deciding to give all their money to one candidate you can have a lot designed to keep this one person from circumvention i prohibiting everyone else from engaging in contributions that don't -- >> ms. murphy can you give us an idea of whose expression is at stake? most people couldn't come even near the limit so what percentage -- is there any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the

aggregate? >> i don't know the percentage on how many are able. we are not talking about a large number of individuals and talking about more individuals than the first amendment rights indicated in davis for example. >> i assume it prohibits the speech of 2% of the country is okay. >> absolutely not. >> ms. murphy we haven't talked yet about the effect of the aggregate limits on the ability of donors to give the minimum amount to as many candidates as they want. the effect of the aggregate limits as to limit someone's contribution of the maximum amount to nine candidates. >> that's right. >> is there a way to eliminate that aspect while retaining some of the aggregate limits? in other words is that a necessary consequence in any way you have aggregate limits or are there alternative ways of enforcing the aggregate

limitation that don't have that consequence? >> it's certainly a necessary consequence of the scheme in which there is a distinct aggregate limit on contributions to candidates alone. i think aggregate limits will always have the effect of preventing people giving contributions for quick probe will government concerns. there are narrower avenues to get to that pim if the concern is gentle -- joint fund-raising -- >> i'm a little confused. i'm confused because we are talking in the abstract. this decision was based on the notion to dismiss and there is a huge colloquy about what happens in doesn't happen. we don't have a record for those. i can go into the news is justice breyer suggested. it's very hard to think that any candidate doesn't know the contributor has enough money to give not only to himself or

herself but to any of his or her affiliates supporting him or her. it's nearly common sense hard to dispute so you are saying it can't happen but i don't see charges of coordination going on that much. >> i guess i'm not sure what you're talking about happening. if you you are just talking about knowing some individuals are making contributions to other candidates or state parties who are not going to share those contributions with a particular candidate then i don't see how that's right. >> i won't name the candidate that you see a picture of the candidate. there is a sign that says smith pac. that is what it says. then it says make a donation to help smith pac support republican or democratic candidates period.

and then they have an address. it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they are going to do with the money and maybe smith will get a pretty good share of it. if smith has 400 people who figure this out he will have 400 times five dozen times one person. you say that really couldn't happen because of the designation but we haven't found a designation that will stop it. >> justice sotomayor is saying i don't know and i don't either because there has been no hearing, bears been no evidence presented and there's nothing but dismissal. >> to point your honor. first of all the case was briefed on case motion for injunctive relief so the government had an opportunity to make a record and it chose to treated as a legal case. >> ms. murphy do we need a record to figure at issues of law? >> that is my second law -- point. >> i agree that this campaign-finance law is so

intricate that i can't figure it out. it might've been nice to have you know the lower court tell me what the law is that we don't normally require a record to decide questions of law. >> and you shouldn't need one here either because the limits are facially overran underinclusive. >> you are taking a position that the law stops corruption. and you are suggesting that the government is incapable of showing facts that the law doesn't work as it is? don't you need facts to prove or disprove that? >> even if the government could prove that proposition there would still be an over and under rep problem and i would like to reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. biersack -- burchfield. >> may it please the court.

this aggregate does not pass scrutiny. senator mcconnell believes all the restrictions of this nature should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. to begin with this is a severe restriction on political speech. >> mr. burchfield i would like you to address this question about the restriction on speech because it has been argued that these limits promote expression promote democratic for dissipation because what they require the candidate to do is instead of concentrating fund-raising on the super affluent the candidate would then have to try to raise money, more broadly in the electorate so that having these limits you are promoting democratic for dissipation and the little people will count some and you won't have the super affluent as

the speakers that will control the election. >> your honor i district read with that for this reason. first of all the aggregate limit on political parties places like-minded political parties in the position of competing against each other rather than collaborating against each other. all the national political parties on the republican side and the state local parties compete for an artificially limited pool of money from each contributor. the same is true on the candidate's side. they compete against each other for the same artificially limited pool of money even though each individual contribution to the candidate or the party is limited by the days limits. the federal election commission aces and justice breyer i would propose you look at section 1. section 1. -- 110.18 which prohibits eight pac of the nature described if a person contributes to a pac

going to particular candidate that is an earmark under the federal election commission. >> counsel, is that correct that the consequence of this provision has been very severe with respect to national political parties? >> it is your honor particularly in the current environment with the political parties being marginalized. >> a bunch of the money that used to go to them now goes to pacs, isn't that what has happened? >> exactly right. >> so this is really you know turning the dials on regulating elections. why would members of congress want to hurt their political parties? can i answer it by an answer to myself? [laughter] ..

this aspect does or does not have the same tendency. this is why ask him how can i decide this on the basis of eerie when the record previously showed that contrary what's been argued and in fact at least my showed that in respect to deployment. >> your honor, this case comes to the court as an applied challenge. mr. mccutchen does not want to go through the committees are talking about. he wants to write checks directly to the candidates and directly to committees. he is constrained by the aggregate limit. >> he could write checks to everyone he wants to write checks to. >> if he wanted to give a contribution to every candidate running for federal congressional seat, he would be limited to $86.

>> on its own case, it would be something over a thousand dollars, right? he identified farmer candidate. but he could give each of them over a thousand dollars. >> your honor, he could hear that he can come your diminishing his rate by applying this aggregate. >> people will be allowed to put together the national committee for a committees, all the candidates in the house and senate. it comes to over $3.5 million. so i can write checks totaling $3.5 million to the republican party committees or the democratic party committees come even before i start writing checks to independent packs. having a check for 3.5 or so million dollars to a single party's candidates, are you suggesting that party and the

members of the party are not going to own me anything? that i won't get any special treatment? i thought that was exactly what we set in mcconnell, what we talk about restrictions, we understood you get $3.5 million coming in a very, very special place at the table. this is a fact ugly to reintroduce the soft-money scandal about, caught is not? >> no, your honor. it is absolutely not. but, that with a situation where you're not going to base limits. take your example of the joint fundraising committee. the joint fundraising, which is three pages in the federal code of regulations come as one of 2.17 c. specifically reaffirms the base limits. it specifically reaffirms that does the joint fundraising committee must inform all contributors of those