tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 23, 2015 7:01pm-8:00pm EDT
the police, local law enforcement. trainingld be more with local law enforcement. i spoke with local prosecutors somebody come to them and said i have been scanned from the cops say, that was kind of stupid, why did you do that, and they have to be trained. i understand the justice department it's getting involved in training. at the local level, there has to be better training. in some communities, there are task forces. in seattle, san diego, where different groups of come together and really created a public space, and that can help.
blago, a fellow named paul greenwood, -- san diego, an attorney, hetrict is well known, and one of the people we profiled was involved in a scam, he sent money in a skin come and then he thought better of it, and told a friend, friend went to paul greenwood's office, and the payment was able to be stopped. it can work it people, not always, if people report it quickly and they know where to go. on the local level, i am not sure that always happens. rooks:entative b thank you. representative burgess: the gentleman from kentucky.
representative: i was going to ask the biggest takeaways you got from the seniors, but what in your article, but what -- is there a common thread -- isolation, so when the phone rings they answer the phone and engage in conversation. are there several things that are common? ms. stanger: one common thread is that -- in many of them they were acting badly because they wanted to provide for somebody for children or grandchildren. they thought this would be great, they are getting these winnings, and it can help the. there was a priestly profile. he was hoping to get the money and fund the school. the scammers know this. they know how to push those emotional buttons, and that is what is sad.
the older people who were , i've been told and it seems to be true for my research , they get scammed for bigger amounts of money. younger people, maybe, are a little more likely to report, and maybe they do not go as far. but in general, it is because -- they really trusted these scammers at some point, and the other major thing is they were told do not tell anybody. so they kept it themselves, because they were afraid of what would happen if they did tell, and that is why they were scammed. finally, it is somebody caught on or they themselves thought this is not sounding right, and the report it. it is secrecy. do yountative guthrie: think we should be looking for in our district -- but i have a
friend who had an older brother that was being scammed for several hundred thousand dollars get him they could not to stop. there is no legal weight because he was and it all. -- there was no legal weight because he was an adult. it is just scamming and keeps going? .hat is the trust they built it was the trust that they built with the scanner. which is an oxymoron. ms. stanger: it is true. the worstely, some of cases, the repeat cases, they develop a relationship with a scammer. and relatives are saying you cannot do this, dad. no, and they trust the scammer more than they trust the adult child. know what tos to ay except that once this is
senior can at least be told, you know what, if they can be shown some of the things that are not -- that do not make sense, then maybe they will start to realize, you know, this web address, does not seem right, it does not have a .gov at the end. some of these things the seniors s, that think about, url' somebody younger just knows. the pop-up that says microsoft withyou have a problem your computer. a lot of people, i am not going there, but somebody who is not as familiar will not know. it is just education. victims specialist in los angeles said that were some of the victims she dealt with him if you are done something, a script to put next to the phone so when somebody called they knew what to say.
preparation. it is almost an addiction for some people, sadly. guthrie:ative professor wallace, i was going to ask him a but i did not get your answer, what friends in your online program, and are there some sessions popular more than others? certainly a trend toward mobile devices. navigate greater divider -- we have a creator variety of devices coming in -- we had a greater variety of devices coming in. we triede thing that to get across to our learners is .hat we do not know everything even tutors to know everything, but we have ways of approaching something new.
it may be a new device, but it could be a new website or service of some kind. it,e ways of looking at checking it out, making sure it is legitimate, and moving on. there's certainly a greater diversity of both in terms of the physical -- but in terms of the kinds of services people are using. that means we have to teach them a more agile way of approaching the technology. cannot just teach them how to gmail in its current form, because if we lock them into that, it will change over time, and so we need to teach these deeper skills and it is getting back to the approachest types of to you used in the physical world to ensure yourself if this is something legitimate and
proceed from there. we tried of techniques to transfer them over to this digital world. representatives guthrie: thank you, an ideal back. representative burgess: i think the gentleman. the chair will recognize himself or five minutes for questions. i didn't let the other members go first because i knew we were coming up on a vote, but it looks like we got enough time to , before weis recorded our votes. ms. stanger i want to know what kind of response you had from the article that he did to "consumer reports"? people who deal
with lawyers and communities, they are happy it is out there because they think it gets the word out. apparently the ftc called this dramatic group to congratulate them, and maybe they will work together. that would be great. i have not looked at the letters we have got recently, so i do not know what readers are saying. we just having is on the cover of a national magazine will get people to think more about its and think about it in their own lives. representative burgess: it drives the interest factor. professor wallace, you may have noticed you have arrived in a digital-free zone. it is ironic because we are the principal committee in the united states house of representatives that deals with technology and communications, and they provide us with a pad of paper and a pencil. so there is room for improvement. you, in thed to ask
health care space, we have something known as syndrome like surveillance, where tissue sales sales at astant drugstore may be an early tipoff that there is a flu epidemic in a community. is there any way to use that kind of surveillance in your world where there is an increased level of scamming activity? i remember reading as a kid in the newspaper, they would call than pigeon drops were somebody would come to town and take people, sof f be careful. is there any way in the digital world that you have of getting tipped off and getting information out that there is an uptick in this type of activity? mr. wallace: i do not know of any effort in that regard, but you have given me a great idea to take that to some of my faculty colleagues at michigan tech who work in that space.
if it does not exist, i think that is a great idea. representative burgess: i do not open as possible, but i also did not know -- about the little scratch off money cards that people have. i do not know you could do that. i do not know if there's any way of watching the kind of activity . that seems like money laundering to me. ms. stanger: i understand the green. card does the have that capability anymore, so they are trying to eliminate that. but the scammers come up with new things. somebody told me that now the iphone cards -- representative burgess: apple pay. as stanger: i did of it that. is being used. they move up through payments, the figure it out, unfortunately. representative burgess: they are much more facile than united states congress.
and both of you have mentioned it has come up in several questions, the isolation factor and how that is used an almost monetized to reach -- to take advantage of people. part to know how to overcome that except making families aware that that is a risk factor in this population. mr. wallace: it is ironic because the isolation is something that really motivates their computer use, at least in our case. do not haveple relatives nearby, so a great way to communicate is through social media, and so the irony is of course then they are isolated and do not have feedback. but hopefully we are providing a service for them that does provide that. working together as peers and mentors who know is a help. representative burgess: and as a
general families to be on the look out, but you know there is a family member who is a isolated, that they are at risk for being targeted for this type of activity. professor wallace, one last that question, off-topic, you reference that facebook was for old people. what is up with that? mr. wallace: i'm just echoing the sentiments of my children who say that young people do not use it anymore. representative burgess: so where are they? mr. wallace: in they are going to tell me. representative burgess: a development, all right. i will yield back the balance of my time and seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions for this panel, i want to thank our witnesses for being here today. before we conclude, i would like to submit the following document for the record, by unanimous consent from a story by ms.
stanger. without objection, so ordered. days tohave 10 business spend additional questions with a record, and i asked the witnesses to submit their responses within 10 business days of receipt of such questions. without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: mike wallace is -- lillis is senior reporter with "the hill," here to talk about the week ahead in congress. your piece along with your co-worker has the headline, ryan has votes to become speaker. tell us about that. guest: it's quite a week for paul ryan. he said all along he didn't want the job.
even accepting it, he said i'm doing this reluctantly and only because there seems to be a void of leadership elsewhere. he had to convince these conservatives who pushed john boehner out of the position and blocked kevin mccarthy from replacing john boehner, and they have been the roadblock all along. so paul ryan met with them and he knew they'd have demands, the same demands they had of kevin mccarthy he didn't go in blind and had a week to think about it in the columbus day recess. what he did was a very deft maneuver on his part. he kind of turned the tables on them and said, you have demands, well i have demands too. he went in and said, these -- i'll accept the speakership if you guys endorse me. and i have these -- this list of demands, so he met with the freedom caucus, the far right guys, there's about 40 of them.
it's a shadowy group. we still don't know everybody who is in that group. and by all accounts, he met with them on wednesday. they emerged from that meeting very quiet about what they were going to do, and then the freedom caucus met later that night, late-night gathering, and without paul ryan in there, and when they came out they said, they kind of split the baby. they had it both ways. they said we didn't endorse him by our internal rule, we didn't get 80% of the members behind paul ryan, but we got about 70% of them, and that's enough to give him the 218 votes he needs on the house floor to become the speaker to replace john boehner. and so ryan said i'll take it. and so that's where we are. ryan, by all accounts, will become the next speaker, and it seems like john boehner will get to leave washington by october 30, which is what he wanted all along.
host: tell us about the process on thursday, the house speaker election when the entire house will vote, assuming that it's paul ryan. what does that mean for democrats? how are they expected to vote? guest: the democrat wills vote for nancy pelosi, almost unanimously. that's typically what they do. she'll run and they'll vote for her. there might be a couple of dissenters, you usually have one or two who will vote for somebody else. they won't help paul ryan or any republican. there was talk of that early if ryan didn't do it and nobody else could get 218 rather than have an empty chair and stall things legislatively, would some moderate republican run with the help of democrats? that didn't pan out, ryan accepted, and so that whole route was just erased. it won't be necessary. we'll see how many republican
votee he does get. 247 republicans, boehner won't vote because he's leaving. 246, he needs 218. the number is not terribly important but it will give you an idea of those who are still very wary that ryan is not conservative enough to lead this conference. host: thursday is also a deadline day as well for legislation. that's the day the highway funding runs out. your headline, or the headline in "the hill" says congress has one week to prevent a federal highway funding shutdown. what are the house and senate expected to do? guest: the senate has already passed its bill. it's a six-year bill, but only three years of it are paid for. and so the house says, no way we're taking that thing up, you need to pay for all of it. the house transportation committee passed its own bill, $325 billion. but what they did is they kicked the offset question, the how are you going to pay for it, to the ways and means committee. they kind of punted on that. they shifted responsibility there. and so everybody is waiting to
see what the ways and means committee would do. of course, paul ryan is the head of that committee, now he's going to become the speaker. so everything is kind of thrown up in the air, and in the midst of all that chaos, everybody thinks they'll pass a short-term bill and buy him some more time until things settle down on the leadership front. this is all necessary because the gas tax has traditionally paid for transportation projects, it's 18.4 cents per gallon, and that brings in about $34 billion a year but the transportation department spends about $50 billion. they're trying to find the $16 billion per year shortfall, in effect. no easy task on capitol hill to find that much money these days. host: one more item as they face the november 3 deadline on the debt limit running out according to treasury secretary, nancy pelosi and democrats telling reporters the debt limit hike
was nonnegotiable. will we see action on that next week? guest: we'll have to. the treasury department has been adamant that this is a drop dead deadline. they're not just playing politics with this. you know, it's funny. leaders in both parties want to do this. mitch mcconnell in the senate have both said they won't allow -- mitch mcconnell in the senate and john boehner in the house have both said they won't allow the government to default. the question is how are they going to convince their conservative members to get on board? the last time this came up, john boehner only got 28 republicans in the house and that was with more democratic help. this time around he needs at least 30, so the question is where is he going to find them? the talks are well under way. the white house very much involve the four principals on capitol hill, harry reid, mitch mcconnell, nancy pelosi, and john boehner. what the democrats were saying, this is nonnegotiable, is what president obama has been saying for a year. that's not news. it's just them staying on the same page and amplifying that
threat. we want a clean bill, we'll talk to you about negotiations on government spending, not with the threat of default hanging over our heads. host: lots to do in the week ahead. read more at thehill.com. mike lillis, senior reporter for "the hill." thanks for being here. thank you so much for having me. housecer: yesterday the committeenghazi meeting lasted for 11 hours. right now a few minutes of 's testimony.nton i do not want anything said about me to take heroic efforts
that the diplomatic security officers exhibited. the five men who were with chris and sean smith risked their lives repeatedly and were threat.es under grave i wanted to point out even when we try to get it right, which we do try, sometimes there are andtended consequences there is an example out of this tragedy. coming out of previous assessments of attacks on facilities, we now have safe havens, safe rooms in facilities, particularly residences. the diplomatic security officers were able to get both chris and sean into that safe room. of course, the idea behind the safe room, why security experts advocated for them, was to
protect our civilians, our diplomats from attacks like the one that was occurring. the attackers used diesel fuel to set the compound on fire. and the safe room was anything but safe. i'm sure the committee members know that neither chris stevens nor sean smith died from injuries directly inflicted by the attackers. they both died of smoke inhalation. and one of the recommendations in this arb report is that when we have safe havens, we need to have equipment that will enable people that are safe within them to withstand what happened in benghazi. the lead diplomatic security officer who was with both the ambassador and sean smith
endeavored to lead them to safety through a wall of black smoke. he wanted to get them out of the compound interior up to the roof, where they could be out of the fire, and also out of the attackers' assault. he, himself, nearly died of smoke inhalation. when he looked around to make sure that both sean and chris were with him, he couldn't find them. rather than proceeding and saving himself, which would be a natural human instinct, he turned back into that black diesel smoke desperately trying to find chris and sean. he did find sean, and sean had succumbed to smoke inhalation, and the diplomatic security
officer managed to take sean out of the building. he could not find chris stevens. one of the horrors of the -- hours after the attack was our failure to be able to find where the ambassador was. we hoped against hope that he had somehow gotten himself out of the compound and that was -- he was alive somewhere, maybe in the back. and additional efforts by the diplomatic security officers, and then eventually by the cia reinforcements that arrived to find his body, or to find him, hopefully, were unsuccessful. and they had to withdraw because of the continuing attack back to the cia annex before we knew what had happened to the ambassador. we were desperate, and we were
trying to call everybody we knew in benghazi, in libya -- get additional help. what appears to have happened at some point later, is that libyans found ambassador stevens, and they carried him to the hospital in benghazi. and libyan doctors labored nearly two hours to try to resuscitate him. and i mention all of this because i want, not just the committee members, but any viewers in the public to understand that this was the fog of war, that the diplomatic security officers, and then later the cia officers responded with heroism, professionalism as
they had been trained to do. we thought things would be safe once they took refuge in the cia annex, and, as we know, even though that was a highly fortified, much more secure facility than our diplomatic compound, and one that we had nothing to do with in the state department, it turned out also to be a target for the militants, which is where the two cia contractors, mr. woods and mr. doherty, died. but in looking at all of the information, the accountability review board, and, particularly, admiral mullen, who was focused on what happened, what the security personnel did that night, came out agreeing that they were heroic and they did all they could do to try to save their colleagues' lives. announcer: c-span provides the
best axis for providing coverage -- best access for secretary clinton's testimony. our hearing coverage without commercials or commentary will air in its entirety hundred and sunday and you soon on his van and sunday on c-span. announcer: tonight, ted cruz at a town hall meeting in iowa, and will sit downruz
with c-span to take your phone calls. that starts at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. all persons have business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to give them attention. have not obama: we seen a court overturn a law passed by congress on an economic issues like health care. lockner's usual of whether a state legislature can take away -- and the court ruled no. announcer: this week, we look at york, which are strictly the hours of bigger employees to 10 hours a day.
lochner took his case to the supreme court. consideredy it is one of the most controversial supreme court cases. and paul kens. landmark cases, monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. announcer: the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce sat down this morning the reporters at a breakfast hosted by "the ."ristian science monitor this is an hour. have people join us
in progress. i am dave cook from "the monitor." ohue. we have tom donahue we are glad these men have come back. donohue has led the chamber since 2007. before leading the chamber, he served for 13 years as president ceo of the american trucking association. in an earlier chapter in his lap, he was deputy assistant postmaster general. chamber'sson is the senior political affairs executive. he had an early venture in the
new york office, 1974. he came to the organization well equipped for a rise with a degree from harvard. so much for buyer. now to the process portion of the program. we are on the record here. no live blogging or treating. no filing of any kind. embargo when the session and second half. if you would like to ask a subtlen, send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on one of all. he will offer our guests the opportunity to make opening comments. with that, thank you for coming. ohue: thank you for having me. there's plenty of a crowd to begin. me today is bruce spirit we have a great system, he and i. if i do not like the question, i
give it to him. are focusing on four major issues right now. priority,nking top making economic growth for lawmakers and people in the administration, making gross move in the right direction as critical in our future, and we are going to spend as much time as we can on it because everything else follows it. point isd major pursuing the right policy. we were vigorously pursuing a public policy agenda to generate growth for a long time, and we are going -- this is going to be a debate within the congress and within the country of how we are moving forward. are we going to move forward with more government with more private growth?
whathird issue for us is are we going to do to elect the right people, and we are particularly concerned about the senate. we will be involved in the house. these are issues of high significance to us. or, what is most important is winning the war on ideas. in that regard, it will be debate on how we go forward on the issues of entitlements, on on questions of immigration, what we are going to do about budgets and deficits, and very curved right now, can we please do something about our infrastructure? by me just conclude wha getting specific. , ast, we are very concerned
all of the rest of us are about the issue of what is going to happen today when the administration releases their and ilimate program, would like just to say in a few sentences where we are on it and other climate issues. first, in addressing climate change, we believe we should be guided what has already worked here and around the world. remember the united states is the only major country that actually and substantially reduced it co2 admissions -- omissions while continuing to grow its economy. we did it to gains in efficiency and new technologies can increase use of natural gas and fuels, nuclear, and approved methods for using coal -- that is where our focus should be going forward. we are not debating the
existence of chief climate change, but proposals meant to address it must be thoroughly scrutinized to determine their andct on jobs, energy, economic well-being of our workers and our families. having said all that, that we simply conclude -- let me sip we conclude that i am very happy to be here, and i'm very happy to enter a discussion with you. there no better time for this. this is a critical time for america. we have major choices to make, we dam well that or make them. cook: i will do one or two and then we will go to others. let me ask you, based on the news of the day, what is the chamber's view of paul ryan as speaker, how big of a low was it to boehner? e: we make it our
business not to get involved in the internal workings of the house and the senate. that is a very dangerous place to go. we are a fan of john boehner. we think he is a man, a great american, he works very very hard in a 6 -- successful way to get a lot of things done in-house. we understand the reasons that he has decided to retire. --e we a speaker in place, paul ryan is a man of experience. he chairs perhaps the most committee in the house of representatives in terms of where we are going on economic growth. they give andng take on figuring out whether he
is going to be elected. we believe he will. we will be very happy to have him. we think he is a quality person and somebody that shares many of the views of the business community. chamber'sabout the role and the 2016 elections, press coverage leading up to you coming here today talked about how the chamber intends to send $100 million toward the election that you are already engaged in primaries in some states, spending $3 million a month, and your top priority in your opening remarks was keeping the senate. can you talk about the scope of what the chamber intends to do in 2016?mr. donahue : we will be engaged in the senate, it is a challenge because the large number of republicans up for elections, versus the modern number of
democrats, and what we are looking for is an opportunity to keep the benefits that we have gotten by going to normal order and have a opportunity in the senate to actually talk about complicated things like budgets. we will be very aggressive in those elections, as you indicated. someve already begun communication around that. we of course will also engage open seats, ihose guess, 20, isn't that right, bruce, and the house, and to make sure that any of the candidates that we think are critical to expanding economic growth and supporting the challenges facing the business community are well represented. the amount of money we spend is something that we do not talk
about. everybody else does. that one oflly say the deciding factors is how much money you can raise. we do not keep it in the basement. and we are looking forward to a vigorous participation in the electoral process in 2016. one final comment on that, it is very unique and different. the processo early, started almost six months before it normally happens. for the candidates, that means a lot more expenditure. for us, it just gave us a little more time to get very much focused and begin to move forward on those elections. we are all just a little side comment, when we had 17 republican candidates -- wow, we have been observing that with a lot candidates -- curiosity. sticking with your
normal role of not being involved in the presidential -- : yes.nohue was written to members this week talking about the debt limit. can you talk more about your concerns, and how this plays into the larger conference that the business community is having with conservatives such as the house freedom caucus? donohue: this is a civil issue. it was a short letter, and it raised the fundamental reality that the united states of america cannot default on its own budgets and maintain the respect of the world and our trading position in the world and the stability of our instruments of debt, where people invest in from all over the world.
it is as civil as that, and we cannot default. we must fix our debt. can you talk about the conservatives, the role they are playing in the? -- this? >> that is what we believe should be the case for conservatives and liberals. it is interesting to look at the congress now. that hole in the congress is getting bigger as people get more conservative and more people get very little. we hope to fill that hole with the american people who need a government to act on its behalf. k: mr. johnson? if brian will be the speaker, how do you raise the prospect of legislative action to curb inversions come and what you think about using revenue to
oversee tax repatriation? donohue: i want to make two comments about that. number one, the reason that we have people looking to have money is we had the most disadvantaged tax system for american companies. we are taxed twice on overseas income, and that is why some people leave it overseas. a huge amount of that money over there by the way is not liquid capital. it is buildings and facilities and factories. so it will take some time to look into that. then the conversations that i have heard on both sides of the aisle, is that people would like to get some real tax reform in 2017, and there is a lot hesitancy about taking those
funds on an ad hoc short-term basis. we need finally to get down to the fundamental reality that america's infrastructure is in very bad shape, and we need to are required that to fix our infrastructure, and the best way to do it is the way we did it for years. the only problem is the last 23 years you never increased the federal fuel tax, and everybody here is driving a car that has far more miles per gallon than they did 22 years ago. do the math. the government is in trouble. johnson: answer to curb inverses is due comprehensive tax reform and adopt a territorial system to be aligned with every other major industrialized economy in the entire world. absent that, you are not solving the problem. your tinkering around the
margins. tom touched on it and it is important because this gets confused pretty much almost every time somebody opens their mouth about repatriation. there have been three reports in the past year that say that liquid cash is a range of about $800 billion to for iraq yesterday there is $2.1 trillion of cash sitting in the bank of ireland. there is not. is plants and equipment. if you're talking about the reaction of corporate america, if you things drive -- few things drive them as nuts as a geek repatriation of capital that has been invested for several decades in other countries. about?e we talking
deal, who a repat cares how they deployed that money, and using infrastructure would be a smart way to do it. there's about $350 billion coming back each year. you do not come close to solving the problem. it in a mediang holcomb and as it. when you clearly need an ongoing sustainable funding mechanism, and this is where congress keeps ducking terms of the excised tax on fuel. you're just plugging holes. eret is not going to get wh we need to be. >> does it increase the chances of tax reform? think if he is elected speaker, we expect he
will be next week, even though he departs the post that would enable him to guide that process, he will have a hand guiding that process as speaker. that was one of my courses, although i appreciate no one got to ask the lincoln chafee question. [laughter] on?will we go more detail from bruce them if possible, under this idea of a speaker who is jeopardy tax taxrm -- who is shepherding reform. the last was to pony appeared -- the the dynamic of -- last was to o'neill. what are the strengths and weaknesses, and a question on donald trump, you do not get involved in presidential politics, but if truck comes the nominee, that poses a lot of questions for your senate bid
hypothetically. answer, butou will how much does he travel you in terms of your ability to keep the senate? mr. josten: who is not in favor of tax reform nobody will defend discothequetax except accountants because it is good for their business. it is not good for anybody else. with kemp, was a tutor under a guy named bill thomas. heis in these current dream is in his current dream job. deal.going to push this i do not want to get into picking and choosing between the three-way race i'm expecting to
corrupt, that if he is living, thewill take over between three, but all three of them ryan trained the to drive that by the mental tax reform. they've all been involved in the working groups going back to kemp. these are people committed to doing it done. this is not easy to get done under any mechanism whatsoever. easy to talk about him hard to do. the reality is the way to do it, by this and do it, and i think increasingly apparent everybody in congress that is the reality that they are going to confront. they will have no choice. entitlements play into that as well as does everything else. mr. donohue: i think the trump and ther.
css is a and his poll numbers is a reflection of what we have been saying for a long time, which is the american people are frustrated, they are frustrated with the government because their government has been avoiding the fundamental realities of what is critical to them, and that is an infrastructure bill, dealing with health care issues in a reasonable way, taking short we fellowtecting our citizens, it is making sure we work hard to drive economic growth so we can put people to work, and it is a message to the far right and the far left. it is a message that everything ers might do, vot you better think about it again, and i believe that is going on, and folks that are going far off on either side are
losing some of the fact that the american people have their own clear idea of what the issues ought to be and how the congress on to behave. thank you. with the white house threatening to veto any legislation that would loosen the crude oil wanted to get your opinion on where the fight goes from here. are you fearful the window is basically closing because we have such low gasoline prices right now? mr. donohue: i think the reality is that the law that prevents us it comesrting oil, from 1975, when the older ones of us here sat on long, long lines to get our gasoline and everybody said, why would we export oil?
tense and that time you come to learn we have more oil and other energy sources than just about everybody in the world, and it would make sense for us to ask for it because it would help us deal with the challenges that the nation has in terms of growth, in terms of revenues, and we believe both houses of the congress will move on this in an orderly fashion. ofthe matter of exporting, vetoing the expert opportunity -- of the export opportunity, i have heard the white house talk about that. i think they would have a difficult to say we are going to stop that, but we are going to allow his result of our for them toth iran, export oil all around the world. i do not think that would be a comparison that the white house
would like to deal with. >> you do not think the veto threat is 100% firm? is donohue: no veto threat 100% firm because circumstances change. the number of people who support a go-go's up and down. the bottom line is we are pushing very hard to make this happen, and we will communicate way the white house in a that lets them understand the options they would be facing. keep talking-- you about infrastructure, but it seems like that party that is pushing for infrastructure, will people on the gop who do not want to see your government spending are the ones tampering that down. i guess is this something of your making, and why not support some democrats that -- mr. josten: let me start with energy. energy, we should not overlook this reality.
recession drivene deeper if we are not experiencing the energy revolution. the job losses would have been far greater. what we're seeing in the past year is a cratering of jobs in the exacting energy sector because of the precipitous drop in price due to the volume of production. so if we want to stop -- we lost more than 125,000 jobs in the sector alone so far this year. one way to ameliorate that and eurn it around and stop tha rig beings pulled out of the ground is to repeal the law from the 1970's, because you would begin to reemploy people, generate revenue, etc. the infrastructure gain you
mentioned is interesting. naming the proposal any one of them have put forward that legitimately funds this six-year program, the or republican, name --thee democrat you answer is the ready. blumenauer supports one, but he wants more bypass and when you start to look at this, they all of those a vehicle mile tax rate this is a cheap game. do not take the bait. tpp, what do you think about that going through 42017, and how are your members about safe harbor on data transfers? mr. donohue: we are an organization that has supported positive trade bills all around
the world in the interest of our extraordinary economy when it is cooking, and the ability to put together our consumer come meet with a strong export economy. we were very pleased that the trade facilitation bill was taken care of. we were pleased that technology bill moving in the right direction. hard to get trade facilitation arrangements, trade promotion authority taken care of. othershave worked with completing the pacific agreement. nobody has seen its, nobody has read it, nobody has to look at any of the sidebars, and while we are supporting the process, we look forward to reading the will. we find that works faster and when we get there, we will be a
participant in bringing that to a positive conclusion. in 2016. deal, we safe harbor have taken -- arejosten: we supporting legislation that would permit citizens of the resolution in the united states because of the heat that they have been under nsa. snowden and the we are supporting legislation in the congress that would permit e.u. citizens to seek access to u.s. courts. >> my question is about immigration. 2410 -- youd inmate do think a 2014,
candidate could win? mr. donohue: i think the republicans before they get to the election will conclude what has been the most interesting primary season that i've seen in a long time. i believe that there are some candidates who have been positive in various different times in the republican side about an immigration bill. we got some relief because of the things that the president had done, and i can still very we have to deal with immigration or we are going to have fundamental problems in our economy. brilliant people at their universities and send them home. we need people so we do not have to move agriculture out of our country. we need