i'm dave -- on schedule. i'm dave cook from the monitor, our guests today are thomas donohue and bruce josten, the chamber's the world's largest not-for-profit business administration. both men have been our guests before, and we're glad they came back. according to "the new york times," mr. donahue once wrote his ambition was to, quote, bring the biggest -- [inaudible] in this town, unquote. before leading the chamber, he served for 13 years as president and chief executive officer of the american trucking association. prior to his tour at the ata, he was group vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce for eight years. in an earlier chapter, he was deputy assistant postmaster general and vice president of connecticut's fairfield university. bruce josten is the political affairs executive. he started or had an early adventure in the chamber's new york office in 1974. he came to the organization well equipped for a rapid rise with a degree from harvard, and he oversees six major divisions in the chamber. now on to the always-enticing process portion of the program. as always, we're on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short to, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there's no embargo when the session ends at ten. if you'd like to ask a question, send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all. we'll start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make some opening comments, and with that, thank you. >> well, thank you very much. i'm pleased to be back. i'm sure we'll have a few ohs coming -- a few others coming in. joining me today as was indicated is bruce. we have a great system, he and i. if i don't like the question, i give it to him. and let me be begin with a very brief statement. we are focusing on four major issues right now. one is making growth our top priority and making economic growth for lawmakers and for people in the administration, making growth move in the right direction critical to our future. and we are going to spend as much time as we can on that subject because everything else follows it. our second major point is pursuing the right policies. we were vigorously pursuing a public policy agenda to generate growth for a long time, and we are going to -- this is going to be a debate within the congress and within the country of how we're moving forward. are we going to move forward with more government? are we going to move forward with more private growth? it's critical to where we're going in the future. the third issue for us is what are we going to do to elect the right people. and we are particularly in the chamber concerned about the senate, of course, we'll be involved in the house, but these are issues of high significance to us. and perhaps what is most important is winning the war on ideas. and in that regard it will be the debate on how we go forward on the you issues of entitlemen, on the questions of immigration, on what we're going to do about budgets and deficits. and very current right now, can we please do something about our infrastructure. let me just conclude these few remarks by getting a little bit specific. first, we are very, very concerned -- as all of the rest of us are -- about the issue of what's going to happen today when the administration releases their next climate program, and i 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 that the united states is the only major country that actually and substantially reduced its co2 emissions while continuing to grow its economy. how did we do it? through gains in efficiency and new technologies, the increased use of natural gas and renewable fuels and continued role of nuclear -- although it's shrinking -- and improved methods for developing and using coal. that's where our focus should be going forward. we're not debating the existence of climate change, but proposals meant to address it must be thoroughly scrutinized to determine their impact on jobs, energying and economic well being -- energy and economic well being of our workers and our families. having said all that, let me simply conclude by saying that i'm very happy to be here, and i'm very happy to enter a discussion with you. there's no better taoism for this -- time for this. this is a critical time for america. we have major choices to make, and we damn well better make 'em. >> thanks. i'm going to do one or two, and then we're going to go to kate, warny, kevin hall -- barney, kevin hall to start. let me ask you based on the news of the day what's the chamber's view of paul ryan as speaker? how big a blow was it to lose boehner? what does a ryan speakership portend for the business community? >> well, let me first say that 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's a man, he's a great american. he worked very, very hard to -- in a successful way -- to get a lot of things done in the house. we understand the reasons that he has decided to retire. once we have a speaker in place, paul ryan is a man of experience. he chairs perhaps the most significant, the most significant committee in the house of representatives in terms of where we're going on economic growth. we are observing the give and take on figuring out whether he's going to be elected. we believe he will be. we'd be very happy to have him. we think he's a quality person and somebody that shares many of the views of the business community. >> let me ask you one last, then we'll go to my colleague, and that's about the chamber's role in the 2016 elections. as you know, press coverage leading up to your coming here today has talked about the fact that the chamber intends to spend $100 million on the election effort verse is us roughly 70, the public figure, for 2014. that you're already engaged in primaries in some states, spending $3 million a month and that your top priority, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, was keeping the senate. can you talk a little bit about the scope of what the chamber intends to do in 2016? >> well, we'll obviously be engaged in the senate. it's a challenge because of the large number of republicans who are up for election versus a moderate number of democrats. and what we're looking for is an opportunity to keep the benefits we've gotten by going to normal order and having an opportunity in the senate to actually talk about complicated things like budgets. we will be very aggressive in those elections, as you indicated. we have already begun some communication around that. we, of course, will also engage ourselves in those open seats, i guess 28 of them, right, bruce? in 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 that we spend is something that we don't talk about, even else does. but i can basically say that one of the deciding factors is how much money you can raise. we don't keep it in the basement, and we're looking forward to a vigorous participation in the electoral process in 2016. one final comment on that, it's very unique and it's different. it started is early. the process started probably what, bruce, almost six months before it normally happens? for the candidates that means, that means a lot more expenditure. for us it just gave us a little more time to get very much focused and to begin to move forward on those elections. you know, we're all just a little side comment, when we had 17 republican candidates, wow. we've all been observing that with a lot of curiosity. >> but your -- are you sticking with your normal role of not being involved in the presidential? >> yes. >> we're going to go to kate ackley to start from ck. >> thanks so much for taking any question -- [inaudible] a letter to the members this week about resolving the debt limit debate issue. can you talk more about your concerns there and also how this plays into this larger conflict that the business community is having with conservatives such as the house freedom caucus? >> this is a very simple issue. it was a short letter, and it raised as we have done again and again and again 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's simple as that, and we cannot default. we must fix our debt. >> you talk about the conservatives, the role that they're playing in this? >> i believe that what i just suggested to you is exactly what we believe should be the case for conservatives and for liberals. you know, it's interesting to look at the congress now, that hole in the middle is getting bigger as more and more people get very conservative and more and more people get very liberal, we hope to fill that hole with the american people who need the government to act on its behalf. >> barney johnson from the financial times. >> hi there. question on tax reform and specifically tax inversion deals. if ryan is going to be the speaker, how do you raise the prospect of legislative aspect to curb inversions, and what do you think of the idea by schumer of using repat ration to pay for -- repatriation to pay for highway funding? >> i'm going to let bruce do most of this, but i'm going to make two comments about this. number one, the reason we have people looking for inside money is because we have the most disadvantaged tax system for american companies. we are taxed twice on overseas income, and that's 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 would take some time to look into that. and then the conversations that i've heard on both sides of the aisle is that people would like to get to some real tax reform in 2017, and there's a lot of 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, very bad shape, and we need to get the funds we need -- that are required to fix our infrastructure. and the best way to do it is the way we did it for years. the only problem is that the last 23 years we have never increased the federal fuel tax, and everybody here is driving a car that has far more miles per gallon than they did 23 years ago. do the math. the government's in trouble. bruce, would you -- >> my add-on to that is that the honest and most direct and simple answer to the way to curb inversions is to do comprehensive tax reform and adopt a territorial system to be aligned with every other major industrialized economy in the entire world. absent that, you're not solving the problem, you're tinkering around the margins. tom touched on, and it's important because i think this gets conflated and confused pretty much almost every time somebody opens their mouth about repatriation. there's been three reports in the past year that, to tom's point, say that the liquid cash a range of about $750-$850 billion. credit suisse came out with one, gao. so just yesterday i was reading, i can't remember who it was, suggesting this is $2.1 trillion of cash sitting in the bank of ireland. well, there's not. the vast majority of it is property, plants and equipment, some of which have been there for decades, by the way. so if you're talking about the reaction of corporate america, few things drive them nuts as quickly as the concept of a deemed repatriation on capital that's been invested for several decades and in the ground of another country, okay? so, you know, what are we talking about? the third point, a repat deal if it's voluntary, fine. who cares how they deploy that money, if you will. and using it for infrastructure would be a smart way to do it. by the way, there is about $150 billion that comes back every year as we sit, but even if you do a quick repat deal, you don't come close to solving the problem. you basically plug an immediate hole and that's about it when you clearly need an ongoing, sustainable funding mechanism -- and this is where congress keeps ducking in terms of tom's point about the excise tax on the fuel. absent that your just tinkering in the margins, plugging holes. that's not going to get us where we need to be as a country. >> do you think ryan -- [inaudible] >> he, hi i, has -- i think, has spent most of his career planning on being the guy, and i think if he is elected speaker, as we assume and expect he will be next week even though he departs the post that would really enable him to guide that process, he will have a hand guiding that process as speaker. >> kevin -- [inaudible] mcclatchy. >> kind of stole my thunder. that was one of the questions. i appreciate that no one else got to ask the lincoln chafee question. [laughter] how will we all go on? [laughter] there are one more detail from bruce, if possible p on this idea of a speaker who's shepherding a tax reform. obviously, tip o'neill was not a tax guy per se, but how does the dynamic of being a ways and means committee chairman, moving up, can you talk about how this may or may not differ from others and what his trents and weaknesses -- strengths and weaknesses might be? to tom more broadly, the easier question on donald trump. since you don't get involved in presidential politics, but clearly, if trump becomes the nominee, that poses a lot of questions for your senate bid. i doubt you'll answer it, but how much does he trouble you in terms of your ability to keep the senate? >> so you want me to go first. >> you go first. [laughter] >> look, you all know tax reform is exceptionally complicated. you know, it's easy for everybody to say i'm in favor of tax reform because, i mean, who's not in favor? there's nobody going to defend the current tax system that i'm aware of expect maybe tax accountants that prepare taxes for people because it's good for their business. after that it's not good for anybody else. look, ryan, as i think you all know, started with camp, you know, was a tutor under a guy named bill thomas. he's now got his -- he's in his current dream job. getting ready to depart for a more responsible job in a sense, right? he's going to push this deal. now, i don't want to get boo picking and choosing -- into picking and choosing between the three-way race i'm expecting to erupt about, okay, if he's leaving, who's going to take over, but all three of them have been on the ryan train to drive fundamental comprehensive tax reform. they all are involved in the subgroup working groups in this. these are people that are committed to getting it done. i'm not going to kid anybody. this is not easy to get done under any mechanism whatsoever, okay? for my first comment. easy to talk about, very hard to do. the reality we're going to have to do it. we're going to have to bite this bullet and do it, and i think increasingly apparent to everybody in congress, that's the reality that they're going to cop front. they're going -- confront. they're going to have no choice. and entitlements play into that as well as does everything else in terms of funding the federal government. >> and now mr. trump. >> i think the candidacy of mr. trump and the many interesting things that he has had to say is -- and his poll numbers -- is a reflection of what we've been saying for a long time, and that is the american people are frustrated. they're frustrated with their government because their government has been avoiding the fundamental realities of what is critical to them. and that's an infrastructure bill, that's dealing with their health care issues in a reasonable way, making sure that we're protecting our fellow citizens, it's 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 to the far left. it is a message that everything you think the voters might do, better think about it again. and i think that -- i believe that's going on. and folks that are going far off to the pole on east -- on either side are losing sight of the fact that the american people have their own clear idea of what the issues ought to be and how the congress ought to behave. >> kevin -- [inaudible] from the associated press. >> thank you. so with the white house threatening to veto any legislation that would loosen the crude oil export ban, i wanted to get your opinion on where the fight goes from here. are you fearful that the window is basically closing in particular because we have such low gasoline prices right now? >> well, i think the reality is that the law that prevents us from exporting oil is, it comes from 1975 when we all -- well, the older ones of us here sat on long, long lines to get our gasoline, and everybody said why would we export oil. and since that time we have come to learn that we have more oil and other energy sources than just about anybody in the world, and it would make sense for us to export 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 that both houses of the congress will move on this in an orderly fashion. on the matter of exporting -- of vetoing the export opportunity, i've heard the white house talk about that. i think they would have a very difficult time to say we're going to stop that, but we're going to allow as a result of our agreement with iran for them to export oil all around the world. i don't think that would be a comparison that the white house would like to deal with. >> so you don't think the veto threat is 100%? >> well, no veto threat is 100% firm because circumstances change. the number of people that support a bill goes up and down. so the bottom line is we're pushing very hard to make this happen, and we'll communicate with the white house in a way that lets them understand the options they would be facing. >> [inaudible] on infrastructure. you keep talking about infrastructure, but it strikes me the one party that's really pushing for infrastructure is the democrats while people on the gop who don't want to see more government spending are the ones tamping that down. i guess is this something of your own making? and why not support some democrats who finish. >> well, let me jump in. let me start with energy and get to your final point. first off, on energy, we shouldn't overlook this reality. the '08 recession would have been deeper and longer had it not been for the energy revolution that we're experiencing in this country, number one. number two, the job losses would have been far greater. three, unfortunately in the past year what we've seen is a cratering of jobs in the exact same energy sector because of the precipitous drop in price due to the volume of production. so if we want to stop, i think we've lost more than 125,000 jobs in this sector alone so far this year. one way to help ameliorate that and turn it around and stop the rigs that are pulling out of the ground to go back in would be to repeal a law that, you know, exists from the '70s banning exports, as tom said. because you would begin to reverse the acts that i just said and reemploy people, generate revenue, etc. the infrastructure game that you mentioned is interesting. let me put a fine point on it for you. name me the proposal any one of them have put forth that legitimately funds the six-year program. >> democrat or republican. >> name me the democrat that's funding what you're suggesting is our problem. because the answer is nobody. and every member of the administration's opposed to a gas tax. the democratic leadership is a opposed to a gas tax. earl blumenauer supports one, but he wants more bike paths. they all oppose a vehicle mile tax. this is a cheap game, isn't it? don't take the bait. >> we can go to dmitri from the financial times. >> three questions. first, on tpp, what do you think are the prospects of it going through before 2017? and second of all, how worried are your members about the european -- [inaudible] safe harbor on data transfer across the atlantic? >> well, first of all, as you know, we are an organization that has supported positive trade bills all around the world in the interest of our extraordinary economy when it's cooking and the ability to put together our consumer economy with a strong export economy. we were very pleased that the trade facilitation bill was taken care of. we were pleased that the technology bills are moving in the right direction. we worked very, very hard to get trade facilitation arrangements, trade promotion authority taken care of, and we have worked with others on completing the pacific agreement. nobody has seen it, nobody has read it, nobody has a look at any of the sidebars, and while we are supporting the process, we look forward to reading the bill or the agreement. we find that works best. and when we get there, we'll be a participant in bringing that to, i hope, a positive con cushion. >> in 2016. >> in 2016. >> now, on the safe harbor deal, i'll jump in. tom's been on the road a lot. we have -- >> a little louder, please. >> i said i'll jump in because tom's on the road a lot. we are probably in a sense to you unusually supporting legislation that would permit the residences of the e.u. to pursue legal redress in the united states since that's the only out for our technology companies because of the heat they've been under going back to snowden and nsa. so we're very concerned about that safe harbor issue, and we are supporting legislation in the be u.s. congress that would permit e.u. citizens to seek access to u.s. courts. >> okay. [inaudible] from bloomberg. >> my question's about immigration. tom, you had said in may 2014 that if the republicans don't do it, they shouldn't bother to run a candidate in 2016, quote-unquote. i'm wondering do you think that candidate could win? >> i think the republicans before they get to their 2016 election have to conclude what has been the most interesting primary season that i've seen in a long time. the -- i believe that there are some candidates who have been positive at various different times in the republican side about an immigration bill, you know? we got some relief because of the things that the president had done, and i'm still very concerned that we have to deal with immigration or we're going to have fundamental problems in our economy. we educate brilliant people in our universities and send them home. we need people so that we don't have to move agriculture out of our country. we need people for seasonal work. we need people very, very important for the care of the elderly. there is a lot going on that's getting us closer and closer to an immigration bill. i don't think -- i think in thinking about it that it's difficult in an election year to finish that, but we're much closer than we were when i said that. i still think they'd be stronger if they had it, but i suppose they ought to run a candidate anyway. >> on the election fund, do you think that the republicans could have avoided the whole donald trump phenomenon given that -- [inaudible] if they did pass immigration reform? >> no, i don't think that -- donald trump's comments go far, far beyond immigration. you know, the american people sort of -- they watch a lot of television. they think that's what they're seeing with domped trump because not only is he entertaining, but he's saying things that they think about. >> everybody in washington is stupid. >> that's another one. >> they can buy into easily. .. >> some of the same people who helped push john boehner out both in the congress and in the freedom caucus and in the outside groups been very antagonistic about the chamber. antagonistic about the chamber, accusing you of crony capitalism and not being in touch with the grassroots. what do you think of those groups and those attacks? do you think your influence has been diminished at all? >> i have noticed over all long time in this town when there is concentrated effort to lay criticism on somebody like the chamber, an organization like the chamber, we have to look at it very carefully and find out are we wrong in what we do or are we right in what we are doing to? doing? is the criticism coming because what we're doing different than they like? if that's the case then i always like to double down. my view here is that we have an extraordinary level of support from the american business community of all sizes. that support continues to grow. we have received unbelievable amount of support from our board in the face of some of these criticisms. and i've noticed that most of those critics have not been able to move their views forward while at the same time much of what we are trying to do is getting i think more support from the american people. >> so you're not bothered by this? you don't think it is hurting the chamber? >> it doesn't bother me. we don't have a stock price but i have a stock price of my own. i look at our renewal rate which is out on all-time high. and i look at our ability to attract different industries, that we are not strongly engaged with us in the past and that is very, very important, and we are doing very well there. the reason is the american bases came energy is facing unbelievable challenges from dodd-frank, which still has 200 regulations to put in place, from the cost associated with obamacare. and we see there was a bipartisan effort in the house and senat the senate to change f the opponents, going to have to change others. they are concerned about infrastructure as we talked about. uncomfortable, i am not, i am not dismissive of people's criticism. if you just wave of criticism off, bad idea. yet to analyze, look at it, find out where it's coming from. vignette to do what you think is right spirit one area you've been in a fight with these him on ex-im bank, coming up next week. they think that is the prime example right now of crony capitalism. so where do you see that, how do you see that working? >> if the folks that we are trying to eliminate the ex-im bank have picked something that would save some money, because ex-im bank doesn't draw funds from the government. it's positive cash flow. and if they have thought about it, because while yes, they can make a case the are a number of major companies, not as many small companies, both of those major companies between them have about 25,000 small subcontractors. and my view is, one last thing, there are 30 countries in america, in the world, i will not accept capital goods from american lives they are associated and assisted with a government related export finance organization. so without them big companies that are selling airplanes, for example, are going to locate their headquarters somewhere else, or 30 countries will say we are not going to buy your airplane. so i think it's an issue that people are learning more about. we are beginning to find out what it is they poke their horse to come and i believe at some time, and i don't know how it will happen, i don't know if it will happen next month, i don't know if it will happen now, but we will put a form of export financing back in place, maybe some adjustments. if we don't have it you will lose companies who will go somewhere else to get it. >> thanks are taking these questions. so tom stier and other influential money behind have been asking democratic candidates to come up with a climate change plan, to be able to solve this problem. hillary clinton has been moving left on a lot of these issues. she's come out against the keystone pipeline. she's got some more environmental friendly solar power. i'm just curious what your assessment is of the environmental movement within the democratic party, what kind of role will sort of money and organization in that movement play in the 2016 election and how do you assess it in relation to the role you both play? >> i'm curious, can you give me a quick rundown of the last election? >> that's a good question for him. >> i think the answer is pretty obvious. i dated, but you understand my point, it's kind of like tom's point to karl, listing all the successes the far right wing has had. are they suggesting we should just see infrastructure work abroad? if you want to talk about her export financing government, requires virtual every government in the world is going to do a major infrastructure project requires some. my question in part would be to those people, do they want us to see that too the german and french and all the revenue that goes with the? the environmental do is what it is, 85% of the country is pro-empire but we are pro-environment. our members don't want dirty water or air. so forth and so one. we believe we have been perfectly consistent about what needs to be done about this. the only way we're going to do with climate issue going to accelerate the development of new technologies across the board and the entire renewable space and batteries. we need to preserve american jobs. the global part of this is one of the things we've been tortured for 17 years, the only solution is a global solution. for quite some time people use that as an excuse. yet it's ironic we're now stepping up to negotiate parents for global agreements so go figure. this is not going to go away. it needs to be economy wide. asked him articulated we are an organization that favors all of the above, and we mean that literally, that includes from below. some people say they are in favor of all. we are not of that ilk. i think it's always a factor in elections, i think if you look very closely at the votes in congress that tends to be a bicoastal issue on a boat skill more than anything else. but it's an issue. >> the democratic front-runner comes out against the keystone pipeline seems to be a signpost as to where the party is on these issues. >> is where a candidate and the party is because the president of the party, president of the trend hasn't declared a position yet. >> immolate from "newsweek." >> i'm curious on 2016 i know you don't want a presidential races but already we are seeing the waves of these outsiders, whether it's trump but also cars and carly fiorina are shaping the house freedom caucus. they feel more empowered. it's going of an influence on the senate and the house races. i'm curious, you recognize they are tapping into some sort of frustrations but what a successful message to counter some of the things you disagree with, if you encounter will be in interstate will be tea party challenges in the house and the senate. >> first, just to comment about the candidates you mentioned. carson by the way is an extraordinary person, and i think people appreciate what he's done with his life. but those are not the candidates of the far right. those were candidates who showed up on their own volition to participate in these debates. we have a very clear message. we believe that economic growth done in a sensible way is going to create jobs and a lot of jobs in the middle class. we believe that pursuing a series of appropriate legislative activities, not only about the economic growth, but will take burdens off some part of the populist angle simplify their lives of it. we need to fix the potholes. we need to deal with immigration because we need those workers. we need to stop this behavior here in washington where people look at us all in wonder what planet we are from. the congress and the senate were put together in a way that the idea was they would work together and find a common root forward on the way that we solve america's problems. and when you look at carson, when you look at trump, when you look at the majority of the people that have commanded a lot of attention here, what they're basically doing is expressing some of the frustrations that americans have been carrying around for a long time. i think it's been a great process. i think when we get finished we will end up with a couple of decent candidates in the republican party, president and vice president, and i think it will make for an interesting election. i'll tell you one little side thing. i asked our guide, scott reed, two months ago, when you have 17 candidates down to 15 know, when you have 17 candidates and it's not winner-take-all in all of the states, could you ever go back to the harry truman time and have a real smoke filled convention? and he said no. i asked him the other day. he said, i think no. >> let me add a little bit to that. i think trump and fiorina particularly initially held jumped in on economic growth bandwagon. i'm not sure about carson but just to be clear, that's the same wacky that we are on. in terms of the house freedom caucus issues, what has been mentioned need to be put on the table for you people to consider as well. if you look at the public opinion polls, your papers of all been reporting for 15 years on right track, wrong track, the american public has stated is on track for about 15 years. the locus only about 55% and goes up from there, about 78. you have a country in a sense that is searching for confidence he around the federal government. a consequence within that not literally but almost literally every two years out of frustration the public flips of the senate. to get to my point, the same frustration exhibited in the house freedom caucus is exhibited in the democracy alliance, credo, moveon.org and other groups who openly declared in the past six months that want to remove the democratic party. and if you look at the major senate battleground states starting right here in maryland and go to illinois and look at florida and look at ohio, what do you see? easy the party's preferred candidate being challenged by outside groups who are posturing for their kind of come and every open about this, they want to copy the tea party. and push the democratic party even further left. so all i am saying is there is a national frustration and a national anger. and i think what we are hearing from trump and some of these other people you're asking about, and trump may be the more master at playing the press game and getting his volume out there that are tapping that fear and anger. or my kids going to grow up in a worse? are they going to leave it worse? this 10 in the world? the fact that the government seems incapable of just functioning on basic issues like pass a budget, paved potholes? i think anger is an expression that is coming out of people, rather a mode of response right now on both sides of the aisle. >> we have about 15 minutes left. we are going to try to get five questions in. >> i actually want to fall upon the tax reform question if i may. do you support the portman schumer and ryan idea of the repatriation mix as a stopgap for now? spent as a stopgap for what? as they pay for for i was speak with a pay for for highways. >> first of all they pulled the plug about two weeks ago. ryan announced i pulled the plug on that. i am not pursuing that. i'm not sure what i'm talking about. if it doesn't exist, how do i answer your question? >> i think that you issue here is there was a lot of sentiment that doing that, per se, does interview with eventually doing a reasonable comprehensive task reform. and i do believe it would've been very hard to get it done in the senate. i mean, excuse me, in the house. and when you get down to it, the point that bruce me before it is i think a lot of folks about it's not so much cash of there. spin any innovation box costs a lot of money. the concern in the corporate community, the box will be a benefit to some, not all, okay? how do you get to territorial? if you start doing this ad hoc things to blog a whole to fill the highway problem it's going to be that much more difficult ever undertake comprehensive tax reform. >> thanks for being here. i want to circle back to the paul ryan house dynamic right now. when he was meeting with some of these freedom caucus members to get their support to this report came out yesterday that they discussed him stepping and indicates that outside groups want to get into primary elections. mention your crypto password question also in these discussions, ryan reportedly told them he would not bring up any comprehensive immigration bill unless it had a majority of the majority. so comment while you're still being optimistic spend a lot of is contradicted by the members. you have to go sing he gave us a commitment and to are saying he didn't have any commitment and then you have ryan announced he said i have a run. once i'm elected i will sit down with everybody in the conference and we will discuss the procedures of the house, vacate the chair to their issues and welcome to the floor. since none of us were in the room on any of these come if you people contradicting each other in terms of what they have said, he said and what he said he said. that's about the best that i can give you on he said/she said. i think we need to wait. >> window considering another candidate, for the speaker's job, and legislate it was six or seven principles put forth by the far right there would have to be adhered to come and you just talked about one of them, that they would have to agree to finance against anything we would do in a primary. i'm glad about that. remember i told you double down is sort of a good idea. and there were other issues about the chamber. look, we have, when the tea party was first formed and had four or five principles of sound economics, reasonable taxation, et cetera, et cetera. who could be opposed to that? but it has gone far beyond that to the point that has lost sight of what the fundamental reality is, and that is to govern in a way to grea create economic groh and to create jobs. we are not much worried about any of those discussions. we're going to go out and do what we plan to do. we are not a government organization. we don't have to adhere to what they want to do. we are going to do what we want to do. we're going to do what we think the american this is community, large and small, needs us to do to help them, and that our country needs us to keep help expand the american economy in a way to create jobs and give the next generation and opportunity that they otherwise would not have. >> just quickly i would say rand paul's comments that he released after he met with the freedom caucus, i think probably the most important sentence in it was we need to become a proposition party, not simply an opposition party. you can interpret that however you will bu by the main entrancf the house freedom caucus which has pretty much been an opponent faction in that conference, i think that's a pretty powerful signal he is sending. >> along the same lines, i was wondering if you could just speak a bit more explicitly, are you going to be doubling down on candidates, primary candidates were going to challenge tea party incumbents in the house? and could you also give us a sense as, do you sense a backlash out there by more government minded republicans who are going to try and move these tea party candidates in very red districts? >> i'm going to answer the first part of it. you are 28 resignations and open seats and other thick will certainly look at whoever the primary candidates are there. we will consider any other opportunity that is presented to us on the primary side. most of them by the way don't materialize, but if the other we will look at them. even though we're also very concerned about the move to the far, far, far left and what that's doing to the democratic party. if we ever got some opportunities that we would think about that as well. bruce, you can add to the second question. question. >> which part of the second question? >> backlash among republicans who are more interested in governing. >> i think it depends on the district because that's what you're really talking about, house district or a senator here and there. some the tea party members based upon their lifecycle evidences that are fairly entrenched in there is not going to be a viable challenger who will succeed against them. we are not going to put good money after a bad outcome. the first issue is come is there a viable challenger, can we find and help recruit one? are they capable of fund-raising? do they have the capability or hire people to build a political infrastructure that suggests they could win? when? there's a lot of issues here, okay? i think in some cases, clearly in michigan ther does a bit of a backlash two years ago. they i'm elected him. there was not a backlash in the same state. it's tough to keep it to one answer in due to the. it kind of depends. >> i do think there is a high level of angst and some anger also in the business community. if you look at the dishes and that ge me to move out of connecticut. and by the way, they are doing it, and they are moving out of connecticut as the chairman of ge said at the economic club here in washington, he said when you go for long period of time and the governor and the two senators in the downstate members of the house, we don't expect them to vote on issues we need every time, but when they never ever respond, it's time to go somewhere else. and if that's the kind of backlash you're going to see some of. >> going back to the primaries. the freedom partners chamber of commerce has a different idea of what the chamber of commerce ought to be doing then you guys to do. >> they need that name, don't they, chamber of commerce. >> it's working for them. you are big on crony capitalism, big on killing off ex-im bank. they say they're going to be putting $250 million into politics this year. but what does this mean for you all? >> not much. look, you've got to be for something. if the only thing you are for is canceling, getting rid of, or opposing things that are going on, you're not going to get a lot of support from the american people. >> they say more freedom and less government, who would be against that? >> i think we have to be, i'm vigorously and support of freedom, the right to speak, or write to risk, the right to prosper. but reality says that we have to do something about american entitlements, or by 2025 will have a 6 trillion plus budget, 80% of which will be spent on interest on the debt. these are governments numbers, and social security, medicare and medicaid. that would leave us not enough to do a fraction of the federal government. and we need to face fundamental reality here, reality means we have to govern, we have to come together to serve the american people, and the people on the far right and the far left who are living in a fantasyland when it comes to what we need to do to help the american economy survive and the american people prosper, that's what folks are figuring out. and we're going to try to help and make it work. >> one of the challenges, at stake the legislative champions up on the hill. this by the way is an area where you all i think should think about. so they say that it puts taxpayers at risk, despite the fact we know xms cut checks for $700 million in the past eight years to the treasury. bayside gao study that suggests that they were forced to use a fair value accounting measure that they might show losses. i haven't heard anybody who points out that study who is an opponent to reauthorizing ex-im address the reality that the congress determine the accounting system that ex-im is currently using. so it's kind of easy, isn't it, to point the finger in to complain about an unused one from one study, when the responsibility for dictating what financing system ex-im uses is the sole discretion of congress. just let me finish, okay? that's number one. number two, i don't want to be very clear about this. every time congressman hensarling says that a majority of the house republicans on my committee could not support reauthorizing ex-im and that's what i haven't move a bill is actually accurate. by omission, if he instead said that the majority of the members come republican members of my committee all support reauthorizing ex-im with reforms that would also be accurate. so it's easy for outside groups with money and add to play off the rhetoric. i'm suggesting to you that by omission, omission of facts and reality, don't take the bait and shovel out more demagoguery and political dogma that's not true. spin we have about two minutes left. sean higgins. >> mr. donohue, how do you rate the odds for cover his immigration reform under speaker ryan? >> the question on comprehensive immigration reform, not the original bill in the senate is not operable comes going to take a lot more than speaker ryan. it's going to take speaker ryan come it's going to take whoever the next administration or the next congress is the majority leader tom and it's good to take the president of the united states. i believe that the realities of immigration reform and some of the things we are watching around the world would force us to come closer to a bill sooner than it might have otherwise happened. but it's a long way from here to there because you want to talk about demagogy. you can do if they're probably better than you can get anywhere else. but we also we need a bill. [inaudible] >> that's what you said. what i said is it will take a comprehensive effort by the speaker, the majority leader and come and the president of the united states. and when we see who's in those jobs than i can answer your question. >> thanks for helping us set this up. thanks for coming. >> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]