tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 11, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EDT
are people that have already been removed from the country and the comeback again on lawfully or people authority been the image -- through the immigration system, have a final order and ignored the final order. the only way you get identified by secure communities is to have been arrested in the first place for a crime. so we are talking about people who have either a final order removal or have been previously removed. congress has been very clear with regards to both of those categories of people that their removal is a priority and so of cosee focus have a criminal conviction. it just makes sense. otherwise we wouldn't release to the streets someone we deported before to read it is a felony under federal law to re-enter the country after pryor deportation. i do not think it is the right
policy for us not to focus on resources for this individual. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair. i want to congratulate you on the great work you have been doing. i think members, if you look at the activated jurisdiction document, there is a map of it and you can see everything that is screen that shows -- that is green is deactivated which is 97%. which means there are 3074 which is pretty amazing. i want to congratulate you and i also, i asked you to look at the testimony of a director because he does talk about the efficiency and transparency part of it and the the safeguards that sheriff garcia in harris
county have talked about to make sure they do the work but at the same time, provide -- make sure there's no profiling involved. i want to thank you on that. besides alabama and illinois, i believe there were a couple of jurisdictions out there that passed ordinances also. california, i believe san francisco or santa clara. exactly three to follow up, it makes common sense. i remember when i did the toure to make store -- tour to make sure the countess i represent, i was traveling rural areas, urban areas. especially the awhirl areas, they liked it. if you are a small community, it is for and you get this help -- it is foreign that you get this
help. you are able to remove those folks out there that need to be removed. for a small community, that means a lot to read the other thing is is this common sense to read you have somebody there wanted for something else. it is only common sense that we coordinate the federal, state and local partnership. the communication part of it i think you are all working on, i appreciate that. but i think you hit something very important. sometimes local state politicians have a way of protecting the federal government and then at the same time, then they put the other hand out there saying do not do this but then they will wait for the money. i think you all need to do --
those committees, they cannot say we do not want you to do security amenities but then at the same time, they are requesting federal dollars for holden those prisoners in their ad asking for federal dollars for reinforcement. -- reimbursement. they cannot say we did not want you here. they cannot be selective in what money they are to make. federal law should -- i would ask you all to be -- to look of those very carefully. i think it would be unfair to be out there saying we do not want you. but give us money for reimbursement. i do not have any questions to ask you but i wanted to just say i think you're doing a great job. a very balanced approach that you and your men are doing out there. i really appreciate it.
it's not easy. it is that your dog to be political. i think you are doing this in a very transparent and fair and focused way. the people are not supposed to be in the united states. criminals are not supposed to be here. i appreciate good work. >> thank you. >> ideal but the balance of my time. >> the chairman recognizes mr. thompson terry >> thank you very much. director, in june 2011, a memorandum between ice and dhs indicated that statistical monitoring would be used to identify possible anomalies and risk patterns under secure communities. what has been the results of the
statistical monitoring to date? >> you are right, mr. thompson. one of the major reforms we other took to improve the transparency of the program and it just concerned that somehow secure communities might inadvertently have been used to promote racial profiling was to create a statistical analysis. be teamed up with the office of civil rights and superb -- civil liberties so it was not simply something that ice was doing itself. we have people who were knowledgeable and expert in this area. we actually helped them to hire a statistician. in response to your question, as we started the statistical analyses, we are looking at the first couple of instances in which the statistics appear to be anomalous. we are doing a couple of things there. we are trying to work with the department of justice and the civil-rights division in
particular to come up and use their expertise with some modeling to understand the statistics well. there can be lots of reasons why a particular county has statistical spikes. some of them are not necessarily related to civil-rights concerns so we are working with the civil-rights division to come up with across the part mental approach. ultimately, it will be the civil rights investigation that would investigate and prosecute any think it would refer to them. i do not have a civil-rights investigative authority. the second thing that we are doing is were we to identify any particular jurisdiction that did have a concern, we will worked with the civil-rights division to engage in a direct investigation in the form of interviews on the ground inspections. we are doing our own auditing of
the program which -- where we go around to various jurisdictions and audits the results are cells. i am happy to say that to date, we have not had instance to refer something for direct investigation to the civil- rights division. but we have had the first set of results and it suggests there are some counties we need to do some digging in keeping to determine what is going on >> if at some point when you move along with the program, some of us would be interested in seeing some of those reports for our review. >> we would be happy to give the committee or you in particular a briefing on our results and share what we found with you.
>> on a local matter, a county south of me, at the discounted, mississippi, where some ice -- there had been a rash of gang-related violence that led to the death of one guard and several injured. explain to me a committee members what kind of oversight do you give private contractors who have a contract with ice? this -- kind of describe what you expect. >> several kings. we have detention standards that are worked into our contract with them that they must abide by.
in many of the larger facilities that are dedicated or primarily focused, we have our employees there in addition to the contractors during it even knows where we do not have a full-time presence, we've between the inely them -- we routeinl visit them. with regards to gang violence, we screen for gang affiliations at intake. so we classify people based on their criminal convictions first and foremost we are looking for gang affiliations as well. we do what we can to separate gang members so that we did not create an undo concentration. not everybody volunteers that they are the member of a game. but we do our very best.
>> thank you. i see my time has expired but i would like to get with you to further this discussion about this particular facility. thank you, i yield back. rec the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you for being here today. there is an interesting constitutional debate raging across the country now in the wake of the supreme court ruling on the arizona law. south carolina passed a similar law and i think it will be a future supreme court ruling on this but i want to point to justice scalia's dissenting opinion when he talks about the rights of the sovereign states. and what rights in two states have an enforcement of federal law and protecting securing
their own state borders? the chairwoman and members of committee, i would point to them to read the opinion because it is very interesting going forward. director, i was reading the memorandum of march 2, 2011, were you point out some priorities for ice. first off, thank you for what you do in the agency does. i also want to mention the fall -- the fallen officer and mentioned earlier. our condolences to his family. going back to the parties, on 2011, it's interesting you have recent illegal entrants. that means if someone just enter the country and was apprehended, they get -- then i read in to
june 17 that talks about length of presence in the united states. someone that broke the same law and cross our border, just because they have been in this country longer than someone else, they are given priority? could you explain the reasoning behind that. >> we start out. the beginning equation is what can we do with the resources congress has provided us? on average, we can remove about 400,000 people a year with the resources we have. to me the question then is to are those people going to be? are they the first 400,000 people about worked in the door? i do not think i can be the approach. you have to say no, and has to
be the 400,000 people that make the most sense for public safety and the administration. >> i do not mean to interrupt but you -- inapprehension is inapprehension whether that person has been here for 10 years or they just crossed for -- our borders. it had been here longer, you will let them go but if they just crossed the border, he will send them back? rex lauck quite. what we're talking about is not a question of our apprehension but the tension and ultimate removal. we have to give a removal order before we can move some from the united states. by and large, that is accomplished through detaining them. we have a limited number of detention beds. do we focus our resources on somebody who just came across the border to years ago as opposed to somebody you can across 10 years and now has to united states citizens children and three cars in the driveway.
in those circumstances, we say be focused on the person who violated the law most recently and those who have committed a crime. if i have to pick between putting a criminal in detention or somebody who is been here a long time, i will pick the criminal every time. i think there is a much greater effect on public safety and immigration enforcement when i do that. >> where do the overstays, in that hierarchy? >> there -- they are a very difficult situation. it is a real challenge for us. i do not want to minimize it. roughly 40% of the people who are in the country unlawfully originally came on visa. the short answer to question is
the fall and the other question is have they been here a relatively recent amount of time or long amount of time? today half other equities? to they have united states citizen children, are they married to a u.s. citizen. those are the real world decisions we have to make when using the resources congress gives us. there are more people them we can put in debts. >> to you have access to the entry-level data if someone came in on a visa? i read some of the sharing of information of a fingerprint data. >> we do. congress mandated information sharing after 9/11. it is a basis for secure communities.
a little bit challenging the fees the overstays in that typically the address we will have on the i-94, the list th eir hotel as the address and that is the last record we have to go from. them we have to do database searches. so it is a challenging enforcement regime. but we do have access. >> my time is up. i yelled back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, madam chair. in 2009, you stated that to 87 g -- 287 g -- d. still agree with that assessment? >> i do, particularly for the jail model where it has proven to be a good use of our
resources and of the taxpayer dollars. i do not feel that way with regard to many of the task force agreements that have largely for economic reasons in the jurisdictions where they are found become unproductive. >> on the ice websites and your statement, there is a lot of very positive statements regarding the 287 g agreements. and how it is great you can have federal, state, local law enforcement agencies work together. i think it is concerning that you have recently gotten rid of the 287 g agreement with arizona state and local law- enforcement agencies. what is the reasoning behind it?
why pick arizona as the sole one right now to remove a program that he said was an essential component of dhs's enforcement strategy? correct couple of things. the agreements with a term -- the agreements were task force agreements. we did not terminate in jail model agreements theory it -- model agreements. they were leading to no removal. be viewed them as unproductive and not a good use of taxpayer resources. >> now let's think of the timing. it was within a couple of hours after the supreme court ruled the main portion at arizona's state law when secretary of the polis, made the statement --
secretary napolitano made the statement. did they talk to you about if they would remove the task force agreement if the supreme court ruled differently? what was the conversation there. the timing is extraordinarily curious. if the task force were not operating in the manner you would have liked, wouldn't it had been a bit sooner or maybe even later but within hours after the ruling, that is an interesting time line. i will love to hear what they spoke to you about and what will be going forward to request we have had discussions for quite some time on the unproductive tax forces. and the budget requests for the year. the department is seeking fewer
dollars for the 287 g program because the task force model has proved to be unproductive. we were not going to renew the 287 g agreements that were rescinded in arizona for the next fiscal year. we will terminate them anyway in a few months. we ultimately decided that it made sense upon the supreme court's ruling to lay the feature to bear, not to have a series of truncated efforts. they were producing zero removals for two years running in six of the seven cases and we decided to do it all at once. >> so there was a concerted effort and conscious decision that because of the decision by the supreme court wanted to do it quickly after that? >> i did not understand why it was necessary to do it at that
point unless it was for a various political reasons from the administration to request i think we did it because we thought it made the most sense to do it at the same time. we knew they -- we were going to terminate those agreements. they were producing no removal. we knew that there would be questions about how things would operate and we wanted to set the record very clear. how are we going forward, you can call the law enforcement support center 24 hours a day. in arizona pursuant to our priorities, we will not suggest that we will continue with task forces that were not a good use of taxpayer resources. i think the record as good on that. >> if you look at the crux of
that law and trying to work with federal law enforcement officials to it here to federal law and then you of cook county not being cooperative with the secure communities. have you heard of anything the administration will take against cook county? are they going to sue cook county. will they get the doj involved in taking them to court? they are contrary to what federal law is rather than try to aid them. >> the short answer to your question is i have personally met with the department of justice to raise my concern. those concerns are shared by the
secretary. she's testified to that herself. we are in discussion to see what we can do on many fronts to come to a better resolution in secure communities. the present approach is not a good one. i do not know if you heard my answer before but both the question of can we work with the department of justice to locate in the options in may have to get to a better place for the county but also to look at the county's annual request for reimbursement under the program for the individuals that they detained the better their unlawfully. cook county has received several million dollars each year to reverse -- reimbursed it we find that position to be
inconsistent. >> it was swift but arizona passed their own law. the doj came in pretty quickly. but now since you have some serious issues with them, there has been no talk about a loss it. or is there one pending? >> i had i get her back from the department of justice. we had only been meeting for the last couple of months and they wanted to see how certain pieces of court decisions came out. i expect to hear from them shortly. resolving the issue in cook county is very important for me. it is one of the single largest attention systems in the country -- detention systems in the country. right now, they are releasing no individuals to us, including very violent offenders. >> thank you, director.
my time has expired. >> the chair will recognize the gentle lady from taxes. >> thank you. thank you to the chair and ranking member. welcome director and thank you for your service and as well, let me offer my concern for the officers who were involved in an incident of violence. and to their families and to your organization. i always looked to thanking those on the front lines for us. >> i will leave the work you're doing is very important but i never came to an immigration hearing -- i call my silence it
provides. what this country needs is a new -- real comprehensive immigration reform so we're not confusing in juxtaposing benefits and the right opportunity for those who want to immigrate to this country and particularly enforcement against those who would want to do us harm. to secure -- i think it is important that we try to determine what lessons we have learned and how we can be more effective. i happen to support the president's decision on the dream act. the men in texas, we have seen in 90% -- living in texas, we have seen 90% good as opposed to
harm. i appreciate there have been a number of realization of powers under the law that your agency has been affected in utilizing. i think this executive order will be helpful to all of us. it would be better under a comprehensive immigration reform. the 14-year-old texas girl was missing from 2010 until 2012 and was -- it was proven that she was given a fake name. she was held in the harris county jail. they took fingerprints but did not confirm identity before deporting her. in another incident, a chicago area resident born in india and adopted by an american, was flat as an illegal immigrant after a
drug-related arrests because the federal government never updated his immigration status. he was held for two months in a maximum prison before they cancel the attention -- canceled the detention order. what phil years -- what failures could allow a u.s. citizen to be detained? please share before the subcommittee the outreach efforts ice initiated through secure communities, if at all, and lessons learned on both of those cases? >> let me start with the database issue. one of the lessons that has become clear is that when you have an information sharing system, it depends on
information in databases. the sharing and the results that come from and are only as good as what is in the system. we have to have accurate records in place. the chicago case is under litigation so i have to be careful about it highlights the need to have accurate records from all the pieces of the puzzle. congress mandated the sharing of information all across the department of homeland security and all across the federal government. we need to make sure the information in there is correct. with regard to the 14-year-old, i view that case as a very sad case. as you know, the young ladies history was somewhat troubled,
and there were many steps along the way, all the way from the moment she was arrested by the local police, she managed to pull the judge, the prosecutor, her on defense attorney in that particular case and ultimately colombian authorities. she got presidency upon her to dig in her time there. but we did meet with you and other members of the caucus and took a hard look and what it told us is that particularly with regard to juvenile offenders, when we have some sense that something is all right, even on the surface, we have to go the extra mile with juvenile to make sure that we are not making a mistake. that is why i am a big believer
in improved transparency of the secure communities program. you are right that we as an agency were not as transparent as we should have been. we should have had better out reach and many secure communities is misunderstood. there are rumors and innuendo about things. the best way to enter those criticism is to have our reach to meet people on that. and to involve members such as yourself, i very much appreciate the assistance you gave us in texas one we had our first outreach on the secretary's memorandum with regard to the dream act kids. that was the first our region the country that happen in your district. i think those kind of things are very, very helpful. so we've just got to get out there and not run from that mistake, and try to improve that
mistake, and then get out and explain to people why we are doing things the way we are doing them and do that in a dispassionate and professional way. >> let me thank you for your endurance. there was one element where the fingerprints were not checked. in your review and work and moreile, you've got to be persistent and looking at both element to be able to ascertain juvenile or not or would condition that person is in. >> one of the tricks in her case was that she had never been encountered before in a way that led to work fingerprinting, so there was no other prior payment and to compare against. the fingerprint that was taken at harris county with the very first time she had been fingerprinted in a way that i could have checked. we need to figure out away,
particularly with young juvenile, to have extra procedures in place. i will tell you that i have never seen a case like hers in my entire time in the federal government. she was able to adopt an identity that many parts of the system believed. that is not a perfect answer and a result needs to be that the system needs to deal with that even when a troubled person abbas and identity like that, but i will say i do think it is a relatively rare case. >> before you close eye does want to make an inquiry. i think this has been a very helpful hearing and i appreciate hearing the director's comments on the new technology and everything, with young people being as mature as they are, we
need to be focused on how to make sure we are attentive to those kinds of cases. also asked if the chair and the ranking member would consider the incidents that are occurring at the border. with respect to a very fine leadership at the border, but some troubling incidences', documented u.s. citizens papers are being taken away and they are being forced to sign papers that they are not u.s. citizens. we will make sure that we don't have illegal entry, but we also, those of us in texas are concerned that are u.s. citizens who may decide to live temporarily in mexico are having their documents boy did i of pressure and intimidation. of believe a very viable hearing our inquiry to make, and i will write a letter to that extent and ask for further opportunity for us to look into that.
i yield back. i hope the chairman and ranking member would consider that as part of the hearing, with your resources and customs, i think those resources should be used in an effective and legal and upstate in -- and upstanding manner, as they have been. these incidents i think require our review. i yield back. >> i would comment to all the members that the hearing record will be held open for 10 days, so any other additional comments or questions are what have you can be submitted for the record. i want to thank director morton for attending today. i think this was an excellent hearing. lots of questions, lot of good answers. a lot of challenges ahead for your agency, for the committee and the nation as well as we all try to do our very best to make sure we do have secure borders. i know you are running for an airplane we said we would try to
be timely. we appreciate your service and on behalf of a grateful nation, we appreciate the men and women in your agency that are very diligently each and every day to keep our country safe. with that, the committee will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> on "washington journal" tuesday morning, we took calls about congress. host: what we are going to do now is talk with stephen shepard. we are going to talk about a variety of polls that are out there. i thought it would be interesting to get your insight and take on the numbers. one of them is something we see all the time about this time of
year. it asked you whether folks would reelect their member of congress. give us the details on this particular poll. guest: this week's poll was conducted over the past weekend, asking people, we know that -- how do people feel about their member of congress? right now only 35% of voters think that their members of congress has done their job well enough to deserve to be reelected. 51% think it is time to give someone else a chance. that is historically pretty low. historically speaking, that is very low for someone's incumbent member of congress. host: moving along to a separate
poll that talks about electing most members of congress. guest: as expected, voters have even less of an opinion against most members of congress rather than their own member of congress. democrats and republicans are fairly even on that. more than two-thirds of not like tos would see most members of congress reelected. we dialed randomly both of landline and cell phones to roughly 1000 adults over the course of the poll conducted third day for sunday of this past week. between 750-800 are registered to vote and they are the people who answered these questions for us. host: it sounds like they are
going ever busy part of the year and they will get busy just before they break before the elections. it if you can,h mr. shepard. the first item that you talk about here is tax cuts for wharton small businesses. 52% of folks polled say it is very important. guest: this is a broader a m -- sample of americans. what they thought was important to act on before the end of the year. one issue is job creation. we tested a democratic proposal and a republican proposal, and also for the bush tax cuts. the first one is the tax cuts for large and small businesses. that is the republican proposal to create jobs. we found a majority think it is very important for congress to agree on that this year. but that was your than 7% who
thought that additional federal spending on infrastructure and schools and preventing layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and other first responders was very important for congress to act. that was the more democratic proposal. 10% said not important and 22% not important at all. guest: i think it echoes where we are with health care these days. americans were right down the middle. in this case i think americans are really desperate for congress and their political leaders to agree on this issue and set it aside and focus on the economy and jobs. >> 70% according to this pulsate is very important for congress
to act on new -- on new stimulus spending. did that number surprise you? guest: not really. we asked about federal spending on infrastructure and tools and to prevent layoffs of teachers and firefighters and other first responders. it speaks to messaging advantage the democrats might have moving through the rest of the session and the lame duck election. the proposal about infrastructure and tools and firefighters and teachers. host: those last two items very timely as the president heads out to iowa. he has a this is -- congress has a decision to make, extending the bush tax cuts for all, and then that $280,000 mark. what else should we be reading into the numbers? >> multiple poles of shown there is more support for the
president's proposal right now, and that is extending the bush era tax cut. yester day the white house hammered home that and i think democrats recognize that might have an opening there. in that most people see under that income threshold that tend to earn their support when asked about it in polls, given the choice between extending only for those under the $250,000 threshold versus all taxpayers. >> in a few moments, mitt romney campaigned in colorado. then the auto industry assistance and pensions. >> in a meeting that is expected to last all day, the house agriculture committee will mark up its version of a new farm bill tomorrow. you can see that on c-span3
beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> shreveport in march, apple in little rock. oklahoma city in may, which taught in june, and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch the continuing troubles of c-span's local content vehicles every month on book tv and american history tv. next month, look for the literary history of louisville, ky. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney campaigned in western colorado tuesday, hosting a town hall meeting in grand junction. this is a little less than an hour. [cheers and applause]
>> thank you. what a welcome. thank you. that is a hello. i will tell you. that is terrific. good to be here with their elected officials. i see the attorney general is back here. please stand and be recognized. i appreciate you being here. [applause] he has been leading my campaign in the state. i am counting on him to get me a win here. are we going to win here in november? [applause] colorado could well be the place that decides to our next president is going to be. if it is the place that decides that i am counting on you to get the job done. [cheers and applause] let me offer a few words to
begin with just about the fact the whole nation has been watching colorado over the past days and weeks as the wildfires have changed the lives of so many people. there has been a loss of life and the loss of hundreds of homes. lives have been changed. our hearts go out to the people of colorado who have been effected by the tragedy of these wildfires. we have also seen some of the greatness of the human spirit demonstrated by the people in colorado -- [applause] -- as you have come forward to not only fight the blaze is but the devastation in lives affected by the fire. it has been interesting to read these stories and hear the experiences of those to make a difference in the lives of others. when i would like to call out to somebody you may have seen or heard about.
a guy 15 years of age was doing some lawn mowing around the house. he saw some smoke in the distance and realized people could be heard by that fire. he got on a four wheeler and drove off to go warn people. the fire was pretty darn close as he went around to warn people. he warned people one after the other and help them get out of harm's way. and then the fire closed in behind him. he knew his dad was behind watching and might try to run to the fire himself. he turned around and took is for real arthur that fire, got himself pretty burned, blisters all over his arm in the hospital. he did that all because he was worried around -- worried about people there around him. he is a hero among us. j.d., would you stand and be recognized? [cheers and applause]
j.d., take it personally, we love what you did. we love the spirit that drove you to do something like that. we celebrate the greatness of humanity, of people acting beyond themselves for something bigger than themselves. is part of the american experience. is part of what defines this great country. i am here to talk about the course for the country and what lies ahead for a america. i know that last week the middle class of america got a kick in the that when the jobs numbers came out. we found out we created only
80,000 jobs. our nation is to create double that if we keep up with the population growth of our nation so we're falling further behind under the presidency. that is one reason we are going to change him and get somebody in there that will get the economy going. [cheers and applause] but this week the president added insult to injury with another kick at enter the gatt. by announcing he has a plan to lower taxes. we were all excited when we heard that. you have to be careful. when people in washington say they are lowering taxes, hold on to your wallet. for some people he announced your taxes will stay the same period in washington that means you lower taxes. for others -- for job creators and small businesses he announced a massive tax increase. [boos] at the very time the american
people are seeing fewer jobs created and we need the president announces he will make it harder for jobs to be created. i do not think this president understands how our economy works. liberals have an entirely different view about what makes america the powerhouse it is. i love what ronald reagan said. he said it is not that liberals are ignorant, it is just what they know is wrong. [applause] and the idea -- the very idea of raising taxes on small business and job creators at the very time we need more jobs is the sort of thing only an extreme liberal could come up with. this is the sort of thing that used to be in the democratic party and the times past. bill clinton called himself a new democrat. he believes smaller government, reform the welfare as we knew it and try to get the economy
going with trade. new democrats have been some good things. a lot of republicans the been some good things. this old-style liberalism of bigger and bigger government and taxes has to end and we will end it in november. [cheers and applause] you know, the president said just give his policies sometime. that is a change of rhetoric. when he was inaugurated, he went on the today show and said, if i cannot turn the economy around in three years i will be looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect. [cheers and applause] we have now seen him measured
by his own metric. because he says if we let him borrow $787 billion for his stimulus, so called, they would be able to keep unemployment below 8%. it has been above 8% every month since. 41 straight months by their own measure, he has failed. his policies do not work. liberal directions for the country are the wrong directions for the country. [cheers and applause] you look at what he did. i know liberals like him think these things will help, but they did not. and we know they did not. the evidence they did not work is the numbers around us. these are not just statistics.
these are real americans who need work that cannot find it. it is people with part-time jobs that need full-time work. kids coming out of high school or college that cannot find work. half of america's graduates coming out of college could not find work or work consistent with their skills. it is a human tragedy. did you hear what dick armey said? he said the american dream is no longer owning your own home. it is getting your kids out of the home you own. people are having to go back home -- [applause] -- i am applying a little humor to a really sad situation. a lot of people are not getting the homes they are expecting because of the policies of this president. he said look at the times. let's ask, do these help create jobs or does it make harder for jobs to be created. look at his energy policy.
it was let's slow down the development of coal. if somebody wants to build a new cold fire, -- coal power plant they will go bankrupt. he has made it harder to use 0 coal. he prevents us from drilling in the outer continental shelf. and then you have natural gas -- massive new natural gas resources but the federal government trying to insert itself in with fracking regulations at the national level. do these policies help create jobs? no. and the more he pursues the policy is the harder it will be more americans to go to work. then there are his trade policies. for a productive nation like ours, ours is the most productive work force in the world. it is good to be able to trade
with other nations. it creates more jobs. during the last three and a half years, european nations and china have created 44 different trade agreements. this president has put together zero. in addition his trade policies are affected by his stance toward china. china has been stealing our designs, patents, know how, our brand names. it has been hacking into corporate computers as well as governmental computers. they are manipulating our currency and the president refuses to recognize the currency manipulation. if i am the president, i have a different view than his. my view is his trade policies do not work to create jobs. do you think they are working? by the way, he likes to talk about outsourcing. he has run some interesting attack ads on me on that topic. an independent, unbiased fact
checking organization looked at his ads and said it is false and misleading. but it is interesting that when it comes to outsourcing that this president has been outsourcing a good deal of american jobs himself by putting money into energy companies, solar and wind energy companies that make their products outside of the united states. if there is and how sorcerer in chief, it is the president of the united states, other guy to replace him. -- not the other guy running to replace him. [cheers and applause] there is another part of his policy that relates to the economy. do you believe permanent trillion dollar deficits will create american jobs? let me mention one more and that is regulatory burdens. you need to have -- you cannot
have people running often starting banks in their garages and taking money from their neighbors. you have to have regulations to make an economy effective. you need them updated. you need the modern. this president has increased the rate of new major regulations by threefold over his predecessor. do you believe adding regulations help small businesses grow and add jobs? ok. it is unanimous. the president's policies are not creating jobs. it is making it harder for this economy to recover having the president pursuing liberal policies that did not work in the past and will not work now in in modern america. i have a very different vision. [cheers and applause] let me tell you what i would do. let me mention five steps would
be to get the economy going. i would take advantage of our energy resources. our coal, gas, oil, our renewal both. [cheers and applause] -- our renewables. no. two, i will take advantage of trade opportunities particularly in latin america. number three, i will cut back on the size of government. it is taking too much out of our paycheck. [cheers and applause] i will look at all the programs we have a in government and ask this question. is this program so critical to america it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it. on that basis the first one i
will get rid of is obamacare. [cheers and applause] so energy, trade, cutting back on the side of -- size of government. for-- four -- making sure we have schools that are the best in the world, not in the bottom quartile. the president talks that talk. he talks about investing in our kids and improving our schools, but look what happens when the president paused largest contributor to his campaign and the campaigns of his fellow democrats come from see teachers union, it means those union bosses have a big state. too often, the interest of this
union bosses is placed ahead of our teachers and our kids. that has got to change. [applause] and one more. perhaps the most important, in some respects. that is, restoring economic freedom and -- this country's economy is propelled by free people pursuing their dreams, working hard, in some cases starting small businesses, in some cases reaching for new job opportunities that they think will improve their lives or their families' lives. it is americans dreaming, building, creating, an entrepreneur, innovators, that drive our economy and put us ahead of europe and the great
populated nations of asia. this economic freedom was envisioned by the founders. they said that the creator endowed us with our rights. [applause] and those rights, of course, were protected through the constitution. among those rights the they described in the declaration of independence were life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that phrase, pursuit of happiness, means that, in this country, people would be free to pursue happiness as they choose, not as government directs. it is the nature of america to have free people pursuing their dreams.
dreams are being crushed with taxes going up and up. on job creators and business craters. when regulators become overwhelming and burdensome. when people in government treat you like you are the enemy instead of the friend. if i'm president of the united states, i will do everything in my power to make sure that this is the best place in the world for under present innovators. small businesses, big businesses, i'll make my job creating good jobs for the american people. [applause] so let me come back to you. i have spoken lumber than you might have expected. less than i sometimes do. i will turn to you and asking four questions you might have. i will do my best and respond. the sky is already up with a
question it we will come to that. i will end with a few thoughts. please, go ahead. >> how you fight the fourth wing of the democratic party, which is the media? obama said he created 80,000 jobs. they did not say he lost 150,000 jobs. we need a fighter out there. i have been listening to allen west stock. he would make a great vice- president. he was is a fighter, and that is what we want. [applause] >> all suggestions are welcome. i can tell you this. we are fortunate that the american people get their information from a larger and larger array of outlets. people get their news from cable, from talk shows on the radio, from the internet -- people find sources that they
find to be the most reliable. we're able to communicate broadly to the american people. not just for one or two networks, but through a whole host of vehicles. that is why i think, when the president came out with obamacare and the mainstream media thought it was by and large ok, the american media got a -- got information from a wide range of sources and recognize that it is bad medicine and it has got to go. now and then i realize i'm fighting an uphill battle. some organs of the national media -- nonetheless, there are some people who are open an unbiased and women to get a message across. by the way, i cannot wait for the debates to have a chance to go face-to-face with the president. [applause] people watch for an hour or an
hour and a half three times and get to see our different perspectives. the president was kind enough to give me a call on the day i got the nomination. he said, i congratulate you. i think the country will benefit from an important and honest debate on the issues. on the course for america -- the future for america. i think that is their right. so far, this company has not done -- his campaign has not done that. but i do hope that at some point the president gets serious about talking about the direction for the country and that the direction he has taken as in so far has not put america to work, has not fulfilled our promises, and it is time, in the view of the american people, to take us in a different direction and make a strong again. thank you. [applause] >> i work for military bases as
a contract engineer for many years. what bothers me is that a lot of that equipment that the u.s. military uses its foreign-may. you are on a military base -- you see a bus that is a mercedes-benz. our troops are forced to use and battalion pistol instead of a bigger 45 calls that we used to. -- .45 colt that we used to. it is nice that we support all the economies of the world, but what about us here? would you have every piece of equipment manufactured in the united states for military -- every piece of military and carbon manufacturing united states, you would have a couple more million dollars. [applause]
>> i believe that america can make the best products in the world. if we are making the best products in the world, we will be able to make sure that, not only in our military but in our homes, we are buying american products. i believe that competition -- in competition and a president that helps american manufacturers compete. that will create american jobs and put jobs back into this country that have left in many cases. i read an article the other day by a columnist at "the washington post and " he said, a study has shown that if we were serious about taking advantage of our coal, gas, oil, and renewable, america could be the largest energy-producing nation in the world within 10 years. and if we did that, if we did that and had low-cost available energy, manufacturing would come back to this country. if we want american goods to be the best in the world, we want
to make sure the input costs, our energy costs, are competitive. they can be, they will be, you will see that happen here. let me talk about our military commitment what you raise that. i am concerned that after the conflicts we have been through, a lot of our military equipment has been damaged and will need to be replaced. there are some who think we should compromise on the military and should cut back on our military capacity. it seems to be the one place for the president is comfortable cutting, our military spending. he's cutting the number of ships to make. the number of aircraft will purchase. he wants to cut the number of active-duty personnel and the military. my view is this. a military must be so superior that nobody in the world would ever think of challenging it. [applause] and so i would take ship
building from 9 per year to 15 per year. i would buy more aircraft. i would add 100,000 active-duty personnel to our ranks. i would make sure that our veterans to the care they so richly deserve. [applause] go-ahead. he has a note pad here. that is not fair. >> this year will be the first time i will have the privilege of voting. >> excellent. >> i pay a lot more attention to politics than i have in the last few years. see you here in person has given me a lot more respect for you as a person in terms of the sincerity and passion you have. i totally understand your position on small government. i think it is an honorable stance. it does not get the credit it deserves for what it is trying to do.
i see the project herself as somebody who is a champion of liberty. i was moved when he said this country is propelled by free people. one of the cornerstones is that we are allowed to pursue our activities as we choose to do them. it is a beast drank from the economic position, but as an example, -- straying from the economic position, considering your economic position, being a minority -- my question is, in terms of social equality and in terms of women's rights or gay- rights and liberty in that area , what is so wrong about exploring liberty and giving liberty to everyone and not just in the economy? >> i do believe in providing personal liberty, and economic liberty, political liberty to the american people. i believe that everybody in this
country should have the opportunity to pursue a choice in life that they choose. that is what makes america america. [applause] i support the statement that you make. there may be some places where we have different viewpoints. i, for instance, believe that when it comes to a very tender issue, the issue of abortion. i know that well-meaning americans come to different conclusions on that topic. some, like myself, attach importance to the unborn child as a life, just as we do -- [applause] just as we do to the amama. to the person carrying the unborn child. their two lives involved.
we have to wait what is the right course in projecting liberty and life in that setting. my view is that we should protect the sanctity of life, unborn and living. -- unborn and born. some of these issues are very difficult for some. i believe the people come to different conclusions. out of a well-meaning intent. not all these issues are easy. we should show respect to people who come to other conclusions, acknowledge the rights to reach those conclusions, and let the american people make the decision as to what they think is right. i do not think that an important issue like that should be decided by a one-vote majority in the supreme court. these decisions should be decided by the american people. thank you. [applause]
>> will you be announcing your vice-president election before or after orlando? >> tampa? you mean the republican convention? yes. [laughter] i cannot give you the time line for that. that is a decision will make down the road. nor can i give the individual. i could tell you that the person i choose you will look at and say, that is a person who could be president if that were necessary. that, for me, is the most important single criteria. thank you. [applause] >> as a state legislator, will he stop sending us unfunded mandates? [applause]
>> uc, state legislators and former governors have pet peeves. one of them is when the federal government says you have to do something and does not send the money for you to do it. that happens too often. i have a different plan altogether, which you are going to find creates an awful lot of work for you and your colleagues. it happens to be good for america. that is, the federal government has become so large and unwieldy that in many cases it is being governed by people who are so out of touch from what is actually happening in people's lives that they are not doing the job the programs ought to do. i would take a program like medicaid, which is a program for poor individuals who need health care, provides health-care services to the poor. i would take that hundreds of billions of dollars, up state- by-state based on the shares they are getting, and send it to
colorado to say, you care for your own poor's health care in the way you think best. [applause] that might apply also to housing vouchers and food stamps, other programs that help the very poor in your community, because my experience is that what it means to be poor in massachusetts is different from montana or mississippi, and i would rather let the legislators or the governors of respective states decide what is the best way to provide care for those who need the care. we are a generous people. we are compassionate and generous people. we want to have a strong and able safety net for the people who need our care. but i believe that these major programs, to the extent they can be managed effectively at the state level, should be managed care. it will surely do a better job caring for those who need care. by the way, it will save a lot of money.
instead of all the bureaucrats and all these programs that in many cases do not apply to a state like colorado as effectively as they might summer isles, we can say -- do you know how many job training programs there are? federal job-training programs? 47 different federal jobs and training programs. the report to a different agencies. think of the overlap. -- eight different agencies. think of the overlap. i would take that money and say, colorado, take that money and use it as you see best. i would transition to a state- the program. i like competition. i like states competing with each other, learning from each other. [applause] i have to tell you, my favorite story about states competing. i learned it when i was a new governor because i wanted my
state to grow and add jobs, and my fellow governor, governor schwarzenegger, wanted the same thing for his state. he came to massachusetts and the billboards up with him on the billboard wearing a t-shirt with big muscles. it said, come to california. here he was come up coaching jobs from a fellow republican state. i would billboards up in his state with me in a t-shirt, flexing my muscles, but it said, smaller muscles but much lower taxes, come to massachusetts. [applause] >> i.n.d. local da. i have a crime question. 16 years ago, we had a horrible double-murder less than 1 mile were you were standing. a 17-year-old man was raping an 11-year-old girl and killed her and her 42-year-old mother.
in recent county jury convicted him of first-degree murder. in mason county judge convicted him. the colorado supreme court said that was read. last week, the u.s. supreme court said that was cruel and unusual punishment. what can we do about things like that to keep our streets safe? >[applause] >> this is an issue that a number of people feel -- come out on different sides on. people of good faith. i feel that, and i realize this is not a death penalty case. yours was a life imprisonment is. i believe that the death penalty tends to prevent some of the most heinous crimes. [applause] i also believe, obviously, that
the prison terms that are the nature you described can also prevent some of the most heinous crimes from occurring. this is a decision normally made state-by-state. in this case, the supreme court was looking at the age of the offender. i will tell you. a 17-year-old -- that breaks my heart. i will look at that particular case. i am somebody who comes down on the side of swift and severe punishment for those who commit the serious crimes. -- these serious crimes. [applause] >> tell us about your plan for education. >> thank you. let me tell you about my own experience in education. that is, i came into a state where my predecessors had taken some action to reform our education system.
they did a good job. this was back in 1993, a long time ago. they said, for kids who will be in high school to graduate with a degree, they need to pass an exam. in math and english. i added signs to that. state take over schools that are chronically failing. we will equalize the funding for students. we will open up more charter schools and open up the door to charter schools and estates of people have greater choice. -- in our state so people have greater choice. these had a great impact. massachusetts students are ranked no. 1 in the nation. there are four measures. we rank number one in all 50 states. i said that those who passed his graduation exam, if you pass in the top quarter of your high school class, you are entitled
to a john and abigail adams scholarship, four years tuition- free at a massachusetts institution of higher learning -- learning. a public institution. by the way, the provision, the original legislation said that there was a provision in the union contract which was interfering with the education of a child. if the school got in trouble, we could get rid of that provision. we added charter schools. when i was governor, the teachers' union was not happy with all the starter schools. it passed a law putting a moratorium on new charter schools. i vetoed it. in my state, the democrats had 87% of the legislature. you might think it would be hard for my veto to be of help. in this case, the black caucus
team to my aid, along with needing -- leading democrats. they said that our kids need help to get out of the worst schools. the measures i described make a big difference. if i am president, the federal dollars in education, dollars that go to the poor and disabled, they will be attached to the child, not the school, state, or district. the child can go to whatever school they want and take those dollars with them so we empower school choice across the nation. thank you. back here. yes, sir. here comes the microphone. >> something that is important to people in this area. something former law enforcement personnel would like to use the
gun, second amendment rights and the ability to have our own firearms. [applause] >> i love the constitution, and i love all the amendments. the second amendment is one which i respect. i believe people should have the right to bear arms for whatever legal purpose they have in mind. simple answer. [applause] >> in the debates, i am sure you will be hammered about what the other team likes to call " romneycare." but why don't you make the point that it was what the people of massachusetts put you in to do and you did it. you did not force it down somebody's throat. >> thank you. i sure hope the president brings it up. i will point out the differences between what we did and what he did. what we did was work in a bipartisan basis.
my legislature looked at my bill. of 200 legislators, to vote against it. of 200. the business community, advocates for the poor altogether and said this was a good state for -- good step forward. i vetoed a number of measures in the bill that were not upheld. nonetheless, it was something we worked out for our own state. i love the idea that the founding fathers had a federalism. kind of a strange term to describe the fact that states are the places where we make key decisions that affect the lives of people. i like that idea. [applause] i do not like the idea of the federal government coming in and saying, we will take away the rights of states. we will impose the will of one party, one-party exclusively, on the entire nation. our nation is divided about half and half the republicans and democrats. " they said, we will impose our will on the entire nation, raise
taxes, cut medicare by $500 billion. you are more liberal friends, when they say, you republicans are going to cut my so security, medicare, say that there is what only one president who has cut medicare by $500 billion. this is president obama. i went to save and reform medicare so that higher income people do not get as big a benefit as lower income people. good point. i will keep in mind. >> this is a comment and question. why is the obama team and the liberal media wanting us to think that we should be more angry with what you do with your money than what obama has done with mine? [applause]
>> thank you. i am not going to apologize for success at home. i will not apologize for america abroad. [applause] i went out and began a business. the business turned out to be far more successful than i would have imagined. the profits from the business overwhelmingly went to the people who invest with us. pension funds, a church pension fund, not my church, somebody else's. if you want to know who's, i will let you know. in the process, we were able to create jobs in our own business and some of the places we invested were able to create jobs as well. i saw a report by my former company,bain capital, that
said, in their investments in 350 companies over the years, 87% group. of 5% went bankrupt. you can imagine, the only ones you would hear about the other side will be 5%. i find a different. investing my money and people who provide me with resources for the purpose of my investing find a different from when the president takes her tax dollars and invested in the businesses of companies of his campaign contributors, like solyndra, tesla, and so forth. somebody said, we do not like the company -- government picking winners and losers. in fact, it is picking losers. [laughter] i believe the government can play an important role in encouraging technology and research. i cannot believe investing
hundreds of millions, billions and billions of dollars, in companies that have political connections. it is wrong. it smacks of corruption. it is not the right course. i will get us out of that practice. thank you so much. i am told i get one more question. >> our tax code is that. -- bad. it is full of corruption because lobbyists can go in there and dictate what is going on. do you support a fair tax or flat tax that would get rid of -- so america can truly be what it needs to be? >> i want to see us simplify the tax cut. i want to see a simpler, flatter, fairer -- what i have proposed at this stage is this. i want to lower the map -- marginal tax rate, the tax repay across the board, but 20%. bring the rates down.
i will limit deductions and exemptions. so that we can pay for that reduction. you think, than what we accomplished? what we have accomplished is this. small businesses and aldrin was will be able to keep more money to build their business, which i want them to do. for me, it is all about jobs. creighton jobs for the american people. i will bring those tax breaks out. i'll be happy to look at other measures, a flat tax, a fair tax. i want to be sure that we do not reduce the burden on the highest income tax payers and not raising taxes on middle-income taxpayers. for me, this campaign is about the middle-class and the poor. it is not about the rich. the rich will do fine whoever is elected. it is the great majority of americans who are hurting under this president who need help. i'm ready to help those people. let me say this. this is a critical juncture for
america. you know that. the president says that, i say that. the question is, are we going to be headed in the direction of liberal policies of the past, or will we take the kind of approach that has proven time and again to build the strongest economy in the world, using our energy resources, opening up trade. even bill clinton recognized the wisdom of free trade around the world, making sure restrain the size of government, and investing out time and talents in providing jobs or education for our kids. also, in preserving economic freedom. are we going to do those things? if we do those things, this economy will come roaring back. we will surprise the world with how strong america is, how many jobs we create. i am absolutely convinced that all happened. if i'm elected, we can take that new course. the consequence of getting it right is so marvelous, so terrific. we will be able to have good
jobs for people today who need them. we will be able to be confident that our kids can find the jobs they need when they come out of school. we will be able to preserve liberty for ourselves and our friends. i say that coming from a conversation in number of months ago with leaders in great britain. tony blair, david cameron, and a number of the leaders there. one of them said this to me. if you are lucky enough to be elected president of the united states and travel around from foreign capital to foreign capital, you will undoubtedly have rehearsed for you all the mistakes they think america is making. but please do not ever forget this fact. the one thing, he said, we off to the most, is a week america. -- we all fear the most, is a week america. -- a weak america. [applause]
american strength is the best ally peace has ever known. strong values, strong homes, conviction in our constitution and principals, a strong economy that is creating jobs. a strong military, second to none. the world depends upon it. our children depend upon it. that is what this will come down to. keeping america strong by creating the jobs an economy that will allow us to do it. thank you so very much. thank you. [applause] >> in a few moments, a hearing on federal systems -- federal assistance to the auto industry and its effect on pension. in a few hours, members of congress on our former member
debra giffords -- a gabrielle giffords of arizona. >> on up "washington journal" tomorrow morning, a look at the tax provisions of the affordable care act with donald marron and joseph henchman. we'll be joined by peter more of "men's health" magazine for a story on its latest -- for more on his latest story about surveillance in the united states, including which cities are the most watched trad. >> when you realize that these armies or remnants of armies were not coming to his aid, but were trying to escape. that is when he collapsed. when he realized it would come to an end. >> a historian, with a new look at the second world war, from
adolf hitler's rise to power to his dark, chaotic final days. >> his main objection was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being permitted to moscow in a cage. -- paraded through moscow in a cage. >> more, sunday at 8:00, on c- span. >> now, a hearing on governing -- government assistance to the out to industry. the subcommittee on tar per from former members of the automotive tax -- the subcommittee on to hartford from members of the automotive -- onh tarp heard from members of the automotive task force. this is three hours.
>> the committee will come to order. this hearing is entitled administrations, out of bailouts, and the delphi pension decision -- who pay to be winners and losers? we have the distinguished panel before us today. it is always the order of this subcommittee by reading the oversight committee mission statement. we exist to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from them is well-spent. second, americans deserve an efficient government that works for them. our duty is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to now what they
get from the government. we were all -- we worked tirelessly with citizens and watchdogs to bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. that is what this hearing is about. the auto bailout decision and the winners and losers that resulted from this. we have a distinguished panel to today. i'll begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. today's hearing is about a transparency in government and fulfilling this commitment to provide the american people with answers and accountability. when congress passed the troubled assets relief program known as tarp or the bailout in october of 2008 at the height of the crisis, it was designed with is a purchase -- purpose, to take toxic assets off the balance is of large financial institutions.
today's intention is not to litigate the bailout. it is important to discuss their consequences. indeed, there are consequences. when the government' orchestrats a bailout, it is clear there will be winners and losers. some of my colleagues to spend a great deal of time talking about a lot winners. it is unlikely was given spent much time talking a lot about the bailout losers. although the losses were significant, we are not here to discuss bond holders who took a hair cut on the auto bailour. t. we're here to talk about non- unionized retirees to sell part of their pension disappear. the co-workers whose pensions were left intact for members of the united auto workers union. they are clear winners of the
bailout. a recent study from one witness, a george mason university law professor, calculated that united auto workers received approximately $26 billion from taxpayers via the auto bailout said it would not have received if they had been treated according to standard bankruptcy principals. he is a witness here today. we look forward to hearing from him. when the corporation terminated the pension of all adult by retirees, general motors agreed to nichole their obligations to gs workers. at the same time, non-unionized workers to cut into their pensions. despite the fact that gm's promise could have been thrown out, like so many of their not-
he dies agreements were, the agreement was kept in place. that was a decision made by the government. the special inspector general for the troubled assets relief program has been seeking answers to questions about the irregularities of the delphi pension decisions. ms. romero is a witness today as tarp.soector for but three of the key figures involved in the bailout have refused to meet with the special and -- inspector general. i'm grateful they have showed up today. we are interested in hearing their testimony and the reasons for not meeting with the special inspector general. on may 9, the special inspector general notify the committee that three former obama administration officials for us today -- mr. bling, mr. feldman, mr. wilson -- had been
uncooperative with the audit. they possess different expertise, but began to represent leading figures from president obama's auto taskf orce. all three of these individuals made a pivotal decision is expected to cost taxpayers $22 billion and left many delphi retirees with drastically reduced pensions, while preserving pensions for their unionize retirees. these of the consequences of the bailout. with that, i would recognize the ranking member, mr. quigley of illinois, for five minutes. following that, i would recognize mr. turner, from ohio, for five minutes for an opening statements. if the gentleman would like five additional minutes, we would be willing to grant that. >> thank you. i am sure that will not be
necessary in today's case. a lot to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. no one understands or appreciates the importance of strong transparency and oversight more than this committee. we created the office of the inspector general for the troubled assets relief program. members of congress asked that to perform their audit. unfortunately, this has been stalled because they have not been able to witness -- into the three witnesses today. they are all former members of the administration's auto task force. in preparation, democratic staff spoke with all three individuals and discovered they are willing to be interviewed. this is a positive development. i'm glad they then will be able to complete their audit. the audit should complement the thoroughwort gao has already done on this issue. they published their findings in
december of two dozen 11. -- 2011. they concluded that treasury did not explicitly approve or disapprove of gm providing top cops --top-ups. today, i look forward to hearing an update on the progress of this audit. i would like to hear its -- read its final report upon a cl conclusion. the most important conclusions as to be drawn from the bailout is that they help save more than 1 million american jobs. as president obama recently said, i was betting on the american worker and american industry. three years later, the american industry has come roaring back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member
and i do want to -- and the ranking member's opening statement, he suggested that we received an e-mail at 5:46 yesterday from minority staff that you have a commitment from the bailout task force members today that they will meet with sigtarp and fulfil that request that has been longstanding with them. i thank the ranking member for getting those commitments. i think the minority staffer for getting those commitments. it has been almost -- it has been well over one year. just for sigtarp to get them to submit themselves for a deposition. with that, i would like to enter into the record the time line of interview requests from
sigtarp. beginning in may of 201 and ending in may of 2012. concluding with an interview received -- e-mail received last night from sigtarp explaining the the three witnesses in question had no communication of any sort indicating that they will make themselves available for interviews in conjunction with our audit. i do appreciate without objection, this two -- if this two documents would be entered into the records. this is bipartisan work. i appreciate the willingness of mr. quigley and your minority staffer council to give those commitments. transparencythat is certain that. i know the gentleman has been very active on these issues. thank you. >> with that, i will recognize mr. turner of ohio.
he has been a leader on the subject matter of this hearing for five -- he has been a leader of this. i recognize him for five minutes. >> i would like to thank you and chairman jordan for the work that has been done on this issue, and for holding this important hearing. today's hearing continues our efforts to continue to understand why the pension benefit guaranty corporation chose to terminate the car had an errant -- chose to terminate the hard-learned pensions of employees during its bailout of general motors. contrary to what the vice president recently said, that these retirees are doing fine, they are not doing fine. thousands lost their pensions, many of which are in my community of dayton, ohio. as a result of this decision. the white house chief of staff said that this administration is the most transparent ever.
not on this issue. we will find out why today. i have serious concerns about how this information -- administration, including the three members of the task force we have before us, have continued to stonewall, provided silence, and have refused to disclose information critical to the issues that have affected 20,000 people across the issue -- nation and was done with taxpayer dollars. this was not undertaken with your own money. it was undertaken with taxpayer money. the openness of this demonstration needs to be in force. we're here today because three former auto task force members refused to meet with, speak to, or testify to the special inspector general for the park program. --tarp program. perhaps the administration's's policy of denying this information stops.
i want to thank sigtarp for being here today, and for your honesty. you wrote us a letter that believes that the task force played a role in this, and that the failure to speak on this issue poses a significant obstacle to your ability to complete this audit. your analysis you did not have an ability to subpoena these to benjamin to make and test -- these three gentleman. he said that, you undertook the audit to get questions answered about how this process went forward. mr. bloom, mr. feldman, mr. wilson, the train of silence and refusing to answer questions today. you have been summoned before congress because you refuse to answer the questions and they did not have the ability to
compel you. he did not come here because you believe you wanted to share information. you were brought here because of your refusal to share information to the american public is entitled to hear as a result of taxpayer dollars use in the bailout of general motors and the thousands of people who lost their pensions. there is an accountability here. you will take an oath when you testified today. this is not a political proceeding. this is a legal proceeding. you'll be testifying. you'll not be giving speeches. that is what you are -- why you are sworn in. i want you to rise to the level of understanding that obligation. that means, if you do not speak truthfully in front of us, you can be subject to perjury, disbarment, or other consequences. congress takes people appearing before us seriously. we are hearing and looking for to hearing from you that you are now willing to cooperate. i want you to also be aware
that, if during that process of supposedly cooperating with sigtarp, we have the ability to continue to enforce it. we can bring you back for depositions under oath. if the information you provide is not complete and thorough, you will continue to have your happy train of silence met here with congress, where the american people require you to speak. because you served in a public position with public dollars and public obligations. today will have public questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from ohio. members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. i will now recognize our panel of witnesses today. hristy romero christian amer is the inspector general for the troubled assets relief program. mr. ron bling, mr. matthew feldman, -- ron bloom, mr.
matthew feldman, and mr. wilson, are all members of the task force. thank yo mr. a professor of law at george mason university school of law. as you valvano, this -- as you all well know, this committee swears in witnesses. if you all please rise and raise your right hand, you will be sworn in before your testimony. raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that the witness is answered in the affirmative. you are all well practiced at testifying before congress. as you well know, we have the
light system here. green beans, as we know from traffic school, green beans go. yellow means hurry up. -- green means go. yellow means hurry up. red means stop. summarize or testimony to allow for discussion and questions afterward. we'll begin with ms. romero for five minutes. >> ranking member quigley, members of the committee, i am honored to be here before you today and very much want to thank you for holding this hearing. sigtarp was made for the american taxpayers. an important part of their mission is to bring transparency to decisions made by the government in the wake of the financial crisis. we can take advantage of lessons learned to better protect taxpayers in the future. in addition, taxpayers have an absolute right to know the decisions that went into how
tarp dollars were spent. the government provided approximately $80 billion in funds in the auto bailout. we have brought transparency to decisions made by the task force and the treasury in the bailout. we seek to bring greater transparency to gm's decisions to provide funds to top up the of workers who were formally represented by -- employed by gm and represented by one of three unions. we are looking up whether the task force pressured them to provide additional funding. we have closely conducted -- owrked with gao. we have can -- and kerosene again delay by the inability to be in our view -- we have
encountered significant delay. these individuals were heavily involved in a gm's restructuring and have knowledge about the pension issues. we first heard interviews with these individuals in may of 2011. later, we were told they would not meet. we contacted these individuals directly while reviewing documents and other witnesses. we asked the treasury to speak to the former officials about the importance of corporate and with us. when it became clear the the individuals would not agree to be interviewed, we informed the committee. the lack of cooperation by these former treasury officials has significantly protracted our review. we were forced to look elsewhere for the information. what we continued to request a corporation, we reviewed documents. but they did not provide a complete picture. we often find a lack of complete documentation of decision making related to tarp./
many interviews are made during telephone calls. documents such as e-mail simply do not mitt -- tell the whole story. we have a 43 -- 43 current officials which represent workers that she and did not talk up. determined that these three were the individuals involved in discussion. we do not have the ability to compel witness' testimony to there is no valid reason for these former treasury officials to be interviewed. two of them were deposed inhe delphi bankruptcies. goa did not conduct interviews of the -- gao did not conduct
interviews with them. allowing -- not allowing them to be interviewed poses a significant obstacle to taxpayers. our need to speak to them is to begin. that is balanced with the fact that there is no hardship for these individuals to come and talk with us. another important and very busy government officials have been interviewed by us, including secretary geithner, former secretary paulson, chairman and bernanke. this sets a dangerous precedent. if former officials are allowed to update our oversight and the -- refuse to be interviewed. this could impact of our ongoing and future on -- audits. most of the officials who worked on tarp have since left government service. i'm happy to answer any
additional questions you may have. >> thank you for your service to our government. mr. bloom is recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. while i am here today, in your capacity as a former treasury official. i left the government service in some timbre of 2011. i am therefore not in a position to discuss events since february 2011 or anything concerning possible future actions. during the period of my government service, i testified regarding the automotive investments and the senate banking committee on june 10, 2009, the judiciary subcommittee on july 21, 2009, the congressional oversight panel on july 27, 2009 and february 25, 2010, and the house subcommittee on regulatory stimulus oversight and government spending on june 22, 2011.
in addition, a record is updated in numerous meetings and discussions and help prepare a written and oral responses to count as increase of sigtarp. the congressional oversight panel, and individual elected officials and staff in the house and senate. i understand the committee is taking an interest in issues regarding the pensions of certain former employees of the delphi corporations. as you may know, i was named as the defendant in a lawsuit in federal court regarding that issue. on september 2, 2011, i was dismissed from the case, as was the treasury and the present task force. when president obama took office, the american automobile industry was on the verge of collapse. the industry lost over 400,000 jobs. both gm and chrysler were running out of cash and face to the imminent prospect of an uncontrolled liquidation. the collapse of the u.s. auto
industry post essential risk to the economy as a whole. the previous administration provided $24.8 billion to the industry. after studying the restructuring plan submitted by gm and chrysler, president obama decided he would not commit any additional taxpayer resources to these companies without fundamental change in accountability. he rejected their initial plans and demanded that they develop more ambitious strategies to increase efficiencies. however, president obama also recognize that failing to stand behind these companies would have far-reaching consequences. gm and chrysler were supported by an -- a network of auto suppliers that employs three as many employees dependent on the business to survive. an uncontrolled liquidation of a major auto maker would have the cascading effect ready supply chain, causing failures and job loss on a much larger scale. because ford and other companies depended on the same suppliers, the failure of the supplies could have caused those
companies to fail as well. also at risk for the thousands of dealers across the country, as well as small businesses and communities with concentrations of autoworkers. it was this interdependence that led some experts at the time to estimate that at least 1 million jobs could have been lost if gm and chrysler went under. one respected economist recently said that 2.5 million jobs were at risk.
>> we are going to get started. we have a votes that are going to occur. any number to hear of questions that i am going to ask you. i want to reiterate that these are questions that were given to you on june 22 by this committee. you said, absolutely, that you would answer in writing. you did not answer them. today, you are refusing to answer them. we are going to go through this and get your answer. >> the only clarification i would like to make is that i believe the letter that the secretary of the treasury wrote on behalf of the secretary treasury cent in 2011 did not
refuse to answer the questions because of litigation. there were 2.5 pages in response to the letter. but that said, i will do my best to answer. >> we will will go forward. >> mr. bloom, in the discourse between the treasury, what role did the auto task force play in the decision making to determine the pension plan of the workers? >> i could not really expand on what mr. feldman said. i have no answer. >> so you cannot expand? >> no. >> what we would like to know is
what was the position of the task force with respect to a salary and their pensions? >> [unintelligible] >> you're going to do that for every answer? >> i do not know. on that question, i do not have a different answer. i agree with what was said. >> in june did you have your own answer? >> um. >> there are many that believe there were significant numbers of conflicts of interests between the treasury, the auto task force, and new gm. secretary geiger serving on both boards, the task force being parts of the treasury.
it is capital infusion. did you ever have a discussion at the auto task force for the potential conflicts within treasury and the auto task force with respect to this bankruptcy proceeding with salary pensions? and what was the subject of those discussions? >> i do not recall a conversation about whether the issues you raise were a conflict of interest. >> do you believe now that they do? >> i do not see where a conflict of interest would be, no, sir. >> in the determination of the salary pension plans, a significant issue of dispute are the foreign assets held by
delphi and might have asserted by those liens. ultimately, the release these liens as part of a supplement. it did not include the delphi salary the group -- salary pension plans. do recall a conversation about the assets and leans? >> i do not recall any such discussions. >> would you assert today that those discussions did not occur? >> no. >> is it possible that they occurred? >> , i think anything is possible. >> did you ever have a conversation about the delphi foreign assets and leans? >> i have no recollection of any conversations. >> so far, you give us the
answer of the gentleman to answer previously, or you do not recall. >> i can only testify to the best of my ability, congressman. >> clearly. >> there is a significant amountf concern that has been raised with respect to the pbgc negotiations and the pension plans, salary retirees' pensions, and even the issue of the foreign assets leans of pbgc. did you ever have any discussions considering the political effects of your recommendations?
>> could you clarify what you mean by the political a fax? >> i think it is fairly clear. did you have any discussions about the political aspects of your decision making. >> no. not that i recall. >> the united auto workers have stated that the delphi salary retirees should be treated with fairness and equity. they wrote a letter dated january 15, 2010, that it supports providing the same to the salary workers as a matter of fairness and equity that had been provided to other delphi workers. you indicated that you understand the pain that people have. do you agree? >> i am not familiar with the full context of the comment, but i can answer your question i
cannot say it -- but i can answer your question. i cannot say whether or not i agree with them because i have not read that document. a lot of people suffered under the gm bankruptcy. if congress would choose to help one of those constituents that was hurt, that would be up to congress to do. i think it would open a can of worms, but it is not mike -- i do not have a judgment as to whether congress should -- but it is not my -- i do not have a judgment as to whether congress should do it. >> i am going to read this letter into the record. november 1, 2011, to the treasury. suggesting -- it says, and this is from mr. assistant secretary of treasury.
this is one of the letters we were just talking about in response to questions that were raised some time earlier. it says, i am writing in response to your recent letter to secretary dite mayor -- secretary timothy geithner. we're writing in response to employees of the delphi corporation. mr. ron bloom has since left his position. please allow me to respond on behalf of the secretary. we recognize that the bankruptcy of the delphi has been extremely difficult and challenging for all of its employees. we are aware of significant hardships of the entire united states auto industry over recent years. the issues that you have raised pertain to certain agreements by the general motors corp. in
1999, when the old gm spun off into separate companies following the bankruptcy. around the time of the delphi spin off from the old gm, they entered agreements and commitments to pay supplemental benefits in the delphi pension plan, represented by three unions. united auto workers, the international union of electrical workers, and the united steelworkers. those are provided in the event that benefits under our plan were frozen or that the plan was terminated. although gm would cover any shortfall below the level of benefits promised. -- kolbe -- old gm would cover any shortfall below the level of benefits promised.
the unions were partied to the top agreements agreed to extend these commitments, although, there were negotiations between old gm and other unions considering similar agreements. they did not enter into any agreement with participants in any delphi salary pension plan. at the time of the spinoff, the plan was fully funded were as the delphi was underfunded. in 2009, we add delphi filed for bankruptcy. it was determined with delphi's chapter 11, it was determined the plans would be terminated. with pbgc determining the delphi salary plan, it puts both
plans under the trusty. treasury did not have a role in authorizing the delphi salary plan. in 2009, in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding of old gm, the general motors co. agreed to honor certain commitments that old gm had entered. new gm has stated publicly that although the delphi bankruptcy was a difficult situation, it felt it had made appropriate decisions involving t delphi -- involving the delphi plan. whether the task force was involved in the decisions made by the pbgc regarding the pensions of former employees at delphi, as mr. bloom explained
in 2009, and more recently before the subcommittee, the previous administration provided temporary loans to general motors at a time when our economy and financial system were already severely stressed. president obama agreed to extend that assistance, provided that companies produce a viability plan. in 2009, president obama created the auto task force to review the viability plan for the companies. the objective that guided the auto task force was to bring much-needed stability to this crucial sector of our economy. people -- keep hundreds of thousands of americans working and keep general motors as a competitive business. the president directed an auto task force to take a commercial
approach to ensure that any restructuring that the companies took on only work for those liabilities to a successful operation. there were refrained from the day-to-day operations of these companies. they entered into agreements from gm in 1999 that were consistent with these principles. these matters has also been reviewed by the government accountability office, as you may know. it was placed under the trusteeship of -- the court dismissed on september 2, 2011, a portion of the case. the auto force -- in addition,
they reviewed and approved the bankruptcy and accepted the new gm decision to honor the agreement. the bankruptcy court found no violation of the bankruptcy code. they included that as a matter of reality, the purchasing needs and a properly motivated work force to enable the new gm to succeed in requiring satisfactory agreements with the government. in addition, the district court approved transactions at every step. no one questioned the validity of the legal process which was typical for the bankruptcy. in fact, because of the size of this case, gm's chapter 11 case was hardly regarded as routine. the sale breaks no new ground.
this is exactly the type of situation where there is a good business reason for an immediate sale. in the march 30, 2011 review of the delphi salary plans, it was stated that the auto task force did not indicate what should be done with the delphi pensions. we are continued -- we are going to continue transparency in regard to general motors. congress has held several detailed hearings on the subject and there are a number of available filings of bankruptcy opinions in the court over general motors. the treasury has posted online certain key automotive industry program documents, which are available at the financial -- at ability.gov.
the treasury has provided numerous documents related to delphi. in the end, gm had a fair and open bankruptcy. there were sacrifices from all stakeholders, including workers, retirees, employers, workers, retirees, and provide a vibrant auto industry. however, the steps that the industry took not only avoided a catastrophic collapse, they also kept hundreds of thousands of americans working and gave gm a chance to, once again, become a viable, competitive business in our economy at a time we could afford it. thank you for your attention to this important matter. but please feel free to contact me or my staff if we could be of
further assistance. mr. bloom, do you have anything to add to that? did you learn anything else in an effort trying to satisfy the chairman's questions? >> no. >> i yield back. >> mr. bloom, i want to thank you for sitting through and answering some of the questions that i have provided you in writing on june 22. on june 22 of last year that you had committed to answered in writing that you'd never submitted answers to. the reason why i appreciate you sitting here is because i wanted, on television, and on the record, both your demeanor and your lack of answers to be evident. mr. bloom, we have had this hearing because you refuse, for 14 months, to answer the questions. you had to come to our hearing because we have subpoena power
-- they do not. you come, and you say, i will be glad to answer the questions. mr. bloom, you are not glad to answer anybody's questions. you are not glad to answer mine, or anybody. you are responsible for billions of dollars in thousands of people's lives. these are taxpayers' dollars. people are not only hurt, they are angry. and this is exactly contrary -- this is exactly, contrary to what president obama promised with the open administration, someone like you -- sitting with us, not open to discussion. i want to reemphasize the paragraph that i read that is on page two at the bottom. pbgc, this is the subject -- as you may know, the determination of the delphi plan are current. this letter is not an answer to
the questions that i had submitted to you. then we have -- and i will submit these for the record, secretary gunnar -- secretary timothy geithner's, we're trying to figure out how were these decisions made and who made them. that is how our government works. it is open. it is a democracy. you're not playing with the on discretionary dollars of the president. you're actually a effectuating administering taxpayer dollars. i will submit these for the record. he says, openly, that determination of the delphi retirement program for salaried employees and its placement under the pbgc are subject to litigation. i cannot comment on the specifics of litigation. and then for the next eight
pages, these are the secretary's response. i cannot comment specifically on these because they are under litigation. i cannot comment specifically on these topics because they are the subject of litigation. he goes on for the next -- one, two, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24, 33, 31, almost 35 questions to answer the same way -- that he cannot answer us. people lost their pensions. billions of dollars spent. the secretary of treasury will not answer the questions. you won't answer the questions. sig tarp has many of them. we're going to work with them to try to solicit to you substantive answers.
this committee has subpoena power. i assure you, we can continue to revisit this with you and your members. i would certainly hope that when you say you're going to participate and answer the questions, but it will be more the road in your answers here. mr. bloom, we are all waiting what is going to tell us that happened. they cannot give it to us. this process, do we have your commitment that you will work to refresh your collection? that you try to answer, fully, to the greatest of your ability that they will have for you? >> i will answer the questions that they asked me to the best of my ability. >> with that, we have votes that have been called. we will turn their.
-- we will turn there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a meeting that is expected to last all day, the house agriculture committee will begin at 10:00 a.m. eastern. former members of congress honored gabrielle giffords yesterday it with the distinguished service award. the former arizona congressman resigned from her house seat to focus on her recovery after being shot more than one year ago at an event in tucson.
this is 15 minutes. >> it is my distinct honor to present this award to gabrielle giffords from the great state of arizona. it was an easy decision. in all of her endeavors and public service, she has held and lead by example and courage. i see her as a unifying force here on the house floor and as well as in the nation. as you know, her challenging schedule, which includes focusing on getting well and is still working on those issues letter so dear to her. therefore, we did not want to impose any further on her schedule, but we are thrilled that, on her behalf, one of her
very best friends in the house of representatives, congresswoman debbie will accept the award on gaby's behalf. before we invite her to come up and make the comments, another friend of gaby's, i would like to invite him to make a few comments. jim. >> i thank you very much. it is a wonderful privilege to be back with my colleagues, former members her today on the floor of the house of representatives, and especially to be able to give this award. i had the privilege of serving in the house of representatives, representing district 5 and then district 8 from the state of
arizona. i retired in 2007 and was succeeded by rep gabrielle, or as we all know and love her, gabrielle giffords. my association with her runs back much further than that. when i was in tucson, even before i became a member of the state legislature, i knew her family who were a very prominent business family in tucson. she was deeply involved in the community, even then, as a young woman. i had the privilege of serving alongside her while she was in the arizona state legislature. she had a very distinguished career in the legislature, as she did here. reaching across the aisle, accomplishing legislation, because she was able to talk to
people, compromise, and reach those kinds of decisions that needed to be made. she has been involved in communication and education. she is loved by virtually everybody in arizona, and certainly in tucson. when i announce my retirement shortly before 2006, she quickly jumped into the race as a sitting member of the arizona state legislature. she did not hesitate. she left the legislature to campaign full time. she threw herself, as she did with everything, body and soul, into this campaign to serve here in congress. she won quite easily in 2006 as a democrat. and then, of course, was reelected in 2008 and reelected
again in 2010 in a district that is at least nominally, marginally, in its registration. an indication of how gaby giffords was able, and continues to be able to reach across the aisle. after she was elected to the congress, i got to know both debbie and her husband -- both gabbie and her husband. it was a wonderful relationship they had with our community. again, loved by everyone. she was successful because she did reach across the aisle. she thought about how she could accomplish things. it was in that spirit, following
the tragic accident, we formed the national institute of civil discourse which has been mentioned here. she is with us here today. i think it is a real tribute to gabby and all those who care about bipartisanship and achieving things in this house of representatives that this organization came about in her spirit. she is, i think, the definition of an eternal optimist. no matter what kind of trouble she faces, she is always cheerful. she is always looking forward. she is always thinking about what is the best kinds happening and in our states it is a great
pleasure to make this award for someone who think is a real contribution to bipartisanship. i now would ask representative divvy schulz to come forward and accept this award on behalf of congressmen gabrielle giffords. thank you for joining me here at the podium. we hope you'll let debbie know as we have always done, how much we miss her and appreciate her good work and how honored we are that she is receiving this award. we've also invited members to send a personal note, which we have collected in this book. it is a great pleasure and honor for me to present our service award to gabrielle giffords of arizona. >> as a matter of fact, may i read it?
the 2012 distinguished service award is presented by the united states association of former members of congress to congresswoman gaby -- gabrielle "gabby" giffords. through her efforts, the subcommittee on air and land forces, the subcommittee on readiness, the subcommittee on technology and innovation, and as chairwoman of the subcommittee of aeronautics, congresswoman giffords worked tirelessly to represent not only arizona and military families and veterans, but all americans. congresswoman giffords serve her country with honor, reaching across party lines to find solutions for our nation's problems.
even after the tragic events of january 8, 2011, she continues to inspire all americans with her incredible strength, courage, and perseverance. she is an example to us all and her former colleagues from both sides of the aisle. washington, d.c., july 10, 2012. all of that is on this plaque, along with the portfolio of letters of congratulations. [applause] >> thank you so much. madam president, madam chair, wow. all on one black. that is impressive. i am going to set it down. i also have additional letters that were sent to my office.
going forward, i will make sure we add to this. good morning. thank you, congressman, for that warm introduction and all of you being here. it is a privilege to address such a distinguished group. what i hope not to join for quite a while, but one that i'm glad exists and exists in a bipartisan way. it is important to note, especially given the struggles that there is not a republican former member or a democratic former member -- there is one the united former association. we're all americans in which to work hard together. i also want to acknowledge my former colleague from misery. it is wonderful to be with you. -- from missouri.
it is wonderful to be with you. there is no one better to receive this then? the difference. she is always lead by example -- there is no one better to receive this then gabby difference. she has always led by example. here in congress, we came to recognize that bright smile which is so often with their referred to in the are talking about her. in doing so, she has inspired so many people with her strength in the wake of unmentionable tragedy. for more than one year, she has been working hard every day to get back to full strength. she never does anything halfway. her service in congress is no exception. i am so proud of my friend for
her commitment to stick -- to her constituents. it will always be one of the great treasures of my life to have met her, but especially to share our special friendship. she's always been an inspiration to me and seeing her becoming to the entire world warms my heart, i'm sure, as much as it warms yours. surely, this is an attainable goal. we must recommit ourselves to working together to fulfill the promises of our democracy. a commitment to making america stronger so everyone can fulfil their american dream. this is the example. you could lead by example and help force the way toward compromise working together, so many of you looking across the chamber have served in the time
when relationships were much tighter. when the fabric interwoven between two parties was thicker. we can learn from your experience. i would urge you encourage you to reach out to the leadership of both parties in the congress. try to help us. we will have a better nation if we work together. i know it is possible. i know there are committed members on both sides of the aisle. help us make things work and get things done. thank you so much. [applause]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in a few moments, some of yesterday's house debate to appeal the health care law. after general speeches at 10:00, members of the house will reconvene at noon eastern on a vote for repealing the health care law. in a meeting that is expected to last all day, the house agriculture committee will mark of a new farm bill today. this weekend on bothtv, growing up in the shadows and secrets of the nuclear facility. she looks the a fax and the environment and the people. sunday, on afterwards, peter
collier. >> he was covered with a magnolia and accent. she sought the dominoes start to fall during this time. by 1979, she was in full-fledged opposition to carter. that appeasement, and particularly crucial in this respect. she saw the fall and a couple of experiences for her and people like her. >> the political woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine. and it 10:00, marines white -- marine sniper and author of jarhead, all part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. -- don c-span2. >> the house of representatives will vote to repeal the health-
care law. the debate began yesterday. this portion is a little less than an hour and a half. r one minute. mr. ryan: let me say it this way, mr. speaker, this bill barely passed into law. it was the biggest social legislation to pass into law in over 40 years. seven votes in the house, no votes to spare in the senate. christmas eve, backroom deal, and it was based on three promises by the president of the united states. one, if you like the health insurance you had, you can keep it. that's a broken promise. two, this will bring down our health care premiums. that's a broken promise. three, there's no tax on people making less than $200,000 in this bill. that's a broken promise. the president said there is no tax and went to the supreme court and argued it was a tax so
he could keep it on the books. if any of these three were known to the public and the congress at the time they were passing this law, law would never have passed in the first place. let's revisit this. and with that, i look forward to a hearty debate with my good friend, mr. van hollen, and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. what we are engaged here in the house of representatives right now is a total waste of taxpayer money. it's no wonder the american people think so little of this institution. we are now on our 31st effort in this house to repeal all or part
of obamacare. we have not yet voted once on the president's jobs bill, which he presented last september. two numbers, 31, that's the number of times this house will now have voted to repeal obamacare. zero, the number of times that we voted on the president's jobs bill. i have been listening to this debate this afternoon and heard the same, old, tired misrepresentations and distortions that we heard the first time around. government takeover of health care. in the year of 2010, it was rated the lie of the year and it just goes on and on and on. you know, the american people do not want to relegitimate this
issue. what the american people want us to do is focus on jobs and the economy. let's get on with that business. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from from texas, mr. flores. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: i rise in support of the repeal of the obamacare act. it was passed in the middle of the night in the last congress without being read has numerous fatal flaws. one, the worst of these is that it is a violation of our constitutional liberties. two, it fails upon its primary goals of controlling costs and allowing americans to keep their current health insurance coverage. three, it has 21 new taxes. four, according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, it will cost our
nation's workers over 800,000 jobs. five, in addition, now that the state medicaid mandate has been ruled unconstitutional, those costs will increase by several hundred billion dollars over its massive costs. six, obamacare puts 15 unelected federal bureaucrats between americans and their health care providers. seven, even though just partially and not implemented, it has caused health insurance premiums to rise dramatically. and lastly, it is costing small businesses and hurting our economy adding pain to an already troubled obama economy. it is time for congress to do the right thing and repeal this this flawed legislation. that is what h.r. 6079 does, simply put, and i urge my colleagues to support it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields
back. mr. ryan: gentleman has four or five speakers? mr. van hollen: five or six. mr. van hollen: it's quite a scene to see so many of our colleagues rush to the floor of this house to call upon this congress to deny the american people health care protections, patient protections that every member of this congress has. if a child of a member of this congress has a pre-existing conditions, whether it is diabetes or asthma, their child gets covered. if their child is 25 years old and didn't happen to have health insurance, they can be covered on the health insurance plan. and yet this bill to repeal obamacare would deny to the american people the same kind of patient protections that every
member of this congress enjoys. it's a sad day. with that, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. schwartz: i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation. as so many of us know, two weeks ago the supreme court uphell the affordable care act and increasing access to health insurance coverage, for seniors to afford medications, for children, 17 million american children who have pre-existing conditions to receive coverage, for 30 million uninsured americans to be able to afford coverage. because of the affordable care act, families will not go broke. small businesses can afford affordable coverage. and young adults, 6.6 million, to remain on their parents' insurance.
yet republicans are continuing their attempt to repeal health care reform. instead of working to grow our economy and strengthen the financial security of america's middle class. today is the 31st time republicans have called for a vote to deny americans access to affordable and quality health coverage. this is a clear decision by republicans to put partisanship ahead of the needs of our constituents and our country. their actions are taken away time and attention. it's wasteful and misguided. they are creating uncertainty and hurting our economic recovery and the security of middle-class americans. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and get to work on jobs and economic growth for our families, for businesses and for our nation and stop this wasteful, unnecessary action. and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.
the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: i thank the gentleman for yielding. obamacare is unpopular, unworkable, unaffordable. unpopular, because it limits individual freedom and personal choice. unworkable, because it relies on thousands of regulations, dozens of boards and commissions and unelected group of bureaucrats to distribute and ration care. we have the opportunity today to end a bill that's also unaffordable. hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxes. hundreds of billions of dollars worth of raids on the medicare fund. we can only take the first step here today. in november, the american people can take the next step by electing a president and a senate that will work with this house instead of against them to
repeal what is a legislative monstrosity that should have never passed in the first place. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from oklahoma, called this bill unaffordable. we heard the debate a little bit earlier about what the nonpartisan congressional budget office has said about this bill, the affordable care act, and they say if you repeal the affordable care act, it will increase the deficit over the next 10 years and increase it by over $1 trillion in the second 10 years. and yet, we have this bill on the floor today without even a fresh congressional budget office estimate. so nobody knows how those numbers may or may not change. but we do know is that the last assessment they gave us was the action our republican colleagues are proposing today would
increase, increase our national deficit. that is not fiscal responsibility. and with that, i yield to the gentlelady from minnesota, mismccollum, a member of the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. van hollen: 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. . . today's vote is not about drk -- >> today's vote is not about health care. it's a gimmick to pander to the tea party. ms. mccollum: their vision for health care is deny coverage, deny care, deny the law of the land. if you have a child with a pre-existing condition, possibly a life-threatening illness, this republican plan means your child's health care insurance can be terminated. if you're a senior on medicare, this republican plan throws you
back into the doughnut hole. the republican plan repeals the indian health care improvement act, harming native children, families, and seniors across indian country. the affordable care act is the constitutional law of the land and it is a good law because obama does care. president obama and democrats must continue to work to implement the law, extend the quality and affordability of health care to millions of americans and this congress must get back to work putting america back to work. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota yields back. the chairman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: let me comment. we know c.b.o. will give us a score in a couple of weeks and it's going to be more expensive. that much we know. we know states will probably put more people on obamacare instead of mid cade which will cost more dollars. the only reason this bill,
quote-unquote, on paper, saves money, is because they told c.b.o. to score 10 years of tax increases, of medicare savings, to pay for six years of spending. you can contort and distort and torture statistics long enough and eventually they'll confess. that's what happened here. in reality -- i have no doubt that this will be a budget buster. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: chairman ryan noted the false claims upon which obamacare was sold to the congress. i think they bear elaboration now that we know what's actually in it. it didn't bend the cost curve down, the medicare actuary admitted to the house budget committee last year that it will add at least $300 billion more upon our health care costs. it hasn't been good for the economy, the gentleman from
maryland asks for the congressional budget office's opinion they admitted to the republican committee last year that obamacare would cost our economy a net los of $800 -- of 800,000 jobs and they told us, if you like your plan, you can keep it. the mckenzie survey of employers reports that nearly 1/3 expect to drop their employees' health plans as a result of this law, like them or not. seems to me, three strikes and you're out. we need a system that puts patients back in charge that provides tax reforms to put health care back within the reach of every american family and restoring to them the freedom to make their own health care digs without the interference of government bureaucrats. this bill is a necessary first step to get us there. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> just to respond my friend,
if it was true that other the 10-year period, you had tax revenue loaded in a way that sort of would deceive, so-call dead seve the impact of the deficit, it would seem it would get worse over the second 10 years. mr. van hollen: in fact, the deficit savings is greater over the second 10 years, according to the congressional budget office, than the deficit reduction over the first 10 years. and if you repeal the bill, as the republicans are proposing to do today, you will not only add to the deficit in the first 10 year bus add even more to the deficit over the 20-year period. i now yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from florida, a member of the budget committee, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because it's time to put an end torte pointless partisan gapes. the affordable care act has now been passed by a duly elected congress, signed by the president and upheld as
constitutional despite the chagrin of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their best efforts, upheld as constitutional by the united states supreme court. more importantly, americans and particularly south floridians are already benefiting from this law. thanks to the closing of the coverage gap, the doughnut hole, seniors in my district can now afford their scription drugs. instead of having to choose which ones they have to leave behind at the pharmacy because they can't afford to take them all home when they fall in the doughnut hole. young adults have the security of staying on their parents' plan until the age of 26. as a cancer survivor and mother, this plaw is important -- this law is important to me because through it, the nearly two million floridians who don't have nurns -- insurance will be able to get the coverage they need. this is our 31st vote to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. it is time to stop the tantrums, grow up, and work together on americans' number
one priority, creating jobs. i look forward to working with my colleagues, any colleague on're side of the aisle, to focus on job creation and getting this economy turned around and focusing on americans' number one priority which is not fruitlessly engaging in partisan bickering. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida yields back. the chairman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. ryan: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. lankford. mr. lankford: americans know more about this law now. we've had time to process it. two years ago it was estimated at $8 billion. new it's estimated at $1.8 trillion. it's been estimated that 80% of the small employment plans will lose their grandfathered plans and up to 60% of the large employment plans will lose their grandfather status and
will need to be changed at the end of 2013, after the elections. physician-owned hospitals are pushed to protect the bigger hospitals in this we were told there were no new taxes. now we know there are 20-plus different taxes on it. this supposed deficit reduction goes down in the days to come because there are so many new taxes that are built into this. let me give you a couple of my favorites built into this reremoving the detuck -- deduction for people with high medical bills. they move that cap up. if you have high medical bill, you will pay more in taxes under this. how about the flexible spending account cap change? if you have a special needs child that you currently have special needs, your taxes will go up. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from alabama, ms. sewell. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, with only 14 legislative days left before congress lets out for summer recess, i want to register my disappointment that my republican colleagues are willing to spend yet another hour, five hours, for the 31st time in trying to repeal the affordable care act. instead of using this valuable time to put our country back on track by investing in job creation and stimulating economic growth, house republicans have opted to divisive politics and partisan politics. i believe enough is enough. the american people deserve better and frankly my constituents expect better. not only is the affordable care act been passed in both house of congress and signed by the president, it was upheld by the highest court in the land nearly two weeks ago. by now, we should be moving forward and acknowledging the benefits of the affordable care act a, which the house republican leadership cannot seem to grasp. in my district alone, the reality is that 77,000 seniors
receive affordable scription drugs now. the reality is that 36,000 children in my district can no longer benied coverage for pre-existing conditions. we must get back to the work of the people. i am reminded once again that we've had 14 days left to recess. please, let's get back to the business of the house, getting people back to work. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to the vice chair of the budget committee the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: if one accepts the contortionsed on flimsy reasonings of the court's finding. it leaves one thing, the president has lie. the president of the united states has said repeatedly that
no family making less than $250,000 will see any tax increase. not your payroll tax, not your income tax, not capital gains, not any tax. even the o.m.b. director from the scradmrgs said to us, there are no tax increases in this. again and again the president has said this to us. but justice roberts said, yes it is. it's a tax. look, mr. president, it's time you be straight with the american public wefpble must repeal obamacare. it is a broken promise this country can't afford it. if we don't, it will be the final nail in the coffin of a dynamic free enterprise system and as speaker boehner said, we must pull it out by its roots and plant the seed of real health reform in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this whole conversation about a tax or a penalty has