and i invite you all to return to the hall. order. [applause] ..

[inaudible conversations] >> the chair notes the presence of a quorum, which under rule three ears to members. the committee meets again today to reason that said number 21, 2011 hearing on and more jobs, energy and deficit reduction. under committee rule for f1, we will go straight to the witness testimonies and we have seated at the panel are distinguished list of witnesses, mr. douglas brinkley, professor of history at rice university.

ms. sara agnes james, board chair of the steering committee. mr. erich pica, president of friends of the earth. and policy director for earthworks. for the record, at her first hearing, we heard from two panels and those panels included governor parnell alaska, senator lisa murkowski from alaska, senator mark begich from alaska, congressman don young from alaska. mr. fenton rexnord account kaktovik, alaska appeared local 942 and alaska fairbanks. mr. carey hall, nice road trucker. mr. david jenkins at republicans for environmental protection and mr. gene karpinski from the league of conservation voters. for those of you who have not had the privilege opportunity, whichever way you want to see it to testify, your false statement will appear in the record.

i would ask you to summarize your oral remarks and the lights in front of you and gives you five minutes. when the yellow light comes on your dante nannette when the red light comes on, it means you're in trouble. but i would ask you to keep your remarks as close as you possibly can to that. once again, your false statement will appear in the record. so mr. brinkley, we'll start with you when you're recognized recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> microphone, please. >> turner mike on. press the button there. >> thank you for having me, sir. it's wonderful to be here. i'm writing right now multiple volume history of the american conservation movement, my first volume is the wilderness warrior

on teterborosabella, gifford pinchot and others at the beginning of the 20th century. the second volume is the quiet world, saving alaska's wilderness kingdom come into the imaginative 60 appeared recently spent time in alaska including the arctic refuge campaign. i might add i was also director of the eisenhower center and we would collect world war ii oral histories of our veterans and i have what 90 day in battle of the bulge, working on caisson in the marines, et cetera. my father served in the korean war as a ski trooper in alaska. i am very glad to see mo udall behind me, one of the great figures, congressional figures in american history of wilderness in alaska and protection. i was hoping to get to me mr. young, but i don't think

he's here right now. he is thereby the door, by the exit time and mo udall is behind me because mo udall had the right idea to protect our alaska as to dwight eisenhower. the arctic was saved by ike 50 years ago. he was not a son of her great precedents per se it is a fiscal conservative. he pushed for alaska statehood very briefly because that red state in the first two senators were democrats. i went forward and not in the arctic refuge for creative at fairbanks daily minor for the arctic refuge. it's become eisenhower's great reserved. which is celebrated the 50th anniversary of the arctic and it is like yellowstone super great smoky mountain rebate then, one of the most treasure and landscapes in the united states. i am here and the reason i threw

it today if my family three kids back in austin, texas. i came here to propose that these kind of eating properly to start. i think where to point out that president bush nominates two use the act of 1906 at the powerless without you so effectively to see the grand canyon from congressional people who wanted to minotaur is a copper and put the coastal plain, what is called turnouts here, the biological heart of the refuge from the great polar bear area and a key cornerstone of our ecosystem of america's arctic coal alaska and create an eisenhower national monument and have an executive order. i suggest we bypassed congress on this as it is done consistently. in fact, george w. bush to create the largest national in

hawaii executive power. we live in a time of climate change. the arctic refuge is the home of our charismatic animal, the polar better. it's also a place that people get them solis in this noisy, hyper industrialized world. how do you put a price tag on solitude? for thought at this moment in time in 2011 that we look at the reserve and talk about opening up to -- oil companies and british oil companies, there are people right now trying to buy uranium under the grand canyon. this seems to be backwards. we have to move forward. i grew up for a long while in new orleans. petroleum dollars are important. we need to be using the gulf of mexico is an industrial zone that we are. but we have to have treasured landscapes in cases like chesapeake in my opinion and the

alaska have earned the designation of being a fanatic with an american conservation is. eisenhower not only save the earth take refuge 50 years ago, but also as the person in charge of demilitarizing and not having antarctica developed. why do we want to call the eisenhower national monument in the coastal plain is the country finally do something for eisenhower and sunday just highway signs and parkway center would be a fitting monument. i could anchor a generous and eisenhower sat to, but the role of the u.s. army played in alaska's history of world war ii and the current u.s. troops and their incredible role the federal government played in alaska, our countries with theodore roosevelt in the badlands. we should have an eisenhower monument in the arctic.

>> thank you for your testimony. next time please to recognize their agnes james. you're recognized for five minutes. >> i'm honored to think on behalf of this committee from this nation, which is gwich'in nation and i feel honored to be here. and this is my second language so addressed to you back to english. i speak gwich'in in english as a separate language. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] i said we came a long ways. we still have a long ways to go and the elders -- we had the authors that cannot be here today on behalf of the children were my people have been traveling all over the country and trying to tell a story about a special place in the world, which is a sacred place where the life begins and we do that for a future generation. back in 1998, it is aligned to

our nation, there is going to be a development of gas and oil and the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge. the elders of the nation called it gwich'in gathered outside his hand. they came together because that's what they did before and they haven't got back together 450 years because there was a year between the u.s. canadian border. and when i got there, there was very weary head tilted e. here just about as oracle i.t. has about as, but it's 15 chiefs on 15% villages came up with a resolution and said the only way

the world will know and this is in black and white poster passé revolution toupees the national refuge in the first case of the porcupine caribou live life. it was a hard decision for a time because i will pray for a lot of people in the interest to. but they have to make that decision. and they also note that it cannot do by themselves decision. and they also noted that cannot do that by themselves decision. and they also noted that cannot do that by themselves save a few two directions to do in a good way and teach the world is good way why we say oil and gas development. even then, this part of the conversation that went on. the way of life of the caribou

is our way of life, just like the buffalo is to the plains indians. it is our song. it is our dance. it is our story. even today, 75% of our diet is wild meat, which is made up of baby caribou with small animals and birds and ducks. we call that place out there the coastal plain the arctic national wildlife rescue, a secret place where life to begin. and for that reason under the customary and traditional abuses at the porcupine caribou we trapped international porcupine

river caribou commission agreement, so that is -- to ask him that it a human right. we believed that we were put there by god to take care of that part of the world. that is our responsibility as gwich'in people. and we didn't come from anywhere. we are not going anywhere. climate change is real and alaska and we have to make this permanent protection for a future generation. thank you very much for listening to me. >> thank you for my testimony. >> i recognize mr. erich pica.

i hope i said that correctly. president of the friends of the earth. >> thank you, chairman hastings, ranking member marky and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i mean is erich pica and friends country and president of the friends of the united states coming national nonprofit organization member of friends earth international, which is the largest federation of grassroots environmental organizations with number groups in 76 countries. and i have authored or written multiple reports on tax and environmental issues, including our grievance report. the joint committee -- the joint select committee on deficit reduction has been passed with coming up with $1.5 trillion in budget savings on top of the $900 billion of cuts that have been made this year.

while i believe the super committee process is deeply flawed, natural resource committee has the opportunity to do something positive for the environment and taxpayers. instead of facing the challenge head-on, i believe the committee is myopically focusing on increased drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge with the hopes and promises of increasing federal revenues. from a federal revenue side of the equation, drilling in the arctic is largely state dave, largely equivalent. this is either subprime mortgage or dare i say the creek that. the congressional research service estimates that revenue is simply unrealistic. the $191 billion over 30 years projection assumes a 50/50 cost split between the state and federal government. current law says that 90% of that goes to alaska and 10% goes to the federal government.

crs also sent a 33% tax rate for oil and gas come means. according to citizens for tax justice and the companies he looked back, nobody paid that way. in fact, exxonmobil with $9.9 billion in pretax profits only paid .4% tax rate over the last two years. finally, the estimate is over 20 years, which begins in 20 years, which is highly speculative. a better bet is simply have been existing on gas tax giveaways, which would save taxpayers over $300 billion in the same period. without damaging the art date. other tax breaks and tax credits fall outside of the jurisdiction, increasing royalties followed in the committee's jurisdiction. submitted legislation to the super committee to fix a rookie creek oil and gas in the gulf of mexico could raise more than $53 billion. simply raising royalty rates and

taxes on oil companies could raise an additional tens of billions of dollars. the u.s. currently lags behind countries like norway, china, australia and nigeria in capturing taxpayer revenue for the resources -- oil and gas resources. but this committee's jurisdiction is not limited to oil and gas resources. as the 272 mining law for which more will testify. this is 140-year-old bob that allows corporations to take minerals for free off of publicly and, gold, silver, copper, some of our most valuable resources. the committee can also in the $100 million or less in the program by an in the programmer simply charging with states and other private ranchers do, which is a fair market value for grazing. and finally, we still pay for money-losing timber sales. to say the from or evaluating natural resources in getting federal government's fair share are just the tip of the iceberg.

this august, friends of the year is a lot of taxpayers sense, public citizen and the heritage institute and libertarian organization released the green scissors 2011 report, which identifies $380 billion in savings over the next five years. i want to commend congressman markey for his legislation introduced yesterday for taking a sum of these subjects. and in incentives that are destroying our environment is an important step this committee can make it a great contribution to the super committee. these are not the root problems, though. we're problems towards environmental destruction occurring on a public land is the fact that our government simply has given away resources to corporations to do with what they please. this has to end the super committee can do something about this is a natural resource committee. thank you and i welcome any

countries that come along. >> thank you for your testimony must we will go to ms. laura pagel. is that correct? policy director at. turning your mac or phone. >> thank you midshipman hankey and members of the committee for the option to speak about the importance of ensuring that mining companies pay their fair share to reduce the deficit and create jobs. folks of the national conservation organization dedicated to protecting communities and environment from the effects of mineral development here in the u.s. and internationally. these are direct quotes from the 2010th annual report of the top five hard rock mining companies. record underlying earnings, record cash flow, record revenue, record financial results. the best financial results in our company's history. right now we are subsidizing record-breaking profits and

allowing the lucrative well-established industries to the basic taxpayer to millions of dollars while externalizing environmental costs. the antiquated 72 mining that the circumvention take minerals from publicly for free with no royalty paid to the taxpayer. unlike the core oil and gas industry that pay a royalty, gold, copper, silver, uranium are taken from other lands by both foreign and domestic tiny companies with a return to the federal country. really a full refund of the 1872 mining my is needed to protect taxpayers in the environment. this reform should include harry turned to taxpayer is operating at reclamation standards and ability to balance with other uses. companies should be required to pay what other was tracked to pay cut 12.5% royalty, which is an the legislation that mr. markey introduced recently.

it would generate about $300 million a year. in addition to free minerals, mining companies receive additional subsidy called the percentage depletion allowance, which allows foreign and domestic companies to deduct their corporate income taxes six percentage of their specific income. for companies that mine on public lands, this is a double subsidy because minerals were purchased to begin with. so minerals taken for free receive an additional tax deduction on that. the depletion allowance is an exceptional tax break for u.s. mineral producers and industry has something similar and it's beyond what is granted to private industries. repealing for hydride mining would save the taxpayer almost $800 million a year. we also support at reclamation fee on all hard rock climbing. we must find a way to begin a tremendous task of cleaning up the hundreds of thousands of

mind that but for the western united states. but the 50 billion shot price tag for cleanup and 40% of the headwaters of western watersheds polluted mine waste, dedicated source of funding is long overdue. a $209 reclamation fee similar to the one that is in mr. markey's legislation, h.r. 3446 what cleanup minds and also create at least 13,000 jobs. a steady stream of funding will allow us also to stop spending money generated by a call industry to cleanup the mess of the hard rock mining industry makes him a saving taxpayers an additional hundred million dollars a year. unfortunately abandoned mines are not the only liability held by u.s. taxpayers in the mining industry to existing mines are likely to produce even more polluted streams and scarred lands and billions of dollars in inadequate financial assurances have been identified.

professional water pollution is one of the most serious consequences of large-scale industrial operations in one of the most costly post closure expenditures. the problem is exacerbated by two loopholes to allow mining companies directly into streams, wetlands and lakes. by closing loopholes they can prevent long-term pollution problems. this coupled with affirming the way assurances are calculated, we ensure mining companies pay for the cost of doing business and american taxpayers do not. it is past time for taxpayers to stop directly subsidizing multibillion dollar's mining companies with royal free mining and massive tax breaks. we need to stop the indirect financing of these companies by allowing -- that allow them to waste environmental costs of extraction onto taxpayers and communities. american taxpayers and communities with pollution issues each day deserve better. free minerals, subsidies, loopholes from environmental

laws have created an unsustainable situation in this country. it's time to repurpose billions of dollars and put that money towards deficit reduction, job creation and cleaning up our nation's polluted land and waters. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. this pagel, i want to take this opportunity to clarify the topic of the hearing for you and the public who may be watching or listening to the broadcast of this hearing. our invitation to you another witnesses indicated the topic of the hearing and i quote, and more jobs, energy and deficit reduction, end quote. the other testimony we have received albeit some more than others, at least -- i could never say it, related to the topic at hand. however, other than the hatter,

i know your testimony doesn't even mention and why a single time. at best a question when the pertinence of doing testimony of the subject matter this hearing. so that being said, i'll remind the witnesses and members to stand the topic, which of course is and why jobs, energy and deficit reduction. and with that, we will enter into the question. by recognizing the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman very much. but i might interject at this point that i heard this pagel, as i did mr. pica endorsed the legislation, which i introduced with mr. holtz calls for a larger collection from the oil industry and from the mining industry as an alternative to traveling in the take refuge.

and i think that is directly pertinent because they both offered an alternative to the proposal, which the majority has before the committee. i think that's right on point on trans fat. we heard upwards of $300 billion can be collected from that route was only 600 million can be collected from the route that the majority is proposing over the next 10 years. so i think that's right and the money in a kind of just the oil industry as they write now get away without paying their fair share of the dues to live in our country while putting the burden on others and asking for sacrifice to be made in this instance of an area of our country often compared to the african fan giddy. so i think is right on point. maybe professor brinkley you could put this in perspective for us. this question of what it is that

we receive because we would try to preserve this area from having oil and other natural resources be drilled for on this location. >> well, you know, i come at this as somebody who loves america. we sang the song america the beautiful and choose treasured landscapes in this country and protect them with their lives. theodore roosevelt used to say europeans can keep the loop in westminster alley, but we have redwood california, we in the grand canyon. arctic alaska is a very significant landscape to safety of the american people when you study u.s. history, wilderness and some need to be treasured and preserved, particularly a 20th century because it reestablishes the american spirit. many soldiers, people veterans from vietnam go up to the arctic refuge with backpack on a hike. recreation dollars for the arctic refuge.

people myself included camping up there. ecotourism with people at finale lodge. note that people would come to not mechanically. no one thought they would see glaciers of the passage. ecotourism is a huge industry for alaska to talk about saving of the tickets to talk about the money of the arctic. more and more as the world shrinks, you are going to have people looking for true wilderness is, the arctic refuge is called the last wilderness. incidentally it's been called the arctic refuge until they started calling it an war because it sounds like an orthodox or some country in the middle east. do you want to molest eisenhower's great wildlife reserve? now. so it is the way the issue is framed. what i have found odious over the past 50 years are people that i've been saying there is no biological heart to the art

take refuge, that is a wasteland. there is nothing there. if you care to rub in their against pipes. .. suggesting in 2011 in the time of crisis we are going to

drill the arctic refuge. it's become a political issue and it needs to be taken out of the committee, taken out of congress and i think president obama needs to sign an executive order creating a national monument for further federal protection within the arctic refuge. >> thank you, professor and for raising the name. the first day he was here as chairman was the first day on the committee 35 years ago a great amount of family, so thank you so much for raising his name and memory because it means so much to us on the committee. >> the time as the gentleman has expired and i would just remind that this is an extension of an earlier hearing which was anwar. the gentleman could have quickly brought up what he brought up with his remarks this morning and we did have a subcommittee hearing of but mineral subcommittee where in fact that testimony would have been pertinent but this is a

testimony about -- >> just to say i felt we needed this hearings the deficit reduction aspect of that hearing that was already had was properly inserted into the record. >> i would tell the gentleman that the hearing one can read into what ever won once on a direction of where developing the resources would go, but the hearing was on anwar. >> the reduction. >> with that i recognize the giunta from alaska. >> thank you mr. chairman for having this hearing and i would tell you if you ever want to see an exercise in futility it's this hearing. that side has already made up its mind. this side has already made up its mind, and i call it garbage, dr. rice that comes from -- >> dr. mur cui writes from the

university. >> you just be quiet. >> you don't know me. >> the gentleman will suspend and i will remind members and the private sector you work for the -- >> mr. brinkley, you are invited here to testimony and we look forward to your testimony. you got time to say what you want -- >> i needed to correct the record he called me mr. rice. >> mr. brinkley. we see a lot of time people here nobody is perfect here but to interrupt breaks the comedy of -- we are going to have disagreements. we try to do that -- >> would you please -- >> you would do that if somebody said that to you, too. >> mr. brinkley do you want to

continue sitting of this panel? >> yes. >> then please follow the rules. >> what i suggest, mr. brinkley, you say you've been up there. how many people were there that he visited last year? >> not many. spriggs we have a sort of elitist group in going there? >> i know what i'm talking about. the plane is really nothing. you say it is not the heart. it is part of the most area and what hurts me the most is you sit there in the university when the people support natural in for the good and the good of this nation as a college professor and ivory tower you can go up there and i hope you spend a lot of money but the reality is this area should be drilled. i've been fighting for 39 years. it was set aside for shrilling

not by the oil company but by scoop jackson, ted stevens, the administration because they knew the potential was there and we put the safeguards in that congress had to vote on it. you can go on all you want that refuge's 19 million acres we are talking about less than 3,000 acres. that is a little tiny thing. like the hair on your head you pull one here you're not going to miss it and in his starving get self because we are buying foreign oil. now say that we don't need the weigel arctic range is wrong and people have lived there not the people that live 400 miles away, not the people that live in fairbanks with the people who say they represent a certain group when they do not. i'm not saying that. i'm saying listen to the people who live there. 76% of alaskans and everybody i know on that coast other than a small group of people say that it's the right thing to do

because they know it can be done. 74 miles to the pipeline. 74 miles of pipe. mr. schramm, again, i made a mistake when i said mr. rice because i heard rice university and got in my mind. but like i say we're the ones that ask the questions coming you answer the questions. you may not work in the private sector -- when you think about it a moment he made a comment about me why i'm really test right now is because you in fact said that wasn't here. don't mention my name. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holtz. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. james, can you tell us again

the name they call the wildlife refuge region in the language and in the translation, please? >> it means we're the life begins. >> i think that highlights the significance that this is more than a local wish you. there is much more that derives from this them entertainment of a few elite people think. this is i think a national treasure. we've heard it over and over again and as recently as a few minutes ago that this area is visited by so few people and they really should be a local

issue. what do you have to say to that and maybe it helps to keep in mind what mr. brinkley said earlier about the few people visiting yosemite. few people who were visiting, you know, with only a little over 120 years ago if anybody went through the grand canyon. it was so few people that visited the glacier and on and on. would you comment, these? >> these are federal lands and the federal taxpayer and federal government has the right to preserve these lands and protect the rights have a majority of americans feel they need to be protected and there are some places in this country and there are some places globally that should not be exploited for natural resource extraction and that includes oil and gas. everywhere wheel and gas

drilling occurs there are still leads there are significant damage that occurs. the national wildlife refuge's one of those places i think we can say we don't need to damage any more places. >> i would like to give both you and ms. hagel and opportunity to address this concern that somehow you are off topic. isn't what we are talking about your letter land that belonged to the american people should be given to private exploitation without royalty? >> precisely. if i would get how much royalties alaska is getting it far exceeds what the federal government is getting right now. >> if we want to talk about what is fair for the taxpayer we need to talk about what the federal government is getting for those areas currently open for exploitation and exploration and its four below. >> what do you think the state of alaska is getting?

>> i agree that there are some places that just shouldn't be drilled and this is one of those places and mauney testimony was about there are some alternatives, you know, i want to reduce the deficit and create jobs for this country just as much as anyone else and there are ways to do that that don't necessarily involved exploiting places that are sacred to some. >> mr. brinkley and ms. james, earlier today this subcommittee at this committee considered an alaska energy bill that would allow 10,000 acres of impact to the coastal plain for every 100,000 acres in the refuge in other words may be one of

familiar with this but perhaps you could comment on it. the question is just how small is the footprint, how much environmental damage would be done if this, if these treasures were allowed for private exploitation? >> any technology in the world is not safe for any birthplace and second place for the life begins. that's how we see it and when there was an oil spill one of rubber elders said the water is there and it's been happening. from that day we call that the water spiked. so we are really cautious about those things that happen and what we've seen and what we hear

coming and we live there for thousands of years with caribou, and caribou is -- they are in our heart and we are in their heart, and we take care of each other for thousands of years and there is no place in the world that is as safe as that place. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will tell you reading of the testimony i kind of share your pessimism but the testimony is pertinent to anwr, but since the testimony opens the door for such kind of questions i'm going to ask -- i know we had a state senator in maryland known very

well by the same last name. i find your written testimony very interesting because actually the first page sound like it is kind of a manifestly does against american capitalism, so i suppose we should take a position against it, but the last sentence of the first pages in the last decade the influence of big business has expanded to such an extent our civil and political systems have been captured by corporate lobbyists and campaign donations. is it your opinion or the opinion of friends of the arafat solyndra absolutely epitomizes that relationship? >> about solyndra and corporate connections and things like that? >> the oppose the loan guarantee program on which was created in 2005 and we had predicted that the process would be open for manipulation regardless of which party occurred. >> even if it is an administration that promised a change and we are not going to let lobbyists do anything, so i

guess you can share the opinion made on this side of the all but solyndra is really that kind of problem. >> i haven't seen the testimony or been privy to it but i do believe that this was a bad program to begin with and this was a 2005 program which was created but the loan was administered in 2009, is that correct, the loan guarantee? >> it was expanded by the stimulus plan and in fact it was a result of the stimulus plan that the money eventually was guaranteed. let's go on to the next paragraph of the testimony because it says to the functions or once the domain of the public sector from the provision of services, the protection to the flooding of the war have been taken over bye corporations. you really think your soldiers and sailors who are overseas fighting war are taken over bye corporations? you think we fight with corporations not with young men and women and americans going

overseas trying to do the best they can? you realize the implications of the words you put down on paper here? >> i do believe the blackwater incident that occurred is a prime example of where we have had privatization of what should be the state department security forces. >> thank goodness you don't imply that as our soldiers and sailors. now you also say that and hear you say that as of service estimate of what we can gain from this turnout are simply not worth of the environmental destruction that would create. don't say could create, might create as you know 100 chance of this bill or something could you out line because i don't have much time with the environmental destruction that would create use the word would pittard >> yes, every pipeline that we

know of thinks. the keystone pipeline, the brand new pipeline has eked over a dozen times to the estimate how large or those leaks? >> pretty substantial. >> if you compare them to the natural leaks in the united states? kumbaya ask you to look into that to bring that up as a part of your testimony to look into that and just compare those? and let me get to another -- you bring up the keystone xl. what is your opinion about the keystone xl project? >> the president made the right decision deleting the pipeline. the process of the environmental view was fundamentally flawed. >> is the because the wisdom by the state department or they didn't -- three years wasn't long enough? >> the documents the expose in this department demonstrated that the relationship between transcanada, the company

actually violated the intent of the national policy act. >> is friend of the year of going to oppose the pipeline built westward to the canadian -- >> it can be shipped to -- >> there is a keystone pipeline again isn't something -- i know sometimes we get off in chance gently. >> you're point is -- i was lead there. i didn't want -- i was lead there. are they going to oppose the plan as well? you just basically don't want the oil to be extracted anywhere. you've got to ship it somehow. >> we believe that the tarsands for a biological rich area and perhaps the most compared to the tropical rain forest in brazil and south america and allele is part of the biology. thank you mr. sherman. >> a ton of the gentleman is expired. >> thank you mr. chairman, and

just a couple quick questions. i wasn't terribly disturbed by the progress, but the -- the crs is projecting in their study more revenue from the taxes them from their royalties. >> why is that? >> because the crs is looking at the corporate business tax rate which is 33%, and we just know it through studies and the amount of tax deductions and loopholes that are currently in the tax code that is just not a realistic estimate coming from the congressional research service reva >> and we've been in a subsidized oil and gas industry for how long? >> the tax code was originally created in 1911. about two years after that is when the oil and gas industry wrote its first tax credit into the code. there was an allowance of for nearly a hundred years the u.s. government had been providing some sort of subsidy to the

federal to the oil and gas industry for the exploitation exploration of oil and gas resources in america. >> despite the claims made by the proponents of drilling in the refuge about the revenue the would be generated, the congressional budget office projects tax payers would only see 3 billion over the first ten years. in addition the last officials have often said they would recover 90% of drilling revenue of the refuge open. that means if they were successful the tax payers would receive about 600 billion. so i think, you know, not just about the subsidies there's other things at stake here that's the main proponent argument is -- there is no net return for the taxpayer if it was to happen.

>> does the industry given what's happened the last quarter need a subsidy? >> there are multi billion dollars in profits made from a trillion dollars in profits the last ten years they don't need the incentives to drill. >> i appreciate you taking your time. this committee has recommended drilling in the refuge to be part of the super committee for the revenue generations. your reaction to that recommendation if you don't mind >> well it is an awful idea, and i need to correct the record because c-span is covering this and there was a mess statement made by the congressman whom it again doesn't stay, blows smoke

and then ted stevens had been for the creation of anwr. ted stevens was a lawyer for the creation of the arctic. it is only when all yoel was found. >> the gentleman will sustain. i will give the time back. i just want to see mr. brinkley people come and go from these committee meetings all the time and to suggest that there is not a reason one member leaves for a good reason that you don't know about knitting is disrespectful at best, so i would appreciate if you would respond to the questions that members are giving you. you will see members walking in and out of here all the time. >> i was trying to correct him. >> you referenced a member sitting here. >> because he misstated if we don't collect now --

>> you could have made the observation that said the lubber rating on the whereabouts of people. you need to be respected because people come and go all the time. the gentleman had probably what, three and a half minutes or so when i interrupted. [laughter] nice try. i will give you another two minutes. >> the general question was the majority of the committee recommended to the super committee that building the refuge would be a revenue generator they like to see the super committee make as a part of the record. >> it should have nothing to do with the arctic refuge. it is the nation's number one premier wildlife refuge. just because we hit a slow

economic times is not the time to start opening up treasured landscapes. this happens in history time and time again. there was an effort by congress to mine the grand canyon when the economy gets bad we have to be tougher than that. >> we give the fellow panelists time. >> thank you for asking that question because to us with a life begins there is no other place in the world that we protected. it needs to be protected and there shouldn't be a gap because it's belong to all of us americans and so far since 1988, america has spoken out and repeated battle laughter battle spoke out clearly that they don't want the oil development

there. let's give those americans a chance of what they wanted and that is what it does for. if i'm not mistaken there was over a million comments, and i don't think those should be ignored as we go through the process. >> of the super committee is looking forward to get revenue it should be looking into the tax code. there are tens of billions of dollars. we have 100 billion in the tax breaks if they were repealed. some of those are the way we need to look at my testimony that i leave out at least a couple billion dollars a year in savings and the legislation h.r. 3446 that was introduced place of another couple billion, and

we need to think about the long-term and fairness. the industry's we need to look at the first. >> br critical and should not be ignored but i want to concentrate on the money side because that seems to be the primary argument, and one could survive the -- i don't know if this has much to do with energy independence and the economy as it goes with the timing, the political expediency because of the time that we are in. just for the record mr. chairman, there are more private contractors in security in iraq and iran than a there are in afghanistan of uniformed american men and women. i thought i would put that in the record. >> the time of the gentleman this time did expire.

but chairlady from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i'm listening to the debate is bringing back a lot of memories because i remember in 1980 when my husband was a relatively newly elected united states senator he was pretty proud to work on the alaska lands act and with senator ted kennedy were ted stevens and i remember so clearly winep that act was voted on and signed into law it was a moment to celebrate but we were not walking the door on alaska the beautiful landscape that's been protected here we are in very dramatic and difficult economic times we know we have to deal with our debt

and deficit. we know we have to deal with our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil in particular so alaska is again at the forefront we hear the testimony from all of you how you value so much the extraordinary landscape it's a sacred place that you call as well. we are trying to find a balancing act and it comes to whatever we may get out of the near term it comes with great cost so one of the issues i think we have to ask and think about is they also have to wrestle with climate change and we know that there has been a warning there just like the impact would be there again creating extraordinary cost that we would have to confront in the coming years if we are not sent to this, it is not just about jobs today or excess to oil which as we know would take many years to come to fruition.

it's about sacrificing an extraordinary landscape and perhaps also exacerbating another great challenge we have which is climate change so i would welcome your thoughts and anybody else who would like to say something about it. >> absolutely. the debate over the national wildlife refuge we talk about jobs, we talk about subsidies and royalties and how much money is coming to the federal government. but what we also have to think about with climate change is the ability that these natural resources are going to be dramatically in pared by the majority occurring in the atmosphere, and that naturally into these resources by erecting wells, pipelines, we will be in putting these and we will be making it more difficult for these ecosystems and the wildlife that drives on the ecosystems to survive, and that to me is a risk we should not be

taking at this time or in the future. >> anybody else? mr. brinkley? >> democrats and republicans know we are in a time of climate crisis read the idea after the bp still of drilling in the arctic refuge are the nation's wild life by dwight eisenhower, a conservative republican president at this moment in time makes no sense. there are a lot of other issues if we were going to go -- we would have no park system. believe me we would have no national for this because the extraction industry what it takes to make money and go the like to galusha and we have to have a watchdog groups and keep on is on them but to hear a congressman today say that there's nothing in his district, it's boring, it's flat, it's not exciting i don't know a representative that doesn't love their district. every state in america is beautiful if you love it, but some people love money more than their homeland or where they live, and i am afraid that

that's why this fight has to keep coming up. 50 years later we are still trying to tell people the arctic refuge's real. it belongs to the american people all of us, not just the people of alaska. >> on behalf i would call that place repeatedly the birthplace and the birthplace should be protected, and to us we has been there for thousands of years. i'm 67-years-old right now and i am a pretty healthy. i live in a village we live a very healthy life and because most of our food is from the land come and it's good for us and it makes us who we are and i am proud to be good and caribou

people, and any of our resources or things we use that make us healthy and powerful is that there is no price on eight. taking care of the caribou has always been our job, and we are rich at heart that way. i can't see that being taken away the human rights protection of human rights to me and to my people. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. we recognize the gentle lady from ha e. >> thank you mr. cherry and members of the panel. i come at this from a different perspective so you know that up front and the reason is i represent a way of indigenous people as well, so when we were first keep in mind i knew here but in my exposure to anwr --

congressman young is not here to correct my pronunciation. at the border of the coastal plains my first question for mr. pica and ms. pagel is have you ever been to anwr, to both of you. >> i have not but friends in alaska that we represented. >> i'm interested in those who have. i believe in part of anwr and mr. brinkley who has recently visited there. and first of all, ms. james, you are of course a member -- >> [inaudible]

>> the first question i have because when we talk about alaska anwr as well as the rights of the natives, my first question is are you a part of the settlement, is your tribe part of that? >> we went with the ira with a 1.8 million acres of land. >> where are you in relationship to the anwr? >> about 75 miles south of the coastal plains. >> so you were actually -- we have the coastal plain and then you have the mountains samarra the mountainous section? >> it is natural.

>> i am sure all of you know that one of the interesting points how the try comes before us is the fact the federal government after it normally retains the subsurface rights to the regional corporation was able to secure the rights unlike other tribes because of the fact the government we to other parts of their land. it was conditioned upon congress giving them their right to drill, however, but they do have the right which normally flows to the regional corporation. so to me this is an issue of the rights of native people. as you know, we've got alaska from the russians and part of the contract when we entered into that agreement was we agreed we would not interfere with the rights of the native people. now i'm not talking about energy, i'm not talking about

the super committee and maybe the chair will rule me out of order but that is what i am concerned about. i want to know how when you know we are talking about the rights of native people that we as a government have given them the right to the subsurface as well as the surface right and what they are looking at here is to really execute on those rights why is that something you find to be such a travesty and something that is unacceptable? i know that you are in a slightly different position because you are -- your tried relies on caribou and on wheels as they understand it. let's start with you mr. brinkley. this is an issue of native rights and this is an agreement in a contract that was entered into when we bought alaska and now we are in this position. so can you explain to me why you think that -- >> up in northern alaska in the 1950's and 1960's when edward

keller the father of the hydrogen bomb went to alaska and went to detonate the nuclear bombs among the people which were contaminated all of the tundra, please send the caribou there are these projects in an area like that people don't have a lot of power and a lot of rights and the arctic refuge as a whole today for the native people that live -- >> mr. brinkley, that is before we entered into these agreements coming and i do not believe that the regional council or the tribes are not well represented by their respective attorneys. i do not believe that they are in the bargaining position. and again that is my issue. i know of time and i would appreciate if you would all respond to be in writing. >> thank you mr. troup. >> the time has expired, and i would say that as usual with hearings like this after the fact there are questions that come up and we would like when

you do get asked a question she has a serious question she would like a response to that should come to the full committee so we all have that response. with that, the panel is now dismissed. i want to thank them very much for being here today. if there is no further business to come before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]

the supreme court recently heard oral argument in a case involving a child born in jerusalem to american parents. the parents won the child's passport to a list israel was the place of birth. state department policy is to

not recognize israeli sovereignty over jerusalem. this is just over an hour. >> we will hear arguments in case 10699 zivotofsky versus clinton. >> mr. chief justice may please the court in decisions in texas and hampton versus rumsfeld this court approved and applied the familiar tripartite scheme that justice jackson articulated in the case they make the measure is incompatible with express or implied one of congress, his public is at its lowest in that

instance said justice jackson his claim to a power that wants so conclusive and reclusive must be scrutinized with caution to preserve the equilibrium established by the constitutional system. >> what power is congress exercising here? >> justice kagan, congress has exercised its power over the passport, the issuance of passports under the immigration and naturalization and foreign commerce powers that congress has. it has enacted passport legislation back in 1856. in 1926 it controlled the content of the passport of to be. what its duration ought to be, how the application is to be made and we say this is an identification. >> do you think it is relevant that the title one section 214 ase united states policy with respect to jerusalem as the

capitol of israel? >> we think and we decided i guess in the footnote of the brief and number of cases in this court that have said that you take each statutory provision independently and determine its constitutionality. true congress has a broader view with regard to the policy of darussalam being a part of israel than the executive branch has had since 1948. however that is not determinative of what it is of subsection d. moreover -- >> you are not planning exclusivity in congress. you say it is a shared power. if it is a shared power, why

does congress trump the executive? >> precisely because under the standard of the case and the tripartite scheme if congress determines that what the president has done, and this is a statute which as narrow and deals with past conduct by the executive branch as it were it doesn't hobble the president in terms of the future policy. >> under your theory and following on justice ginsberg's question i think what determinations are for the president alone to make? >> foreign relations determinations are not -- >> are there any foreign relations for the president alone to make under your theory of the case? >> yes. >> and those are -- >> they are diplomatic community stations. the president makes -- >> and other words, who gets the

hologram? >> who issues the communication to the foreign government, who determines there's certain things that the president alone does because he's the one who implements the foreign policy. >> is there any treatise writer or decision of this court that supports such a narrow interpretation of the president's foreign affairs power? >> with all respect we don't think it is crammed. we think that is exactly what justice jackson was referring to and that is what the court has said in the case, and -- and in hamdan as well to use to make the jackson tripartite in the famous division he had i think assumes the validity of the congressional statute at the first step of inquiry and here that is the whole question. >> i don't know whether it

should limit it to the assumption that regard to the congressional statute. if congress says, as it did in this case, we disapprove of the state department view that passports should not contain the i edification of israel for people who are born in jerusalem that is congress disapproving of what the state department can pass. >> you were cut off earlier when you were saying it doesn't topple the president in the future. >> it says anybody born in jerusalem can have israel listed, correct? what happens if there is a peace accord tomorrow, and israel gives up any claim to sovereignty over jerusalem? is the president free to stop listing israel on the passport or does he have to wait for

congress to change the law? >> i think he does have to wait for congress to change the law. >> so you are with respect to situations that occur frequently as happens in egypt sometimes overnight. >> no, but it may in some way in a very remote possible way i think under those circumstances if there were a peace treaty and of jerusalem were handed over to a palestinian state i think congress would repeal the statute. that's the point, congress has the power, the authority under the constitution to enact the law and it is converse that makes the decision even with regard to foreign policy issues. >> the constitution requires ambassadors to be appointed with the consent. it gives congress the power of the purse. so, why isn't the better view we

let congress expressed its approval and disapproval in the mechanisms set up by the constitution to do so meaning if the president recognizes a country that congress doesn't want to recognize it could withhold approval of an ambassador. they could refuse to fund the embassy. it could do many other things but what entitles converse to trench on a power that has been exercised virtually since the beginning of the country. >> with all respect, justice, i think history demonstrates that this simply not true. that in fact congress has had equal recognition power in fact that is a power rather than a ceremonial duties. we have gone back from president

monroe, jackson, tayler, lincoln, and even at the time of president mckinley conagra said we have the authority to be recognized. >> this gets back to the question of exactly what congressional power you are basing your argument on. you started by saying you're basing it on the congress passport power which is a function of its control over immigration issues. now you are saying congress has a kuhl equals recognition power. which is a or is it both? >> it is in the alternative, justice, is both. we submit first of all there is no exclusive recognition power from the president if there is a recognition power and we spell that out the estimate is it the full length of saying that congress passed the law that says the united states recognizes jerusalem as the capitol of israel and jerusalem must be designated as the capitol of the hill and all

official documents. suppose that was law. everything you've argued. >> we say congress has the authority but i have to ask, justice, congress has been very careful in the past and we believe will be the future to give the president authority to the extent congress has tried to do that. congress has consistently said the president can waive the moving of the embassy to jerusalem because congress recognizes this is one of these very rare situations where the congress has said the president has done and the department of state has done is simply wrong. >> it seems to me that you are not arguing a call equal power. you are arguing for a superior congressional power. you are saying whenever congress says the president has to comply

with. now that's quite different from saying they both have the authority in the field and if they both have of 40 in the field and they are exercising it in different fashions i frankly would not be in plight to intervene. i would let them conduct the usual interval ranch hand rustling that goes on all the time if congress cares enough, chris will win because as you say it has an innumerable number of plugs with which to beat the executive if it is a key legal power and they are with exercising in a different way why don't we just let them go at it why is it any of our business which is the bitter foreign policy position? >> the court is not being asked to determine what is of the better foreign policy decision. >> that is your position, not

that congress has coequal of 40 with the executive but congress is supreme. the recognition power if it exists. congress has it together with the president. with regard to the question whether congress can trust the president this is not a new proposition. the court determined it in the seizure case. the court more recently in approving justice jackson's tripartite scheme in texas. >> it involves a situation where the presidents purported exercise of of 40 change domestic law not simply domestic but domestic state law. >> again what justice jackson said is that when when the court

looks and scrutinizes subject to scrutiny those words are in justice jackson's standard. scrutinizes what the president has done, and we submit in this case of the court were to look the answers to the interrogatories in this case what is the basis for the president's policy if one scrutinizes it the say in our brief we call it trivial because what happens is the department of state has said, and again this is important in terms of the statute, all that happens with this statute is that 50,000 american citizens have the same passport as 100,000 other american citizens who were born in televisa. it just says israel. it doesn't say jerusalem it just says israel. the state department says that it's justified because it did countries or palestinians may be

upset if they misperceived -- >> so you're suggesting the outcome of the case would be different from your perspective converse said side jerusalem as real? >> i say it is a different case, absolutely. the important thing about the case in the statute is that it gives the individual passport holder each race. >> why is it a different case? >> it's a different case because if it were to say jerusalem, israel, there would be more of an argument. and i'm not saying i would be acknowledging impermissible. but there would be more of an argument that there appears to be initial approval -- >> there would be a greater concern -- the concern on the part of the executives would be adverse political reaction would have a greater degree of credibility. >> somewhat greater degree. >> so we are supposed to decide whether or not the executive is

correct in saying that it is a significant problem and she says that, but we know foreign policy or we don't think it is going to be a big deal curious to the dhaka. >> i don't think the court is being asked a question of foreign policy. congress decided that saying if israel alone does not present a foreign policy issue congress recognized with moving the embassy there might be a foreign policy issue so they said the president can waive that with regard to this provision congress has said no. there is not likely to be any foreign policy harm and all the court is being asked to do is to enforce the congressional conclusion which is we submit exactly what the federal level under justice jackson's test is that if in fact congress decides what the president has concluded for the executive branch has concluded is wrong it may and it

has the constitutional power to say with regard to foreign policy we can exercise our determination. >> i don't see justice jackson's and ilyse in what he's saying i guess i don't think it is as controlling as others might. he says when there's a conflict it's a harder case. when the agree it's an easy case. when you can't tell it is a metal case. i don't see how that is helpful in resolving the dispute. >> he says when it's in the third category the court has an obligation under those circumstances if it's going to keep the equilibrium of the balance of power to look at what the justification is. it isn't simply a phrase justice jackson has taken out of the air. he says you're supposed to scrutinize it and if you do in this case there is nothing other than the possibility that there

would be to misperception by palestinians. >> what were we scrutinizing in the seizure case? >> i think in the steel seizure case the court was scrutinizing whether notwithstanding the fact conagra's did not give the president the power of the steel mills and none the less whether they could be some justification even in contrary to the congress's capricious the president would be able to exercise the power. >> what presidential power would have supported that? of the war power? >> the claimant that as commander in chief and the time of the korean war. >> claiming that the korean war require that these companies remain in business and i guess we did scrutinize that. what did we conclude? >> i think the court concluded that no that did not justify the

exercise of the president's power even though -- >> that wasn't the case in which the congress has said he may not seize mills and that is your case so there is a difference. >> but it is a situation, justice kennedy, if congress didn't even say you may not seize this deal else but because they didn't give the authority -- >> it is if you assume that the statute is valid. >> the statute in this case -- again i come back to the case it is -- >> if the statute is invalid br in a category one. >> yes, that the statute in this case is on its face a passport statute. it's a passport statute that seems to have nothing to do with the immigration functions they usually serve. it seems to have everything to do with congress's declaration of a foreign policy as opposed

to congress's exercise of power relating to immigration control. so convince me that i'm wrong on that. >> i think you are wrong on that. [laughter] what me explain why. it's clear from the history on this line on the passport that it is purely an identification of the individual it is not an exercise of any foreign policy. indeed the passport statute itself says a passport is in the travel documents issued by competent authority showing that the origin, identity and nationality and in this case the history of this line on the passport. it is purely a means of identification and congress has said with regard to the citizens we will permit them to identify themselves when congress

permitted the taiwanese to identify. >> if these individual passports simply send jerusalem there would be item identification problem? >> just as alito it's not because there would be an identification problem but congress recognized with regard to the 50,000 people who have a passport that says jerusalem they have been denied a certain sense of self-respect they feel they should be able to have in terms of their own identification. this is not a statute that is designed to create some political brouhaha or making foreign policy statement. it is a statement that frankly sits in with what the state department does an accommodating individual passport. the state department says if you are a palestinian or an arab and you don't like seeing israel and the passport we will allow you to eliminate israel from the

passport of congress said -- estimate that might be true and he would have a better argument of the statute said if you're born in jerusalem you can get anything you want in your passport. the statute in fact doesn't say that. it says you can't israel, so why isn't that a statement of the foreign policy as to the recognition that jurors was the capitol of israel as opposed to what you are characterizing it as witches a freedom of choice provision. >> i think what you said the statute doesn't say, justice is what the statute does say. the statute does say the individual passport holder can choose to say israel or can keep it as jerusalem and before 1948 you can see palestine. so it is --

>> [inaudible] >> part in? [laughter] [laughter] .. only with respect to a particular jurisdiction. an american citizen born in northern ireland doesn't have this option because the exact part of ireland. >> an american citizen born in

taiwan apparently does have that option, even though the united states as we don't recognize taiwan as an independent country. >> your friend on behalf of the united states says it's because the state department judgment that my situation is significant in the other it's not. >> it is because what happens is there's a recognition in both cases that it is a personal identification choice with regard to what goes on to passport. sure, in that case the state department didn't take it to medication. although i submit that had they chosen to litigate the case, they would have a stronger position than they have in this case. >> a personal identification choice can also have significant foreign policy implications, can it not? is that an either/or situation? with the state department is saying this to allow this particular personally tend to vacation choice may antagonize

some foreign nations we don't want to antagonize. what if they gave them the choice of saint come to israel the only democracy in the middle east. okay that's their choice. they can have it on their path. that be okay? >> i have to say that given this court spew about congress' power with regard to passport. again, i go back to the fact that in hanky-panky and kent versus dulles, and all these passport cases, this court said with a see whether what the president does is authorized by congress, whether implicitly or otherwise so i submit with the passports you need congressional authority, whether it's implicit or express. with regard to your question, justice goliad, yes congress could exercise its passport authority say here is what the passport has to say.

it would be a foolish statute. but this court has said in a thank you, justice goliad said it many times. it's not the courts job to determine whether congress is foolish or not. if congress decided that look, somebody boarding history of kind of visceral the only democracy in middle east? congress can say that. congress has passport authority. >> viewers skipping over the question. i take it your view is it's not a political question, said the court should resolve the mary. >> my view is it's not a political question because it is like many other questions that affect foreign policy. the courtside and baker and carter, not every decision that touches on foreign affairs are foreign policy is a political question that can be determined.

it's arguably according to the government, we say it is simply congress having passed statute, which either is unconstitutional unconstitutional -- we see it is constitutional. it's constitutional for the court should simply enforce the. like in the japan whaling case, this court reject the claim that the outcome of a determination by the court might very well affect foreign relations and say it's not a political question. >> at nature reserve the remaining time for rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. lewin. >> mr. chief justice please the court. the executive has determined that its issues should not

identify israel is the place of birth for persons born in jerusalem. petitioner seeks relief under section 214 the counterman that executive judgment. under the constitution, that is an exercise of the executives exclusive recognition power. the constitution commits the power exclusively through the executive and neither he court whether congress can override the judgment. >> your friend document contrary history at some length in its reply brief. we're from the beginning at least as he says to the mckinley administration the two branches acted as if they had coequal authority. >> mr. chief justice, i don't think it shows before returning

to the starting point of that story, which is a member of administration, i'd like to point out that on the washington station, the president confronted to question whether to recognize the revolutionary government of france. president washington consulted with the cabinet and the cabinet included jefferson and madison and hamilton and chatty and they decided this was a power exclusive to the president to such an extent that they did even need to send a message to the congress that they were going to recognize the new revolutionary government of france. the second fact is a critical matter of history is there is not a piece of legislation is passed both houses of congress and come to the president porting to recognize a foreign nation or a territorial boundary of foreign nations. >> or hasn't been an instance

where the president has recognized a foreign government over the same direction. >> i can't think of an instance of congress has sustained objection. i think probably the closest we would come as a revolutionary government of mexico, which president first recognized on a defect or basis in 1915 and a cherry basis in 1917. congress and equated displeasure. preston wilson sent his message saying this is exclusive function. congress back down. >> what are the reasons that this is your case i never eat being? because all of these words -- every time the word has appeared in any source, i think that is what you're saying, it is meant that the president cannot without supporting authority to congress. but there never has been a case or a suggestion that the

president cannot where congress has legislated to the contrary. i think that's the argument. and so what i would like to hear which you have to say about that argument. >> yes, i will answer that question directly. it is true that the court has never before with respect to the recognition power confronted the question of whether the president is free to act in congressional command because congress has never reported to issue a command. that does not mean, however, that my friend is correct in a situation in which congress has authority to counterman or direct the decision of the president. this is we submit, even if one thinks about this is a youngstown category three case, this is a young scam category three case at the kind that justice jackson identified in footnote four, where he cited myers against the united states.

the kind of case and category three of youngstown in which the president's judgment can prevail even other contrary government in which the president has exclusive authority. my question is, what leads you to that conclusion? >> they were very, very few cases i can think of where the court has said the president can act contrary a statue. and so comes a point of my question was to get you to talk about why. so i do think if i could, it would be helpful in answering your question justice breyer. moving beyond that initial revolution by washing 10 that this is an exclusive power that is quite significant. when i get to the monroe administration, there was a fight between clay and monroe about whether the president has exclusive authority to recognize the new south american republic.

a couple of points there. i think the only thing one could point to as an action by the congress that even implicates the recognition power is one house of congress passed an appropriations measure for an ambassador. what the history treated is my friend says on page 133, the very peachy sites in their reply brief is that clay's effort to contest the president's exclusive authority came to an inglorious and, unquote. he then goes on to say, my friend designed to say, a year later, when president munro sought to actually recognize the south american republics, he asked the congress to join him. he asked congress for illicit appropriation for but it is not

the sending of an ambassador to the republic of colombia that was directed nation. it was when president munro received an ambassador from columbia that constituted the recognition and i wasn't exclusive that he undertook. >> two examples given in the brief. one of texas for that was the case where congress recognized the president acquiesce in the same thing with taiwan. it was statute and the president implemented it. so if congress had the authority, the recognition authority in those two measures and the president acquiesce. >> i'd like to address because that is the most significant example my friends identified. even their fund works to the history that we see as an exclusive executive power. president jackson's first letter in 1836 to the congress says essentially, i hear you. you think we should recognize texas.

and then he says, whether this exclusive authority or not. it's not been something the legislature has ever studied, but as a matter of expediency we don't need to resolve that question because i want to work with you. he then goes on to caution the congress to not have to quickly for fear of precipitating war with mexico, which i think justice breyer will try to return to the announcements later as an important point. i think what is important, justice ginsburg is what congress did not was to pass to appropriations measures. one of the house, one in the senate. each measures appropriate funds to republican attacks has come of each includes language that says at such time that the president determines that it's appropriate to do so. if one looks at the page and the congressional globe to my friend writes, one will say the

language was added because as originally introduced, appropriations riders are objected to by members of congress on the gramling singed on the president's recognition authority. >> if i could stop you and have you address the political question. you say this is exclusively committed to the president and therefore is a nonjusticiable political question. how is that different from saying it's our job to decide cases. and then you can argue that the answer is that analysis is that is exclusively committed to the president. i don't understand by labeling it a political question advances the analysis notch. >> well, we agree, mr. chief justice the garrison and conduct in a political question analysis that is for the court to decide

to decide the scope. data within nixon against united states and mccormick says and that in answering those questions we think the court will have gone a long way to determining the question -- the >> why not all the way. >> this court decides to the president that it's all over. does the president had this authority. the political question seems to be a subterfuge because if there is a school commitment to the president, that's the industry. >> well, i do think that with respect to the first baker fact turkoman textual commitment is a factor that the court has indicated is one that can make to the conclusion that it's a

political question. i do think the court has to go through the analysis. at the end of the day, there may not be much of a difference. >> advance on the question and to decide whether it's a political question or not you have to identify the question. if the question is whether the president has exclusive authority with respect to the form of acute vision of a foreign country, that might be one thing. what is the question is whether the president has exclusive chores action with respect, unreviewable authority with respect to anything the president thinks has a bearing on the question of recognition. now that's the question come is that committed exclusively to the president? >> no, justice alito. we think how against mccormick and nixon say the question of not just commitment, but question of scope are for the court to decide. we think with respect to the question here that even though it's for the court to decide, it

is for the court to decide with a significant measure of deference because when -- decision by the executive with respect to how it's going to handle a status of jerusalem is a very sensitive and delicate matter. this position was arrived at after very careful thought and is enforced very carefully. i think from that should come the lesson that -- the reason is because the executive believes that the state and the passport has to be understood as a manifestation of the president -- >> general verrilli come in the section that's there now and then there is a section. the recording of israel as a place of birth shall not constitute recognition of israel's sovereignty over jerusalem. would that be constitutional. >> i think of course that is not the statue which has a title

which says with respect to jerusalem as the capital. >> i had the title versus identification of persons -- >> i still think that would be within the scope of the executive's power to decide because the content of the past port and so far as the executive believes that constitutes an expression of an incident of recognition is a judgment at the executive makes. now, the court can review that, but the chorus review of this should be done with a significant measure of deference as the court suggested. >> is that any different than the rationale of the d.c. circuit? it seems to me you're not defending the rationale of the d.c. circuit. there is no jurisdiction. so it's hard for us to tell counsel what is in their best interest. but it does seem to me that your

position would be much stronger if he said there is jurisdiction and the president wins. >> well, we do think that there's jurisdiction the president wins. but we do think that the d.c. circuit acted appropriately and finding -- >> is that this rationale remains the law and is that the comment then you have the spec there is constant legislative determinations that are not clearly invalid. it seems to me that is against, with all due respect, not in the best interest of the ultimate argument you're making. >> well, we appreciate that, justice kennedy. we think in conducting a political question analysis, the questions that the court would need to decide under nixon and powell would go a very long way to clarifying problem. >> what is the congress statute

says what you must put on the passport if requested is his real, parentheses disputed, close parentheses. choosing to take care of your objection that people will look at this and draw false conclusions. >> i don't think that changes the analysis, mr. chief justice, because to be -- because that would be again congress seeking to direct the judgment. and it is the position of the administration's data center respond is disputed. >> is correct, mr. chief justice. but what the united states says about that in official communications and remember a passport is not a communication of the passport holder. it's an official united states document that communicates position of the united states. >> so what if so what if congress has been the place you have it, this person is a choice of whether or not to put jerusalem or israel.

this doesn't affect whether the united states recognizes jerusalem as part of his real or not. it's just his choice. same problem. >> same problem. i thought your argument that someone is going to look at that and say that offends me that you are calling a israel. i tried to give your hypothetical in which no one could draw that conclusion. >> this is an area where executives has to make a judgment where they speak with one voice. >> general, you are taking the position that this is not a sad authority. it's an exclusive authority. there is no role for congress. am i right clicks or is there some role and recognition for congress? >> our position, justice

ginsburg is that the recognition power is exclusive to the president. >> what if the recognition of a breakaway province of the foreign country by the united states will clearly provoke a war with that country? would congress have the power to decree that the president shall not recognize that breakaway province? knowing that if he does recognize that, that country will declare war in the united states. >> i think justice glia, that is the situation in which the president would exercise that should power. >> we have a foolish president. [laughter] contrary to our entire history -- [laughter] >> although i just don't think that in a situation like that the president would recognize

power. i could get back to your question. >> i am willing. our cases say repeated the the president is the sole instrument for the conduct of foreign policy, but to be the sole instrument to determine the foreign policy were two quite different things to say he's the sole instrument of congress traveling abroad were presidents, no one except president of the united states pronounces the foreign policy. but it doesn't necessarily mean the president determines everything. he's instrument. there is certainly room in the cases were saying that congress can say what it -- but the

country's instrument is supposed to do. >> i think with respect to the question of wreck ignition, justice scalia, that it is a power the rest of the executive. in addition to the history and i do now in 220 plus years do not have a single example of congress actually exercising that power. in addition to the history there's very good functional reasons why that is so. i think justice breyer and answering early question, those are very significant. the exercise of the recognition power depends on three things. we make it clear it needs to be exclusive. the first is timing. the second has expertise in the third is a need for secrecy. >> i didn't hear the third. >> the need for secrecy. >> i think the israeli example shows it's of critical importance, but it's not just speed. congress can't act with the dispatch needed, but apart from

that they recognition that occurs could stand. a recognition that cost you a could squander an important opportunity >> is the basis for your argument for exclusive powers to receipt of ambassadors cause alone or is it something else? i was frankly a little bit surprised that your brief but so much weight on the receipt of ambassadors cause come which arguably was meant to get the president a purely ministerial function. and so literally on any other power the president has. >> so here is their position on that, justice kagan. we do think that the reception causes the source of the recognition power. hamilton identified as the source of the recognition power

in the washington administration i think it's now understood it is one lot that is a textual source. >> yes there is. if you have to cast about for some pain, i don't know what else you'd land upon. it is there. >> in addition -- i would say in addition to the extent there is a question, we do think if they think we indicated in our brief that one can see this power as part of what they describe as a basher of responsibility the constitution assigns to the executive. we don't think all of the responsibility is exclusive to the executive, but this responsibility is. >> surface staff provision were not in the constitution cannot you make the same arguments? >> with the same history we have now the same functional considerations about the need for being in control of the

executive coming yes we would. >> there's many things congress could do to frustrate the president's decision to recognize another country. would you say all of those are constitutional? they all infringe the president's exclusive recognition authority? supposed the president recognizes the country and congress refuses to appropriate money or refuses to confirm any u.s. ambassador to the country. this presumably would not be unconstitutional, would they? the >> i think there would be a difference -- i think congress has authority over appropriations. congress has authority entitled to exercise that authority even if its intention with the president's recognition decision. it is the position of the executive there could be circumstances in which congress could exercise appropriations authority in a way that would preclude the executive from exercising his recognition power

and the executive would in some circumstances buddha had the authority to move ahead despite those actions by congress. of course this is not a situation in which congress has passed a sense of the congress revolution about what it thinks. it's not a situation in which congress with spending power and private parties do. this is an effort by congress to regulate a passport, which the court recognized as a core instrument of diplomatic communication. >> you think that's an exclusive power to determine the contents of passports for a long time? >> we don't think that the entire content of passports is an exclusive power. i'll explain, justice alito with the line is, but i want to push back a little on the notion that congress has for a long time

exercised authority over the content of passports. the first passport act within 1856. what this court said was that the enactment of the statute merely confirmed a power that everyone understood to be inherently executive. that statute did not report to regulate the content of passports. it infects a passport shall be issued under such rules as the president shall prescribe. and that was that language to let the court to conclude this is a confirmation of the executive's authority and indicated that authority. >> you can finish that if you'd like. i would just like somewhere a few words about the political question, which you don't believe in providing your brief. and my question in the political question for either of you is this -- that this is an area of foreign affairs. it is an area of recognition.

we know that never has this quarter and when asked how the congress can go ahead over a law passed by congress. but it is passports which both regulate in a real problem is these are words that are officially said in their detailed words. and those words may relate to strip coherent foreign policy. viewed that way, there are billions of words that might have the same effect. and do we know that these words will in some of the worst revoke? know, judges don't know that. and therefore when you get in this area, the best thing to do is avoid multifarious pronouncements by various departments of government multifarious pronouncements by various departments of government multifarious pronouncements by various departments of government. do not respect the views of other branches. and judges, stay out of it. let them work it out by themselves. i just want a worry for me there

you and mr. lewin i'm not. >> we think the appropriate inquiry references to the relief that petitioners seeking. if the relief the petitioner is speaking would invade the kinds of judgments that the constitution commits exclusively to the executive and the reason that commits judgments exclusively is because this is a situation in which multifarious voices are inimical. >> that's the merits determination. the whole question is who has the authority? and whatever label you put on it, if you decide the president has come as you just said, the exclusive authority, that's the end. it's not leaving it as justice breyer said to the political branches to fight it them. it is saying the president has exclusive authority. >> well, i think -- justice

ginsburg, and the absence of section 214, i think a would be clear from pink and belmont that the judgment on recognition is exclusively committed to the executive that would be a political question if the party came in and said i thought i passport to say something different about jerusalem. >> general, the tension i see here and what justice breyer is getting at is the label is important because if we call this a political question and don't address the merits, the outcome is that the president is saying that he is entitled to ignore the congress. i don't know what kind of message that sense, but it's a little unsettling that a court charged with enforcing the laws passed by congress are basically saying we are not going to determine whether this war is

constitutional or unconstitutional. that is what your definition of political question is becoming. and where does that stop? and what situations only in foreign policy do we decide not to? >> justice and they are, it's actually quite narrow and the problem isn't a significant one in the case of textual commitment because the court does in reaching the conclusion is the d.c. circuit, the court does have to decide whether there is a textual commitment to the executive said the court will resolve the question. the court would resolve the question whether the conduct issue is in the scope of the commitment. the corporate issue those rulings. >> that's what she told the d.c. circuit. >> utah jazz has taken the position didn't depend upon textual commitment, your position with the same if they receive ambassadors cause were not in the constitution.

>> i didn't mean to suggest he wouldn't be a textual commitment. it would be a commitment out one word read this a historical lesson of vesting power. >> i think is the historical and vesting power. it functions as the equivalent of the specific textual commitment. of course we do have a specific textual commitment. spirit applies when somebody comes to the court and ask for the courts make the decision. if the plaintiff here had come in without a congressional statute to rely upon and said it is wrong for the state department not to let me say israel may passport. then we would sit textually committed to the executive. but this is a different situation where we have a dispute between the two branches and where that happens, i find it hard to say well, we can't get into it because why?

because it is textually committed to one of the branches. it seems to me we have to resolve that question. >> as i said earlier, we think that the analysis and the doctrine goes a very long way towards answering that question, justice scalia. we do think they should be seen as the case i kill again and was looking at the relief that petitioners seeking, that the plaintiff is seeking leads the court to conclude that entertaining the claim would embroil the court in decisions that are supposed to be made on another branch and that in fact i think you can understand to section 14 as an effort to try to draw the court into the dispute between congress and the executive over whether -- over whether jerusalem should be recognized as part of israel. >> i give you a couple more minutes of my colleagues have any questions.

>> i wanted to follow up on that. does that mean you are content to have this court not say whether it is the exclusive executive power or there's some congressional participation? i mean, if we just abstain, we say it's none of our business. to let you shoot guys fight it out. >> that's correct, justice scalia. >> is exclusively presidential power. >> yes, that's correct. >> that doesn't sound to me like abstaining peek at. it seems to me like deciding the case. >> we do think that whether the court is looking at it as a political question of whether the court is looking at the judgment on the merits, the issue is textual commitment. there is textual commitment. this is a situation in which the country has to speak with one voice and the executive is

determined what the country should say. >> thank you, counsel. mr. lewin, will give you six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. that may be canned by everybody will avoid justice alito said in that argument. the question is whether anything the president thinks bears on recognition forecloses this court or any court for making that determination. this is not a recognition case. this is a passport case. the question is focused on the passport and makes somebody so if i don't decide? this is again if one looks at the statue, if one even looks at the foreign affairs manual, a passport is not today considered a diplomatic statement. it is an identification of a person in order to enable them to travel abroad. now again, let me also echo what the chief justice and justice

kagan pastoring my argument. if in fact this statute had said, we don't say jerusalem is part of israel, but you can identify yourself as being in israel. we submit that result can very easily be achieved in was achieved in the case of taiwan by a public statement by the executive. congress, this file can be in that day. people born in jerusalem can have their passports. that's their choice. congress hasn't said a has to say israel. the department of state can issue as it did in the case of taiwan saying this is not official american policy. no one is asking to decide what is american policy. no one is asking the court to

decide what justice scalia said would happen if there were no congressional statute. in that case it would be a political question. if my client had decided he wanted to have his passport say israel and yet no congressional statute would've brought the case to a court come in the court could say no, you're asking us to decide what the president should decide. but other than that, congress has a knack to the law. the fact is that with regard to this legislation, it is a statute which determines personal choice with regard to a passport. the case can be a vehicle. this case can be a vehicle for eight clarification of the rules of congress and the president can do to the nations foreign affairs. if so, we submit justice jackson state and, which acknowledges that congress has the final word

in the third category is one that should control. but there are narrower grounds for enforcing section 214 that do not in the cage separation of power issues. it's a past love within congress' constitutional authority and the cases i recognize the president may not deny or restrict passports without the express or implied approval of congress. that doesn't require recognition on both the recognition afforded cipher is. and the state department's justification for policy at congress is disapproved as not withstand scrutiny. the court merely has to look at the record in this case in which the state department has said we are concerned that there may be a misperception of what this

means. a misperception. it is extraordinary and are the basis of the fact there is an alleged misperception, american citizens who have been authorized by congress to say identify themselves on their passport is being born in israel will now find that statute. >> could you tell me -- let's assume that i designations said this designation on the passport review is in the border. if the united states is going to do this, we are going to view it as an act of war. would that then permit the president to ignore congress? >> i think congress has to wait that. if congress determines that an event this is that the passport should say, then that is -- >> so it's not the perception that issue. it has nothing to do with your

argument. >> i don't if that's true. >> you are going back to justice scalia's point, which you say is congress to keep foreign policy in the end. >> in the end, if congress determines that the president has said in this context is wrong, yes. we live in a system under which congress passes a law in the president has the duty and i think justice scalia has said it has the duty to be the sole instrument of foreign policy. the president speaks with a foreign policy that when congress authorizes him to do it, he may formulated. when congress does not know the race he may formulated. when congress disapproves what he does, and then under justice jackson's test in the steel seizure case, congress prevails. the fact that there is very damning case phase, particularly

curtiss wright, which is not, up the course of the argument, but in the curtiss wright case in which he spoke rapidly of the president has been the sole organ of foreign policy. one has to save the harbor or faster used to tell his students that just because justice sutherland writes clearly, you must not suppose he thinks clearly. [laughter] and we submit that israeli -- >> just one question on washington's recognition on the revolutionary front. use site in the replay brief the fact that the administration has sent the following listing to be dictated international law. join us to infer he was not exercising the real discretion? >> correct. historians who study that discovered he was just following

mr. patel who said you have to recognize any country that has defied to control and therefore since the french revolution ms. brenda fact to control the french government, washington had no choice. he was not exercising any kind of discretion. >> thank you, counsel. >> cases submitted.

>> ethnic nationalism, tribalism, religious fundamentalism are far more power than ideology. and we are not immune in this country from these forces. and when the melting pot has been thrown out in your preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> there's a story as told inside the administration that when obama was given the first budget and there is some six or 7000 earmarks in it, his first instinct was to veto the budget. and he was told by his lobbyist for capitol hill that there is no way you can do that. you can't cut these ties. and i just think, had he vetoed

that, he would've been a tea party. heady signal his fundamental desire to change the system and change the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that breaks out all over the world because of his frustration with the current way democracy doesn't function. >> lawrence lessig on money and its influence on washington. sunday night and see if it's q&a. >> next, highlights from question time in the australian parliament. mr. julia gillard answered questions about the decision by australian airline qantas to ground all flights due to a labor union this view. other questions related to immigration in the recent g20 meeting in france. this 40 minute program is courtesy of aipac, the australian public affairs channel. >> hello, i am david.

over the next half-hour will bring you highlights of the biggest italian parliament. during the month, qantas grounded its entire fleet of aircraft in the political debate that follows over australia's workplace lives dominated the parliamentary. the government made its unhappiness and decision quite clear. the prime minister returned from the g20 talks in france, urging european leaders to take more action to address their financial problems and the constant issue of immigration and boosted arrivals of asylum-seekers also dominated the parliamentary decision with the government urging the opposition to embrace its plan to allow offshore processing asylum seekers in malaysia. here now are the highlights of the latest decision. ♪ >> christians -- are there any other questions?

>> tanks, mr. speaker. my question is to the prime minister. i referred to prime minister to the 48 hours of airport chaos that she could have prevented. i asked, why didn't she immediately terminate this dispute without reference to a tribunal as she could have under her fair work at, thereby avoiding so much damage to hundreds of thousands of australians in so much damage to the australian's financial standing. >> order, order. order! order! >> prime minister. >> thank you bring much, mr. speaker. can i say i'm surprised by the opposition question coming out that we believe are the opposition showing his usual negativity in plain politics over the last few days as the government takes its views, the

national interest and insurer throughout qantas clients are determined to this guy today in industrial action is sad and and the parties will now be brought together in a conciliation and if the conciliation is unsuccessful, then of arbitration and determination will return. so mr. speaker, with the government has ensured by a faction is that industrial action -- >> prime minister -- [inaudible] the prime minister was asked a question. the prime minister is responding to a question. it is not an invitation for those that may left to canvass everything under the sun. and the members environment is worn. the prime minister.

>> thank you per image, mr. speaker. i gave my course of action the government has embarked on has given us the results we wanted to see, which is the end of industrial action and qantas planes taken back to the sky so that people can proceed on their travel plans with certainty. i have been very concerned about the circumstances of stranded passengers as they have been publicly and am happy to repeat back what is on saturday as extreme -- i view it as extreme because they stranded tens of thousands of people around our nation and around the world and with the industrial election at the end of the passengers can start seeing qantas planes way again and be able to resume their journey. now during this period that the government has had attending to the national interest, of course the leader of the opposition has been playing his usual negative poverty. and the leader of the opposition

has been seeking to make political points about section 431 of the fair work at. as usual, the lake of the opposition crackdown and never does any of the work necessary in order to actually analyze the situation and act in the national interest the leader of the opposition never bothering to turn his mind to the national interest. so for the purpose of the parliamentary record and the leader of the opposition can't explain the workings of section 431 of the act. this is a section of last resort. it appears in the fair work actin appeared in early legislation. it has never been used. a minister cannot use it. a minister cannot use it until he minister is satisfied about a high official of the significant damage to the national economy with the fair work australia directed at altitude. the leader of the opposition claims the minister could have

used to pride the exhalation of the dispute on saturday are wholly untrue and anybody who provided him with legal advice to the contrary would be providing him with the wrong advice. when the dispute escalated on saturday, then i would say to the leader of the opposition the pair under section 431 is capable of judicial reviews. it's never been used before. it would've taken us into holy vehicles. so we are determined to use section 424, which will get the result we want, which is to get planes back into the sky. i would also note the completeness on the record that we were advised by the relevant that in these circumstances the appropriate section t. is for section 424. leader of the opposition wanted to get the nation on a journey of potentially never-ending. and i've done so.

>> order. the leader of the opposition. >> wants the prime minister was aware of what was about to occur, why didn't she just pick up the phone to alan joyce and ask him not to ground the fleet? what is too hard for you, prime minister? >> the prime minister -- order! the prime minister has a floor. >> order. prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i think the leader for his question because it enables me to clarify here in the public record, but things that have been claimed by the opposition, which are wholly untrue. let me make sure the leader of

the opposition actually understands what happens with the industrial relations dispute because he's too involved in politics against the national interest to analyze the facts, analyze the is in analyze the law. the only thing the leader of the opposition never knew about workplace relations were ripping workers off. to the leader of the opposition, if he actually wants to, and had a plain street politics analyze the national interest, then you should observe the following facts. fact number one -- >> prime minister. >> order. order. order! the leader of the opposition with a point of order. >> yes, mr. speaker, it was a pretty simple question. why didn't she call alan joyce and asked not to ground the fleet? 's! i minister. >> thank you very much. i know the facts off

inconvenient for the leader of the opposition. friday, qantas indicated publicly he was still involved in the dispute. saturday around 2:00 qantas advice government ministers particularly the minister for for a qantas was grounded the planes at 5:00 p.m. >> order. the member is warned. >> is not a prediction is warned. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. the ceo of qantas advice pretty really the minister for transport around 2:00 or planes would be grounded at 5:00 in preparation of a lockout. the qantas made it perfectly clear to the minister he was not requesting the government do anything. he was not seeking to discuss the measure, that the decision had been made by the qantas board and the decision would be

implemented. so when the face of that advice when i received it from relevant ministers, but i did was rather than talk, i act did so the leader of the opposition, dido spent at wednesday's chat, chat, chat while thousands were stranded. he might've done that. what i prefer to do was act, mr. speaker. so i determined immediately the government would act and would intervene this dispute. we made application to fair with australia. >> the number per capita is worn. >> we urge the hearing, senator pat hearing continued yesterday. it concluded in the small hours of this morning with a decision that industrial action be seized. with industrial action now, finished what remains is the substance of the qantas dispute will either be for the

industrial party through a a reconciliation that be arbitrated by australia if the industrial parties of any 21 day. do not sort out the dispute. now i know the facts to suit the leader of the opposition to take politics. imus had as many positions on industrial relations at the common climate change. but the only thing that's ever known about him the street politics and working out how we can justify return to work choices and that's all it is about. >> the member for karen kaman. >> thank you on mr. speaker. my question is will the treasure of deep house on the economic impacts of the recent actions taken by qantas? >> deputy prime minister the treasurer. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ii think the man for his questin because of numbers are where qantas to take extraordinary action of grounding its entire international and domestic flight on saturday afternoon.

and this was an action which posed very significant risk to our economy and very significant risk to employment and very significant risk to the business community more generally. but as for the prime minister took immediate action, mr. speaker. besides getting australia involved in the consequence of that is that planes are going to be back in the air because we understood the seriousness of the situation, mr. speaker. even if those opposite do not. i can play a political game with this, but the miners are too serious for the politicking. we took our responsibility is extremely seriously. i want to explain to the house when we took our responsibility so seriously. in august, qantas carried 1.5 million domestic passengers.

that something like 50,000 passengers a day. in the same month a carried half a million international passengers. so this decision of what is to lock out its work force, to do it without notice posed a very significant risk to our national economy. and the decision was a significant breakthrough in resolving this difficult dispute. a significant breakthrough because what we would've seen if this was a per track dispute fx rate your economy. now i understand the importance of aviation to the tourist industry. but it's not just the tourist industry. we understand the importance of aviation when it comes to our mining industry. for sample, flying outliners. all of these immediately affected. that is before you go to the tens of thousands of businesses in the tourist industry and elsewhere and everybody else

breaks down the supply chain. who would have been affected if this dispute had gone on? of the prime minister acted decisively to deal with this dispute.

the impression left on foreign investors is a very poor one. the deception of union militancy increases equity risk premiums while affecting did nothing until it also reflects very poorly on australians. >> the members of the north. >> order. then the member of north sydney has the call. the members of north sydney. >> treasurer, when were you made aware. islamic the treasurer of the deputy prime minister.

>> when you're handling and industrial dispute you must have the national interest and that is what this government has done. when the minister transport was informed of the decision which they said was not negotiable, mr. speaker, i then spoke to him and a number of other ministers to bring them together with the action given the threats of our national economy so we acted as soon as we possibly could. we acted with involve of the land and with a genuine desire to resolve this dispute. to take sides we know they always just take one side when they are talking about industrial relations. we know they never took the side

of the workers, mr. speaker, they never take the side of the workers. we will work in and even-handed way so in the system we will do that in the national interest. >> mr. speaker to have the government's embarrassing record its failure to put them without starting a fire its public handling of the biggest budget deficit in our history. its failure to protect those borders. the international economy wide carbon tax this promised and i asked mr. speaker given the prime minister act to prevent 48

hours of avoidable chaos to expect people to have any faith whatsoever in the divided government. >> order mr. prime minister. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker and to the leader of the opposition it's a bit embarrassing for you now, isn't it? their he is with his - to be standing here every day with his little - slogans and he's done that with this operation today and cover-up mode he does not want to be unwitting you. did she know an hour before? did he know 24 hours before the planes were grounded? did he know 48 hours before the planes were grounded? did he?

who knows what role the leader of the opposition played in this dispute because he is in cover-up mode. he wanted to know every word, every telephone call, every piece of advice what we say to every minister in every meeting scream for the truth, yell for the truth, wanted the truth, then confronted with questions about his role today. in the midst of that he has obviously gone to the case of emergency and he's got all of his - slogans out and he's put them together it is truly pathetic but let me say this to the leader of the opposition this government will continue to do the following things. we will continue to have the system, the leader of the

opposition believes in the word choice. we will continue to ensure there is a strong national economy that works in the interest of all, the leader of the opposition wants to take money off of the people make them pay less tax. we will ensure the give the benefit of new technology, the national broadband network, the leader of the opposition wants to rip it out. we will ensure that they have a clean energy future at the lowest possible time just like he wants to give money to big miners' he wants to take money off of sterling and families and give it to the big polluters. we will continue to reform and invest in our education system the leader of the opposition is committed to ripping money out. we will continue to ensure that we invest in the future to the leader of the opposition is a man whose only achievement as health minister in this nation

would take a billion dollars out. we will continue to ensure that working people in this country can see an economy that is being managed in their interest and they are receiving the services families need. the opposition but never managed the economy in their interest. we can tell that from the conduct over the last few days and certainly he is dedicated to ripping away the services that they need. we will ensure that the budget comes next year, the leader of the opposition with a 17 billion-dollar black hole with services to working families. i think the leader of the opposition for his question. it was an to the trade destruction but the question still remains for the leader of the opposition to answer when

did he first know the were granting and why didn't he add to the question about the press conference? no point yelling about it now. go out and tell the truth. >> my question is to the treasurer. the world's biggest gold miner and the original proposal for the tax included goal its estimated the revised could raise an extra 1.8 billion included which would be enough to fund the impact has proposed by the member from new england. treasurer, why should they get a free ride and avoid a attack? >> the deputy prime mr. of the treasurer. >> i thank the member for his question because the in our arts he is about taxing the most profitable mines mining the most

profitable commodity so the government decided to tax iran or, coal, oil and gas. the fact is it is lined with a number of other commodities. it can be mined copper and nickel. the fact is we would have had extreme complexity if we had decided to tax a number of commodities in the mind and not tax a number of other commodities in the same. that was absolutely impossible to do. so we decided entirely for legitimate reasons to tax the most highly profitable line, the most highly profitable commodity. the alternative would have been to go back to a wide range of commodities but we would not have received the revenue from the wide range of those commodities that would have justified the complexity so that is why the government decided to

go for a limited number of highly profitable commodities and a limited number of lines. it made a lot of sense and it makes policy since today. i'm pleased to see the member is a supporter of the taxation. we on this side of the house are strong supporters of the resource rich taxation. we believe that the australian people should get a fair return from the resources they owned 100 per cent which can only be mind once and given that we have high commodity prices, given that we have the highest terms of trade and 140 years it is only fair that people should receive a fair return from that and that is why we have put in place resource taxation particularly when the trade impact on the economy to push the dollar up and leave us with a patchwork economy.

this is the capacity to spread the benefit of the boom to every corner, every corner of the country to this mug to the two struggling small businesses to western australia 2.7 would get the write-off of $6,500. a very important to support small business. that's why it's important to use the revenue to invest in infrastructure and it's also important to make sure that we support the savings of australian workers. 3.5 million australian workers will get an immediate boost to the saturation but when we say that we are doing something about the patchwork economy it goes to the core of the taxation. as we understand the need to spread the benefits of the boom right around our country that's

why we on this side of the house are strongly supporting the resource taxation. mr. speaker those on the other side of the house support the tax for miners and for a trolley and workers. we on this side of the house support australian small businesses with lower taxes and support australian workers unlike those on that side of the house. >> of the leader of the opposition. >> my question is to the acting prime minister and i remind him since the present government reversed the previous border protection law there have been 12,942 arrivals on more than 250. there are 4.5 thousand people currently including 440 children and two votes we know of have been lost at sea with the tragic loss of life, so i asked him up acting prime minister inform the

house what immediate steps the government will now take to stop the vote? >> the acting prime minister. >> at this point is to acknowledge the tragedy that has occurred in the tragic loss of life. that is why we on this side of the house have been so determined to break the model and to do it genuine. >> of order. >> the prime minister has the floor. >> mr. speaker to do it for the genuine regional engagement to send a message to the people of their model was broken and there won't work and that is why the government has been intent putting together this solution and that is why it was such a tragedy that the legislation that we needed to put in place

because of the high-cost decision has not been able to pass because that is the only measure that can be taken. those opposite are not interested in the gentleman solutions to the problem for our part we need to extend an invitation to come to this house and acknowledge that we need a solution to stop boats from coming. they have been advised by all of our senior advisers that the approach they are putting forward will not work. for our part we remain committed to the genuine regional solution. it is precisely the source of humanitarian arrangement that is required to ensure that we break that model and until we see that we will see death at sea. the prime minister last december

when the vote hit the island i will never forget that day and that is one of the reasons to put in place an arrangement so we can save lives. >> the member has the floor. >> thank you mr. speaker. my question is to the prime minister. will the acting prime minister finally admit it the government supports the coalition amendment to the migration bill it would establish offshore processing and 140 countries including reopening of the australian tax payer funding this hunters immediately. >> the acting prime minister. >> i see the minister talked about reopening which the government has been advised by all of our advisers. the same that advise the government that now simply

doesn't work. mr. speaker a few minutes ago the member was on the news and this is what he had to say. he said 70% of those processed in the root then went on to receive grants. this is not predetermined, mr. speaker. >> the acting prime minister. >> with a point of order. >> my question wasn't about sky news interviews it was whether the migration -- >> the member will resume, the members will resume his seat. >> the only point of order can be on the record and the acting

prime minister knows the requirements of the standing order. >> i like in the point there wasn't a shred of policy credibility in which is why -- which is why this government -- >> pointing fingers is not engaging by listening. order. the member should be very careful. the acting prime minister. >> mr. speaker, all they want to do is play politics with the issue.

on this day after there has been another significant tragedy, people billion at sea, their priority is to come in here and run these sorts of political lines. we on this side of the order went to see and what the australian people want to see is a genuine solution to this problem. they want to see a solution that looks at the humanitarian. they don't want to see people dying at sea. they want to see a government that can put in place policies which strikes the model and we know that it does not do that which is why we have always sought a genuine regional pollution and we will continue to support a genuine regional solution. they can continue to play politics, mr. speaker, what we are not going to see them there.

>> the leader of the opposition. >> my question as to the acting prime minister. at a time when the australian government has at $107 billion at a deficit approaching $50 billion why is the government planning to provide money that it doesn't have to prop up the year autozone which is the world's largest economy? >> the acting prime minister. >> well, mr. speaker, i am quite disappointed in that question from the leader of the opposition. first, the implication in the question is completely inaccurate. now we've come to expect that. but what we have seen in the last 24 hours particularly in the treasurer is the bipartisan support for the imf that has been conservative by the government over something like 60 years has now been broken, mr. speaker. how low will they go,

mr. speaker, because they should know because this was the practice when they were in government that any loans made to the imf are repaid with interest, mr. speaker. that was the situation under the conservative government, and it is the situation under this government, but secondly, and this is more important, the government is not proposing to put any money into a european bank. that is false, completely false and what we see is a xeonophobia approach in the last 24 hours by the shuttle treasurer mr. speaker throwing the whistle that somehow australia was going to be propping up greece. well, we are not, mr. speaker but what we are going to do is make a difference to the imf as governments of both political persuasions have done for over 60 years, mr. speaker, for over 60 years. now, mr. speaker, there is a

very serious situation in the global economy at the moment and our fundamentals are strong australia is not immune from the fallout of these events in europe and also in the united states mr. speaker and it is a difficult situation when there was a big global boosting the economy that does have consequences for the australia. we have said and others have said and i sure other g20 leaders are saying as we meet today is the world will meet its obligation to ensure they have the capacity in the future to deal with the greater global volatility that flows from europe. >> around the world conservative government's favor that approach without persuasion favor that approach and of the persuasion of those opposite of that

approach in giving the imf the resources but it doesn't have the capacity to contribute to any european fund, but what i have said, would the prime minister has said is that the imf must be properly resource for the future because we are entering into a purple of great volatility which brings threat to the global economy and also really is not immune from those and we will pay out fair share as we always have done that will be by the way of loans which are repaid with interest. >> the leader of the opposition. the leader of the opposition has the floor. >> order. >> order. the leader of the opposition.

>> to the acting prime minister is the acting prime minister confident that your of in general and greece in particular have put their economic houses in order and if not, is it the contribution that the government proposes to make throwing good money out now? >> the acting prime minister. >> what is really disturbing mr. speaker is there is a falsehood at the heart of the question and that falsehood is this that we support the imf with loans which are always repaid with interest, always repaid with interest. the leader of the opposition asked me if i was confident that the europeans were going to solve their problem, mr. speaker. now i've been to the g20 finance minister meeting i've been to the imf and world bank meeting invented the finance ministers'

meetings in the past months and that is because we have been so worried about the consequences for the global the economy of a meltdown in the european economy and those questions for the leader of the opposition if he hasn't got dewitt to understand what a threat that is and what in effect that will have on our economy into this country. he fails to understand that basic economic facts about what he likes to do is to go for populism and find we are going to be throwing good money out but we are not going to be doing that but what we will do is meet our obligation to the international community as we had that the obligation of the community during the global financial crisis and as we met the obligations to our own citizens during the global financial crisis there would have been hundreds of thousands of unemployed of the liberal party would have had their way during the global financial

crisis but we supported our parliament and the consequence of that is that we of one of the strongest developed economies in the world and really what we find now is he goes to the approach in economics he doesn't care if the demand falls off the cliff and hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed globally now there are over 200 million people unemployed and of these events in europe take a turn for the worst there will be many more but what we know is in this country we have the economic strength to handle and the moral strength to say we will put our hand for the international institution that can make a difference and we will support the imf as we will support multilateral institutions as governors of their persuasions used to do. >> the leader of the opposition to this gimmick my question is to the acting prime minister what to the canadian forum,

statements last trading scheme given that the government's modeling of the impact of the carbon tax is entirely on the youth to be to introduction how can the acting prime minister continue to claim the government's modeling incredible or the canadian foreign minister is wrong. >> the acting prime minister. >> i would have thought we have a different policy on the canadian system mr. speaker. but anyway. >> order. order there's a few points that ought to be made mr. speaker because the context of the question is somehow there is no carbon pricing in canada which is simply untrue. the canadian provinces of british columbia and quebec already have carbon taxes,

mr. speaker. >> we didn't hear any mention of that and in the united states putting in place mr. speaker this is what i meant before when i said they live in the post world. they simply try to ignore the basic facts, mr. speaker when it comes to any issue because what they want to do is to simply play politics and the mind of fact, mr. speaker and we see that on display time and time again. alberta also has a form of the price and as i said before quebec does this well and we've got california, the largest economy in its own right in the world with the carbon pricing, mr. speaker, but what does all this come back to? >> mr. speaker with this comes back to is that side at the moment happens to be dominated by climate change skeptics and

the leader of the opposition says it is a weather vane and we also know there of a number that don't agree with their approach to the prices they continue to play their basic political games mr. speaker we will get on with putting in place the difficult reform that will deliver the prosperity and jobs for the australians of the future, mr. speaker. >> that was the latest session of the mostly in parliament, deutsch and us next time. ♪