and he is there are other 363 sales cemented are you familiar with any other bankruptcies that were expedited in such a fashion

enact the sale of the parts of lehman brothers to barclays in the lehman brothers bankruptcy, that portion was a 353 still which was what this was. we have done more quickly. >> mr. pellman, are you experienced with any company independent to a bankruptcy receding, giving a billion dollars to another company? as has been done in this situation? >> certainly they honored a contract and made a decision to honor the contract based on their business judgment. we can see that in all the time in many bankruptcies. >> county responded that? >> first i would say that i have never seen a bankruptcy like this at all. my top bankruptcy for 15 years. i have never seen a bankruptcy case in which secured creditors are getting 29 cents on the dollar and unsecured received 44 cents on the dollar, which is what happened here print some of the secured creditors were other retirees. policemen and teachers of retirement age. what it really amounted to was

effectively a plan, which was not selling the company but dictating how the assets are going to be distributed. we also saw in this case was an option that was anything but a fair option of the assets. there were strings attached are basically required that anybody who bought -- three was at the uaw that was effective? >> anybody else who wanted to been on the company was required to give preferential treatment to the uaw, in the same way that the government did. once the company went into bankruptcy, of course, we saw a lot of other shenanigans but i have never seen. i never saw any other case that resembled us in terms of the rule of law in the way it scrambled around priorities and the speed that they sold the company and distributed the assets. >> bubbled what role did the

auto tax course administration play in the negotiations between the g8 and the uaw? >> i think the role that we played with the same that we played with most of the issues, which is to say that general motors, we defer to them in terms of their business judgment. about how to handle a particular matter, and i can see a negotiation would fall into that category. but we reviewed that decision to see if we agreed on that. >> do they have a fair amount of leverage? >> i think they had a fair amount. >> do think that they would've derailed the deal over the salaries of a few? >> i cannot speculate. >> i think our judgment at the time was correct. >> i think everyone in the case

who had leverage exerted that leverage the uaw is no different than any other participant. >> do they think they would've derailed the negotiations? >> i truly don't know. >> but would you -- you would have to know -- [inaudible] >> never on speculation? >> i try not to. >> with regards to the payback now, the obama administration, we give $20 to gm, they pay back $20 come in this example it hasn't all been paid back. is that something that was never intended to come to fruition? or was it just we wanted payback and make sure we pay back what we give the obama administration red mr. feldman, we go back to you for that.

>> my time is expired, so i yield back. >> i think my colleague will now recognize jackie spirit from california for five minutes. >> i want to thank mr. feldman, mr. wilson, and mr. bloom for being here today. recognizing that there is a responsibility of private citizens be referenced shenanigans. i can think of a lot of shenanigans that went on with wall street and particularly goldman sachs. would you call those shenanigans? >> bonobos in detail, but i certainly it would be possible but i have not looked at those in much detail as i have to the auto bankruptcies.

>> you were an independent controller for new york state. is that true? >> yes. >> the work he did to rescue u.s. auto industry was what about what was to invest in the country. >> just. >> at any time did you detect that the person on your team was pursuing a political agenda? >> no. >> were you attempting to push a

particular political agenda. >> only to save taxpayer money two well, what a novel idea. is that what you are engaged in during? >> yes. >> reworking to stave off the collapse of very large and interdependent automotive industry and you are referring to their judgment based on many of these detail decisions? >> yes. >> as you look back at your time, would you say that you regret having done anything as a member of the task force? >> i would not say that. we can always do a better job. we always have second thoughts and we feel that we did the best we could given the situation could. >> are you proud of what happened? >> how about you mr. feldman? >> i think i said in my opening

marks and i remain fiercely proud. i think what we did was with a lot of help from a lot of other people in the government and the company is pretty spectacular for these companies, quite frankly. >> i would just echo my former colleagues comments and i would emphasize mr. feldman's points, there were a lot of people who worked on the matter but i think a good result was achieved compared to the alternative. >> each of you provided a deposition on your activity. we also have a report that has been completed that suggests there was nothing underhanded. have you read the report yet? you have any comments on that report? >> i suspect my colleagues have as well. i thought it was overall a very

good job. >> does anyone else have any comments? >> i would not disagree. >> all right, ideal back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman for yielding the double to me during this time when jackie speer was asking questions. this is a bipartisan issue. the topic is the delphi pensions and those who did not receive top of or their pensions, and in fact some have their pensions reduced. the involvement -- they did not have information determining their roles and responsibilities. mr. bloom, you said that you did not testify concerning this topic because you claim that there was ongoing litigation

that would prevent you to stand in front of congress and tell the truth? >> mr. feldman come if, do you have a medical condition that affects your memory? >> i do not. >> great, thank you. in your testimony, you have foreshadowed he might claim you don't remember this stuff. when you go by -- when you go before the committee, i would like to invite you to have a refreshed memory because of two things. when we pull up your law firm's advertisement of what you do, not only do they recognize that you have a practice that is complex litigation, assuming that you clearly recall it, but the very first thing it tells that in march of 2090 were nine you were recruited to serve as the chief legal adviser for the strategy to restructure and recapitalized general motors corporation. if your clients can avail themselves of the knowledge you had, mr. bloom come you testified before the hearing on

this committee on the regulatory affairs subcommittee on june 22, 2011. i handed you three pages of questions. my staffer is going to hand them to you again. he handed them to you at that hearing. the recall receiving the questions? >> yes. i ask you if you would about what he said at a hearing. >> gentlemen, i presented you with a list of questions. mr. bloom committee received 25 and the other other received 30. i went after you review those questions and to the best of your ability, provide the answers. do i have that commitment? >> i well, absolutely. >> thank you. >> mr. bloom, you answered me on june 22, 2011, was absolutely, i have not received an answer from you. why have you not answered me? >> subsequent to that time where

i had a chance to answer, i left government service. >> you are interchanged because you left government service? >> i did not it was appropriate that i continue to involve myself in this matter after i left government service. >> you know, clearly this committee views that otherwise. as to the taxpayers. you have great responsibility, as also your current firm indicates that you will help lead the restructuring of general motors. it is your accountability to the taxpayers. will you commit come as you did in that hearing to answer these questions now? >> if their questions i can answer, i will do it. >> will you commit in writing to answer these questions as you said under oath in that hearing on june 22? >> i will answer the questions i can answer today. >> so we will just keep you here and i will ask the question what determines approval then. >> mr. feldman, we have a number

of your coworkers e-mails. the auto task force played a role in this decision, and posed a significant obstacle. mr. feldman, you agree that you played a role in the pension decisions? >> i don't think that i agree that i played a role in the pension decisions. i certainly spoke regularly to that [inaudible] and general motors regarding the delphi pension issues. did you ever speak to anyone at the white house concerning this issue? >> bryan dietz was a regular member of our team and the team reported to larry summers and tim geithner and honestly mr. summers, doctor summers, was at the white house at that time.

>> can you please put up the slide? >> here's an e-mail following the slide where he says the reported that you made progress discussing a proposal with a number of key people. he has not yet raft of his ordination. this would be the issue of the pensions. your role on the task force, of coordinating the issue of the pensions. you disagree with the female? >> i don't disagree that i was the coordinator or facilitator of those issues. >> what was your role? >> i asked you to describe what your role was. would you describe that will

press? >> i was the facilitator and coordinator of issues between general motors regarding the delphi pension issues. and how does that will assist or fess a trackback pbgc in the bankruptcy process affecting the pensions? >> the decision that the pbgc made with respect to the delphi it was what claims the pbgc would have been the delphi case and what means they would prefer to have over assets of delphi, particularly the poor in 10 foreign assets of delphi, and that had an impact on delphi's future and mgm's future. >> you played a role in determining either claiming were releasing of pbgc liens on general motors and delphi

assets? in the bankruptcy process with respect to these pensions. >> that's not correct. >> that's what i heard you say. please clarify. >> i urge the pbgc to come to a decision and rapid manner because it had the potential to let general motors emergence. but i did not advocate for positions the pbgc, i played the role of a facilitator or mediator, if you will, between the pbgc and general motors. >> my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> your december 2011 report states that the treasury to for the judgment and did not explicitly approve or disapprove the gm providing [inaudible]

it would appear that delphi pension matters decided by gm without treasury implements? >> yes, we reported that while the treasury played a significant role in resolving the delphi bankruptcy if they wanted that resolved as quickly as possible as gm emerged from bankruptcy. they played an advisory role with regards to the pension issues, as laid out in court filings and interviews with gm, the pbgc officials and treasury officials. i think an example of that is in a court filing that shows that the treasury assumed jim would be honoring the plan up until we were informed by gm in june that it can no longer do so because of the financial burden. >> in your mind, what was driving the decisions?

>> according to a gm official that we spoke to come in the public records, jim consider the the dependency on the workforce -- they were heavily reliant on that thread emerging from bankruptcy, they wanted to make sure that they had a motivated and contact workforce. they also considered other costs and risk vespers and raid -- way back what cost and risk they wanted to take on. >> and what about delphi's pension decisions -- were they anything other than jim's private business decisions? >> gm played an advisory role. i would note in conducting our work, we did do a report that considered a broad range of things, we did not conduct an investigation as t.a.r.p. is doing and we did not interview

the former officials here today. >> is there anything else you'd like to add related to the gym decision-making process in the questions? >> no, sir. >> thank you, i yield back. three thank you, ranking member. we certainly appreciate his questioning as well. we will now recognize mr. kelly of pennsylvania or five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and for holding the hearing and allowing me to participate. i do have a question. when we talk about gm making decisions, the consensus is that these are gm board decisions that were made, involving the uaw. >> i think it would depend on the decision. >> specifically when it comes to pensions. >> picking and choosing -- i couldn't say whether general motors management specifically

brought this issue to their board board of directors or not. i wouldn't know. >> did you sit on the board of directors of general motors? >> you were part of the auto task force? >> and the board of directors, the old gm versus the new gym. a lot of the new general motors were appointees mr. wilson, in your testimony, i think this is where you talk about what happens -- you say on page two, general motors had its most great year in 2001 come even though auto sales are not still fully recovered. we talk about the auto industry coming back. did you know what gm made in 2011? >> i think it was just under $8 billion net income. >> how many taxes that they pay? >> to commit a transaction to i don't know. >> i will tell you what it is. it is zero.

>> this is another anomaly about these cases, very irregular, which the treasury department issued essentially a special ruling for t.a.r.p. recipients that allows them preferential treatment of the tax code to care for -- >> on the street we call that picking winners and losers and taking advantage of things not available to others? >> i think that would be an accurate description. >> i am a gm dealer, by the way, so i'm happy when they make money, but i was like fact that the president talks about the 99% in the 1% -- for the 99% isn't paying their fair share, in a billion dollar profit and they did not try to put anything back in, that is offensive to me as a taxpayer. >> is a dealer, -- in fact, i was not risk of losing my dealership. and the answer was good luck. you can make it if you work hard. we made it, i understand that.

we talk about the end auto industry coming back and had 16.5 million sales every year. it fell to 9.5 million sales. the fact comes as a result of the fact that cars, like people, age and can perform at the same level they had when they were newer. there is a thing called the scrapping rate that is taking place. the roaring back as a result of a diminished market the last three or four years. it is going to come roaring back. right now, they are projecting somewhere -- some people say 13.5 million or 14.5 million each year. that is coming from a guy on the lot talking to people. what is keeping it from coming back is people are not sure what the future holds and they are not willing to go into a 60 month commitment, knowing that they will not have or have a job doing that period. it is important to look at what happened in the auto industry. i have to tell you, mr. wilson, another you are a good republican dino that you are

very heralded for what you do. without objection, i would like to enter into a testimony from city and state, an article talked about, there was teamsters that rescued ailing trucking company. >> without objection, so ordered. >> you do a good job at what you do. it doesn't really matter what political affiliation you have. i sell cars, the prerequisite is that they have to be republican to buy a car for me. but i want everyone to be able to enjoy the fine product that general motors builds. so you do have ties and you're going to try to help the trucking association, too. they are also in bad shape right now, are they not? >> yes, we completed the restructuring in july of 2011. >> they are back in their feet and recovery? >> yes two how do we pick those we bail out and those we don't?

>> as a government or private sector? >> knowing that the private sector funds all these decisions that we make. soon it is almost never acceptable for the private sector to do so. i have friends with philosophical views is why we did in 2009. >> no one knew where the bottom was. >> let me ask you one thing for the bailout was to keep general motors from going bankrupt. >> i think the rescue was done to save the american auto industry. >> so the market would be the market, the auto industry fares on its own. professor, the link of length of the gm bankruptcy, how many days >> well, i don't remember exactly but it was like 30 to 60 days from the beginning. >> one of the biggest bankruptcy cases ever is solved in 30 to 60

days. >> that is what we are led to believe, yes. >> if we don't use what was ultimately used. >> i'm sorry, my time is up. what would the recovery have been as first-time goes, also. >> answer the question and we will move forward. >> if it had gone through normal recovery -- bankruptcy, it would take longer, but it would've been more transparent and we would've had a real sale and we could not have it may have taken only a little bit longer, but there is no reason why we had to do all the things we did in order to fix the auto companies. >> i think the gentleman for his testimony and we will now recognize mr. maloney from new york for five minutes. >> i want to thank the gentleman and i want to thank all of the panelists for being here. actually, i want to thank

president obama for saving the auto industry in america. i, for one cannot imagine an america that is not build its own cars. granted, it is not words than -- we are now exporting cars and we seem to be doing a good job. when president obama took office, the industry was shedding jobs by hundreds of thousands and gm and chrysler, they faced the possibility of being totally liquidated. which would then have a huge ramifications, even in new york, we had suppliers in new york that were supplying the auto industry, and they went out of business and that many new yorkers lost their jobs. we were building the cars, we were building some of the parts. we have a ramification across our great nation.

and yet when the american auto industry was on the brink of collapse, and we were going to lose by all estimates from all economists, a million jobs online, that would've been at least one in eight jobs in ohio, and in jobs across our country, and it wasn't just the people in the auto plants. we have to remember this. this industry affected everyone. it affected the suppliers. hundreds of thousands of miles away and up and down the chain, it affected the restaurants near the plants, every store, every school, everyone in the community, the families that depend on the workers there were at that plant. and i remember some people said let detroit go bankrupt and let it go down the drain. even the guy running for president said that. but our president said no, we are going to save the auto industry, and quite frankly, i

am proud of the auto industry. i'm proud of their comeback. and i think it is an american success story. but america bets on the american worker. gm is back, they are the number one company in the world. portis on the move, to handle things well during the crisis. they did well. chrysler is back, i think that supporting policy, the american worker and american business -- i think it is a success story. i want to applaud everyone on the panel were everyone who played any role whatsoever in saving an american industry, which is now exporting cars. now, i would like to point out and put in the record the gal highlights on the first page.

and i want to quote from it because there is confusion about the treasury's role. and i would like to say, and i am going to quote from the report. although acknowledging the significant role that treasury plays in gm's restructuring, gm and treasury officials stated that treasury's role was advisory. concerning gm's decision, and not to take on additional delphi pension liabilities, but to honor the top up agreements with some unions. ..

financial services i had to attend, and i didn't hear all of it, but i read the testimony. i want to know what was your overall mission of members of the auto task force delphi is just one piece of the situation and you were facing and was a major part supplier to gm that had been experiencing some financial troubles for some time if you say gm, but delphi failed is that correct?

your answer? >> i think i would echo what mr. wilson said earlier. our mission was sent to save general motors. our mission was to see if they would facilitate the restructuring of the companies said that the american automobile industry in its entirety would continue to function of the least possible cost of taxpayers. it was general motors judgmental we didn't disagree with that if delphi had liquidated the general motors ability to reorganize would have been put seriously at risk. >> my time is up, and i think the says it all. i think in your judgment was right. we are employing over a million jobs. we are exporting. i would call that an american success story. congratulations for any role that you did. >> to the vice chair recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to make a statement and comment and a yield additional time to mr. kelly.

what i am hearing from the testimony is had the action not taken place that america would be forever changed the government had no choice but to act a lot of people disagree with that assessment. there's a lot of people in the country that disagree on the assessment. a lot of people believe in america that a federal government should be limited effective and efficient. i happen to be one of those americans with and i find it somewhat offensive that people in this committee and this panel that only the federal government could act to save the private sector. we talk about the size and scope of general motors. fannie mae is actually larger than general motors.

so under the auspices of the federal government had to act to save this industry apparently you're also suggesting and admitting to save fannie mae. i'm not sure that people in the country believes in that item. there's one question i have for mr. wilson do they get special treatment in this bailout, yes or no in your opinion. >> no. >> mr. zywicki, in your opinion to they get special treatment for this? >> absolutely. >> why do you think that? >> they were treated better with respect to their and the general motors cases that other unsecured creditors were treated there were treated better than they were treated in bankruptcy cases and allowed to retain wages that frankly are above market wages above any of the

competitors wages and were there by prevented from having to do it what typically happens there is no justification for giving a billion dollars to the retirees of another company which is what they did with respect to delphi is he telling the truth or is he lying? >> he would be mistaken and willfully so. i think he is the fact is completely wrong. >> explain to me in 15 seconds how he is wrong and 15 seconds -- >> $26 billion? >> that was his claim. but again, i am happy -- you can cut me off at any time if you would like to but if you look at the three pieces, sir, we negotiated the best possible deal that the code in the constituencies with the bondholders. the bond holders overwhelmingly approved overwhelmingly.

based on the get advantage of there were people that held $28 billion in claims that could have voted with their feet and they chose not to to deal with a fair deal so that is why the first point is completely wrong and the second point is completely wrong. we were governed in our actions by the amendments. a wonderful setup for the stipulations in the early t.a.r.p. work but said the wage rates had to equal -- gm weech rates had to equal and that was an aspect of long negotiations in terms of what does that mean? >> the question is there a special treatment or preferential treatment given to the union members? sounds like you were doing a lot of explaining in telling me why that isn't the case. i disagree with you. i think is very clear that there were special preferential treatment given to one group over another.

you can disagree with me but it is pretty clear that is exactly what happened. have you got any preferential treatment cents. of course not. >> that isn't preferential treatment, sir. >> completely recent -- >> you have any evidence to suggest that? >> i'm asking the question. >> i'd like to know what work are you doing with the unions now? >> they've approached me because i have had enormous success in many walks of life and ask for my help in the largest employer which we successfully restructured out of court in record time they ask another situations. >> also worked for private investors and my own. i've been on the other side of

the table both before and since. so it's just -- ayman investor and try to fix companies before they go away. >> okay. thank you very much for your testimony. i will yield back the balance of my time to the chair. >> i think my colleague for yielding back and we will now recognize mr. johnson of ohio for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and to the rest of the subcommittee members for granting unanimous consent to participate in today's important hearing as you may know, i represent ohio's sixth congressional district which includes parts of northeastern ohio and the southern suburbs of a large number of speak of retirees both salary and on salary live in the district that i represent. since i was elected to congress in 2010 life and looking closely at the reason why one class of workers the union retirees were given preferential treatment

over the nonunion salaried retirees. it's now been almost 20 months, and i still haven't heard a compelling reason as to why this was done, and today i hope this would produce answers to those questions that many of us have been asking. mr. bloom, last year when you were still employed by the obama administration, i asked you whether or not all parties involved were treated fairly and received even more or less than they had simply because the government was involved. do you still believe today that all parties were treated fairly? did the newly restructured general motors have any contractual obligations to top up the union retirees pensions? >> i'm sorry, the newly retiring it? >> did the newly restructured general motors have any contractor will obligations to top up the union retirees penchant? >> i believe the newly

restructured general motors has part of the bankruptcy settlement with uaw reaffirmed their commitment to top up the pensions of the delphi retirees. >> was a contractual obligation? >> as part of their contract, yes. >> how can you say all parties were treated fairly when the union reached a year these kept their full pensions while he we and others raised the pension funding status 100% and the union retirees kept one of the best health care plans in the u.s.? on the other hand, the salaried retirees lost out to 70% of their pension plans and health care. >> fair is fair. how can you take and give one group 100% and take 70% from another group and call that fair? >> first thing i would say the

union retirees didn't retain the same program that before. they receive a fee but it is going to be responsible for providing health care that doesn't have sufficient funds to provide the benefits they used to have. number two, when i use the word fair i didn't use the word equal. any bankruptcy all constituents and mr. feldman made this point earlier, all constituents try to use whatever leverage they have to try to get the best arrangement they can. it was general motors business judgment that the overall deal they made with the uaw was fair and the cheapest deal they could make -- >> reclaiming my time i appreciate but i am running out of time. it's an interesting new wants that now would change the definition. there's a difference between fair treatment and equal treatment under the law.

that i don't understand. but mr. zywicki, it's clear to me and many of my colleagues in the public that the obama administration's ogle bailout staff used taxpayers' dollars to pick winners and losers, and now it seems in an effort to not embarrass the president in a very contentious reelection campaign members of the although bailout team have refused to be interviewed by the inspector general on their actions. we know that they have agreed to meet today but up until now it hasn't happened tens of thousands of salaried retirees solve the retirement funds greatly reduced by over 70 present while the union retirees were made whole and or even propped up. do you think of was there? >> equal and fair sound pretty much the same to me, congressman, and i would also say he asked whether or not the unions were getting preferential treatment i heard mr. wilson say that he justify preferential

treatment. >> thank you for the answer. i would like to yield my next 20 seconds to my colleague from ohio for a follow-up question. >> you're saying there was a contractual obligation with respect to the tops. those don't survive in bankruptcy. you can't say that it was a contract obligation therefore they must. they were in bankruptcy, correct? >> i think what i said was in the general motors bankruptcy. datacom touch with the uaw. that contract included firming the prior agreement. >> thank you for leaving the impression with the committee that there was some obligation within bankruptcy and was one of the affirmed. >> that's what i said. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> i think my colleague for yielding back. with that, i will begin a second

round of questions for the panel. now mr. willson i just want to make sure that this is for the record my colleague from pennsylvania mr. kelly submitted for the record is a newspaper article call the city and state -- pardon me? he admitted that for the record. there is a quote and here and i think this is an implication not to impugn your character in any way. i anderson and you took great offense to that, but simply saying in a quote to this this is from mr. gould the team's third director of strategic research and campaigns, quote, we are not at liberty to discuss any details but we approach the hearing after closely following the work on the obama

administration's paabo task force and given the similarities gm faces and the y are c.w. we believe he would be a tremendous help in fixing this challenging situation. now, that is the implication that you are pretty agreeable to the unions, and based on their experience it's not about and hearing your character in any shape or form when you testified you got these republican credentials to testify as an obama administration official he's not talking about the character, he is simply saying that your actions and public life has been agreeable to the unions. i want to make sure that is correct for the record and that's established. in no way it is a character assassination. that is the context of his questions and comments coming and i want to move on. there is -- i want to ask the

three bailout task force folks about this and i want to get your comment on the record. stephen rattner one of your former colleagues admitted to the detroit economic club this past december we should have asked them to do that more. you can see it on the screen. we didn't ask any member to take a cut in their pay. do you agree that in retrospect you should have asked them to make more concessions? >> i haven't seen the speech, i don't know the broad context and i certainly don't know what he means buy yet, so i can't comment specifically. but you asked me if i agree with him. i can't tell you whether i agree

with him i can tell you if your question is why i think we should have asked them to do more, my answer is no pity and i think what we did is reasonable. >> okay. so, no pay cut -- >> take the aggregate deal but the extracted from the uaw was reasonable. >> okay. >> mr. feldman. >> again i don't know the context is but what i would say that the uaw is you have to remember chrysler's negotiation was led by fiat so if a deal that the established which became a part of the pattern bargaining and general motors was done between the third parties and did not have the task force intervention, no thumbs on the scale, so in hindsight i'm perfectly content with their everything came out. >> so no, the answer is no. islamic the answer is no. >> mr. wilson?

>> i said publicly that i believe the only remaining legacy issue of general motors is the pension funding which is an issue in the drag on the stock and that i wished the restructuring had an interest that in some way. it was the judgment of the management in the negotiation that they would keep the pension intact and we didn't intervene in that but i believe that is an issue that could have been better addressed in bankruptcy. >> so, the answer is yes? >> i think more could have been done. >> okay. thank you for answering the question. i want to give you the opportunity to respond. this was in mr. zywicki's testimony. >> if you will put up slide number two on the screen here you will see any e-mail that you sent on june 30th, 2009. i recognize that come to know, you're not going to have instant

recollection of this to be in your e-mail, you asked jim to bring the uaw into the loop about negotiations over the termination of delphi pension plans stating that it could get, quote, could get messy. the obama administration continue that it wouldn't get involved in a day-to-day affair of gm. was it your place to advise them to talk with of the uaw? and was the advice based on prudent bankruptcy proceedings or was this more about the political expediency? >> i don't think it was about either. i think if you go back to that moment in time, basically the pbgc made the determination of screen to terminate the hourly and salaried plan to read it previously made the decision on a salary planning and what i was doing is reminding general motors the given the relationship with the uaw that the needed to get out in front of the communications, not

substantive advice to general motors. >> this was prior to them terminating the plan. >> but if i recall coming and i don't have perfect recall that i think if you recall the pbgc at that plant had started its process of thinking about a termination of the delphi hourly and salaried plans. >> all right. thank you for putting that on the record. with fat, for the second round we will go to mr. cummings. and as i went -- i recognize the ranking member for six minutes. >> thank you. sorry that he had to leave. i'm sure that he had another engagement, but he said something there was interesting. he said some folks that feel the federal government could bailout folks in whatever corporations. i don't want it to the words out of his mouth that is what he implied. i don't think that there is any one oversight to the the

government can over do with the federal government was able to do. other words, there are times when federal government has to step in coming and i'm glad that the federal government did step in because we were able to save millions of jobs. and i know that there are people who are working right now who would say things you very much for saving my job. there are people who when their child got a notice about college being subject they don't have to do with the guy did on the commercial to be able to say okay i can afford that college. we can do this. there are others would provide food on the table, there are others that are able to live the life they want to live as opposed to being on the sidelines of life drawing unemployment checks. so, i'm glad that president obama and ms. machine did what

they did. in november 18th, the november 18th, 2008 "new york times" op-ed entitled let dietrich go bankrupt, mitt romney wrote, and i quote me manage to bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. the federal government should provide guarantees for post bankruptcy financing and assured the car buyers that the warranties are not at risk. mr. romney predicted that as a result of the direct assistance to the automotive industry's coming and i quote, its demise will be virtually guaranteed. mr. wilson, house mr. romney gotten it right nearly four years since he wrote those words is gm showing signs that it is guaranteed to fail? >> i'm going to try not to interject myself and the debate.

>> i was very impressed. a lot of people don't realize this. you are an honor graduate of harvard, and in the business school at harvard. so we don't want anybody to think that he wore a light weight. that's why i'm asking you. >> i'm serious. i heard what they said about you, and i'm going to ask some questions about your background a little bit later, but you can go ahead and answer the question pity the >> i think the results congressman cummings speak for themselves. i think the of the most profitable year ever in its history in 2011. even though the sales still haven't recovered back to the normalized level and i think it has a cost structure and capital structure that has made it the largest and most profitable car maker in the world, so i think that as long as they keep on the same path and maintain the same discipline that they now have, i believe the company is a bright future. >> steve ratner is the head of the auto task force and reared in a february 24, 2,012th "new

york times" op-ed that mr. mitt romney's proposal, quote, sounds like a wonderfully wonderful approach all the wood is fantasy. mr. rattner for the road, and i could come every scaap the discuss crop of capital flowed to the side lines and without government financing initiated by president george w. bush in september of 2008, the companies wouldn't have been able to pursue chapter 11 reorganization mr. wilson, mr. bloom, mr. feldman, is mr. rattner's this is that correct? do you agree that there simply were no other options available aside from complete liquidation on the path the was taken? >> we will start with you. smith it was our judgment, and i have no reason to question it coming and it was based on extensive talking in the market plus our own collective experience that if the government hadn't provided the

financing that general motors went have been able and would have to liquidate. >> mr. feldman? >> i completely agree. we were in touch with the largest financial institutions in the world. they were not going to provide capital. we spoke to the largest funds in the world. they were talking about needing nine months to do diligence to make a determination as to whether they would make an investment. it was simply the u.s. government unfortunately was a lender of last resort, but it was the only lender in my view. >> that's correct. my written testimony the confluence of events of the failure of the company at the time of the complete freeze in the financial target's, and it's those two things that made this unusual. in the normal times even in that economic normal times, we can find private capital. we beat the bushes to try to find private capital, and there was no one willing to step forward any reasonable terms or any terms at all to fund even a few billion dollars much less the $80 billion we needed to effectuate the rescue.

one private equity firm of purchase and said they would put in 1 billion so we are still sitting on a billion short. if we guarantee them the return. >> what is the reaction of the taxpayer or this panel had someone agreed to do that? it should have been rightfully of wage, and of course we said no. and so was the state of the world in which we live and in march of 2009 in the context that we had to make the decisions to respect this was easy for people to sit in the bleachers and look down at the game and then try to second-guess their efforts of the team, and even when the team wins big time, sitting on the sidelines and criticize the call of the game. that's just my opinion. i yield back. >> mr. kelly? >> thank you. just so we can be clear on this and i sometimes get confused

i've only been here year-and-a-half but the confusion comes are we in washington, d.c. or in mt. olympus? because the decisions made by the government really we talk about the build of the auto industry. the bailout the auto industry being the guy that sold cars his whole life, it is the market that saved the auto industry, and we are not talking by the way the union jobs and non-union jobs and democratic jobs, we are talking about american jobs. there is such a fragility to the market, and i get confused sometimes with people that have actually never done it can tell you exactly what caused this. i can tell accosted, overcapacity, overproduction. when you were structured to do 16 and a half million and goes down to 9 million a year my goodness you think you have a problem when you lost over 40% of your market? the answer is yes. the government interfered with a natural flow of the business

cycle. they picked winners and losers. there is no doubt they picked winners and losers. this idea that we haven't been true that as time goes forward we can talk about what is fair and what is equal that we can pick winners and losers and then sit back and say but if we hadn't done it you don't understand the market collapsed. the market did collapse. it collapsed because people didn't know what their future looked like. a guy that doesn't know if he's going to have a job next year doesn't going to a 48 month cut meant to buy a new car. how do i know this? i stand on the show room with them and i see their pain. but whatever you determine one group will be killed and another will not come that is just flat outright wrong. let's not become confused that is pure folly that it hadn't been for this measure all the manufacturers would have collapsed. do you know what the ottoman defectors gain market share during that time period?

the market. the government determines the success of failure. what happened in this situation is that the government decided who wins and loses, who gets fully funded and who gets nothing. who gets to sit at the table and eat and who sits outside. let there be no confusion over the definition between fair and equal. in the country that i grew up in it is the same thing. i get tired when people use the argument for what is right for the american people. that is absolutely pathetic and that if that is what we have reverted to no wonder they don't have faith in the institutions anymore. no wonder they don't have any faith in the judicial system any more that picks and chooses winners and losers. deutsch confided if you have to have money. i have to tell you, you know it and i know it and everybody else knows in this country i'm not against the unions. i love the unions. i love what they do. but why did you bring them to the table?

there is nothing i really believe in a few more on the table you are on the menu. this government picked and chose who the winners and losers were to read the recovery of the american automobile industry has nothing to do with this. these companies would have gone through a bankruptcy and would have come back. we didn't save millions of jobs. a bankruptcy with historical what a recovery period. 30 come 60 billion back on the street and no problems. as we talk about what's cleary and what's transparent when we talk about what's fair to talk of a 99% and the 1%. fairness to me was pretty much handpicked. i will be fair with certain peoples but not others. i appreciate hearing and i know there's confusion from having been there and having to navigate through those very difficult times. keep in mind one thing. it is the market that will always be the opportunity. how you address that market. your ability to compete in the

markets global, to build cars a highest quality has never been contested. you know what the problem was? it costs too much to build them here. american people go out and the people i talk to you know what they look at? how much it is clinton cost of land. that's what it comes down to. i'm going to yield back with having been there and having been those waters without a life jacket without anybody throwing me the line it is offensive someone was picked to win and lose. >> would the gentleman yield? ..

>> we rely on you for the answers. when you don't testify, what does that look like? tell me. tell me in common sense everyday american jargon, what does that look like to the people who pay for this? the american taxpayers? it is pathetic. >> back to you can do it and you take advantage of its even it is even more pathetic. i yield back my time.

>> as we proceed with additional questions from i just want to remind everyone of the topic of this hearing is the delphi decision and general motors decision, who picks the winners and losers. it is what happened with the delphi pension decisions. we are having this because these three gentlemen refused to answer questions. mr. bloom agreed to answer questions a year ago, at a hearing, and these three gentlemen have refused to answer questions. the report is not sufficient. we need this report. with that clarification, i will turn over to carolyn maloney and we will open it up to an unlimited time. macri and mr. bloom promised tor questions come as he did a year

ago, i will make an singer to answer this question. >> i just want to make clear, -- i just want to be clear on this. did mr. bloom -- i've been here and listen, did he say the only way that he would answer questions -- >> is that what he said? >> if you would answer these and writing, and he said he would not, i can asking these questions here before because of that. your answer stands on the record. >> what i said was if you want to go through these questions, i'm here today and i will also answer the questions come i, i will do it. >> you refuse to provide in writing the answers that i promised him and we showed the video before this committee previously in writing. >> i responded to that. >> i just wanted to get back for clarification. >> thank you. >> ms. maloney? >> well, pertaining to the

pension, i would say that members of congress recognize and sympathize with the pain that many delphi workers are experiencing since gm decided not to top off their pensions, and since everybody seems to want to attack mr. bloom, i will ask them do recognize that too, that some people who are not made whole? >> of course. but in speaking personally and to my knowledge from everybody on the auto task force understood and all of the people that had their sacrifice and the delphi employees are on the list, and unfortunately, congresswoman, the list is very long. as i have said repeatedly, our judgment was on balance weather was terrible suffering, much greater suffering was averted.

but that is in no way to suggest that there was not suffering. >> i agree with you with your statement. had delphi failed and their workers, but also entire communities. i would say our overall economic health of our country. it would have been much worse. i would like to take issue with the gentleman's statement. he said it could be handled and it could've been worked out on its own, but i want to reference and put into the record a november 17 publication of 2010. in this publication is entitled the impact on the united states economy of the successful automaker bankruptcy. this was issued by the center for automated of research. in this research, which is

independent from the gao's research, that basically says the same thing, the governments actions of weighted personal income law says totaling over $96 billion end of weighted 1.1 million net job losses in 2009 and another 314,000 in 2010. mr. bloom, since everybody wants to ask you the questions come and mr. feldman and mr. wilson, is that correct? do you agree with this independent source, had it not been for the government intervention your work was crucial in months and 2009 -- the country have experienced more than a million net job losses, and i predict it is even more? the impact even hit new york state for the suppliers that went out of business.

i just wonder, do you agree with the statement from this independent research organization? >> since then, i have reviewed material that suggests that the losses would've been very different and in jobs. a million others have used larger numbers and mark recently said 2.5 million jobs were at risk. but i think our judgment don't have not been as catastrophic as confirmed. >> i just want to ask you, has and a any member of congress congratulated you and thank you? having thank you for your hard work and what resulted, by all accounts, saving over a million

jobs that impacted many of our great state like ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, illinois -- they are all interrelated in the supply chain of the auto industry. i would like to ask mr. bloom and mr. feldman and mr. wilson, has any member of congress ever thank you today? i want to thank you today for public service and your hard work in saving american jobs, and i would say saving american industry. in a speech. i personally cannot even think of in america that doesn't make our own cars. now we have bounced back with that american spirit, the can-do spirit, and we are even exporting cars and employing people and going. i just want to know, has any member of congress and thank you >> congressman, i very much appreciate your kind words from time to time, other members of

congress have acknowledged that some good things happen two i think you today. >> i think this is the first time i have been thank. >> thank you very much. you are an american hero and i appreciate your hard work. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you as well. i have had a few think may over time, but it is always great to hear it. >> i think one of us should be saying thank you for your public service and you save jobs and you helped america and you grew our economy. thank you enact. >> i would like to thank you for bringing forth the fact that these three gentlemen have refused to talk to you, and we brought it to their attention to get them to talk to us, and commit to talk to you. we will go through a 10 minute round of questionings. my next question will be for mr. feldman. you said in your letter that you

believed -- and these are a significant portion of being able to speak him also. >> yes. >> we are going to spend, mr. feldman, on what your role was. because that is what you guys are speaking about. >> what was the basis of the decision-making? >> now, i'm going to redo your bio, which i am assuming that you wrote yourself. mr. feldman was the chief advisor for the obama administration's task force on the auto industry. it was a symbol to, quoting your biography, helped develop the

overall strategy to restructure and recapitalize general motors corporation and chrysler, a strategy which resulted in the groundbreaking legal proceedings that implemented a comprehensive financial solution for both companies. they believe that you are involved. you said that you were negotiating. among the parties. could you please -- i can understand it from a legal point that pbgc is a party to this and has an ability to make its own decision in the settlements of negotiations. but they do that in a vacuum. they had you running between a bunch of different other proposals, asking about what they should or should not do. isn't that correct? >> i think really what they would or would not be willing to do, and just take a step back, the auto team, which was the working group that reported to the auto task force was really charged with helping restructure chrysler and general motors.

we took on additional tasks, including the financing arms of chrysler and general motors and ultimately delphi, because general motors was providing funding and at the time, we got involved in it was the sole source of funding for delphi. but we did not. >> go ahead. going to the issue of using of determining what they would and wouldn't do. who are the parties that you ran between of your negotiating in determining the would or would not do. would or wouldn't, it is still saying that someone would like you to do this, will you do this? they were the main parties involved in making decisions. >> the pbgc was the main party involved with the delphi pension

plans. it had an impact on general motors, and i was playing diplomacy between general motors and the pbgc, which didn't get along. >> who else? >> on that issue? >> i reported to the auto team, but there was not -- i'm not thinking of a party that was directly involved in that. >> you didn't hear any information about what the package was in developing a strategy that is in your biography with individuals at the white house and individuals of treasury? i mean, if that were your testimony is to i worked for the treasury and certainly i reported to the auto team. >> outside of the auto team? >> george madison was not part of the auto team, i was in the legal department of treasury, i did keep mr. madison updated. in terms of the white house from the only people i ever spoke to at the white house was brian dietz and larry summers to we

are going to turn to e-mails now. we have a july 6 enough it is a july 6 e-mail, 9:45 p.m. >> we decided that the discussions would be best saved for discussion directly between the treasury and the pbgc. at this point, rather than a subject of group or nation. now, he is saying that the settlement discussions were at that point, as a result of his conversation with you. in direct relation between treasury and pbgc, he does not mention general motors. do you disagree with his e-mail?

>> you would have to ask him what he meant by the e-mail, but i interpret what he meant was we would talk to the pbgc, and we were going to talk to general motors. the treasury did not play role or have authority to settle issues between the -- >> i would certainly comment on the proposals of recommendations. -- general motors would say do think that pbgc would find something acceptable? i certainly give them my judgment. >> after the july 6 e-mail, and i will read that again, this is joseph house and he had just broken the u.n. that he agreed with you in any settlement discussions would be saved for direct coordination. it is followed by the e-mail that i showed you previously which is july 6, on july 8 -- we could have the slide number six,

please. where jen mr. house is reporting that he had spoken to you and this one is 23:00 p.m. this is july 8. subsequent year reported agreement by mr. house that we are going to directly coordinate the settlement negotiation -- he then reports that you say, that feldman reported that he made progress, discussing a proposal with key folks in treasury and not the white house. and has not yet wrapped up his ordination. >> let's turn to slide five now. >> feldman, this is july 8, this is ken morris, 41 from john menke, and it says that he will take it to gm and which will either be a rubber stamp for one last chance to make it. >> we all except that pbgc has

the legal authority with respect to the decision-making and we also know that it was done in the environment of the pressure of these negotiations and we also understand their earned number of parties that had positions and roles and proposals as to what pbgc should do, or in your language, would or would not do. we would like to get a better understanding of that, which is why you have been called before the committee and why sigtarp wants to talk to you. they believe you are actively involved in the decision-making. i'm going to ask you a very simple question. i am assuming that with respect to the delphi salary pensions, that the proposals that ended up with the preventions being cut -- the pensions being cut -- they were not solely generated by pbgc. in the negotiations with fewer liaison with the white house, others in the treasury outside of the auto task force -- the

auto task force and general motors -- they had positions and recommendations as to how those pensions should be handled. is that correct? >> i never had a conversation or anyone recollection of conversations were we told the pbgc -- >> i didn't ask you that. whether or not anyone else had a position or a proposal in your negotiations with respect to that delphi salary pensions, other than pbgc. it is a simple question and i would assume the answer would be yes. >> i don't believe so, not with respect to the salaried. >> so you are testifying, under oath, before this committee that at no time did anyone else that you are working with in your position as the chief legal adviser shuttling the negotiation -- no one else offered you and no one else provided you any other proposal with respect to the delphi

salary pensions in any aspect? >> let me correct this. delphi -- its position was it wanted to retain the pension plans and have general motors pay for it. as i recall, the timeframe is a little bit fuzzy, as i recall, delphi did not want to give up its pension plan in the early stages we met anyone else? with respect to those pensions during your settlement negotiation -- i don't want to be unequivocal -- but not that i recall. >> you were before. >> well, that is part of the subject matter of this and investigation. the sigtarp investigation. i wish you well in your recollection process. >> i'm happy to look at more e-mails are more information. but i do not recall at. >> excellent.

are you getting ready to go on and on? >> i'm going next to mr. bloom to answer the questions he is refusing to answer in writing that he promised congress in june of last year that he would answer in writing. because he invited those questions and i will entertain with your concurrence the dismissal of the other panel members if there are no other questions. so mr. bloom can stand before us and answer the questions he is refusing to answer. >> i hate waste peoples time. i think that is very generous of you, chairman. one of the things that chairman has brought to my attention, your questions of mr. bloom have been answered by the secretary of the treasury. and mr. bloom forwarded your questions after the hearing.

>> no, they haven't had to have a secretaries answers and his answer was this is an a matter of litigation i cannot answer a. >> chairman, once we dismiss, and we should allow these folks go. i have no problem with that. >> any other questions? >> i am fine with that. we will take just one other thing, don't forget to say one other thing. when ms. pallone was asking the questions about -- i'm thinking you. and i thank you very much. >> to mr. romero, i'm hoping this will be helpful and you will get the cooperation that you need. we want to make sure. >> thank you so much, ranking member. >> at this moment, we will take a number of recess.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we have votes that are going to occur, mr. bloom, so we will be limited the number of questions that we were going to ask. i want to reiterate that these

are questions that were given queue to on june 22 that to this committee, in a state similar to the one you were sitting in, you said absolute and you are answering in writing that you did not answer in writing and today you are refusing the answers and running so really going to go through this while i ask you to questions. and get your answers. >> electrification i like to make is that i believe that the letter that the secretary of the treasury come on behalf of the secretary of treasury, center on november 21, 2011, did not refuse to answer the questions because of litigation. in fact, 2.5 pages of response to the issues were raised in the letter. but that said, if you have questions, i will do my best to answer them. >> we will some of those questions and answers because we have them for the record and everyone can see that they -- one of when waster, not. >> one clarification. i have the letter from november

november 1. i perused it, but my staff has read it in detail. as for equivocation he said it seemed like seems like there's a lot more to this letter -- you seem to be answering quite a few things in detail. it is an equivocation on it, that's all. >> we have answers both in this letter and also letters answered directly from timothy geithner. >> these specifically state -- which, -- [inaudible] he gave an answer of litigation. this does not answer the question. but we will go for them and go forward. >> between gm and the pbgc, what

will do the auto task force play in determining the pension plan of the delphi workers. >> i can't really expand on what mr. feldman said. i think that would be unfair. >> so you have no separate answer of yourself? >> well, mr. feldman indicated it was an advisory position and what we would like to know is what was the position of the auto task force in those discussions with respect to the delphi salaried workers and their pensions. >> you're going to do that would answer? >> you don't have an independent answer? >> on that question, congressman, i do not have an answer. i agree with what had been said, i thought it would be expeditious for me to say so. >> did you have an answer in june?

>> there were a number of issues between the treasury, the pbgc, and gm, secretary geithner serving aboard the board of pbgc as the secretary of treasury, and of course, new gm receiving from the treasury. it is capital infusion. did you ever have a discussion of the auto task force -- the actual or potential conflicts within treasury and the auto task force. with respect to this bankruptcy proceeding of the delphi salary pensions, and what was the subject of those discussions? >> i do not recall a conversation in treasury about whether or not -- i do not recall such a discussion. >> do believe now that they do? >> i don't see where our conflict of interest were then.

in the termination of the delphi salaried pension plans, a significant issue of dispute are the foreign assets held by delphi and the liens that pbgc are either asserted or might have asserted against those liens. ultimately, pbgc released these as a settlement in exchange for payments by the new gm that did not include the delphi salaried retired pension plans. but the liens dead. you recall any discussion by the auto task force concerning the liens and the pbgc? >> i do not recall any such discussion. >> would you assert today those

discussions did not occur? >> no to is it possible that occurred? >> i think anything is possible. i don't recall any such thing. >> did you ever have a conversation about delphi's foreign assets in the liens of pbgc. >> i have no recollection of having conversation about major. >> so far -- he will give us the answer of the gentleman who answered previously or you don't recall. helpful. >> i can only testify to the best of my ability, congressman remapped clearly. >> clearly. >> there is a significant amount of concern that has been raised about political considerations with respect.

the salary retiree pensions and even did you have any consideration or discussion concerning the political effects from the outcomes of your recommendations? >> could you clarify what you mean about the political impacts of the outcome? >> i think it is fairly clear. did you have any discussions concerning the political. >> united auto workers have stated that the delphi salaried retirees should be treated with fairness and equity, edition with uaw stated that it supports providing the same top ups to

the salaried workers as a matter of fairness and equity that had been provided to other delphi workers. ms. maloney indicated that you understand the pain that people have. do you agree with uaw? >> i am not familiar with the full context of the uaw's comment, but i can answer question. i can't say whether i agree with that or not because i haven't read that document. a lot of people, as i said earlier come have suffered as a result of the bankruptcy, and the congress would choose to help one of those constituents i think it would open up a can of forms, but it is not mine -- i don't have a judgment as to whether congress -- >> mr. cummings?

>> it says this is from the secretary -- assistant secretary, department of treasury, and this is one of the letters that we were just talking about a response to questions that were raised by congressman turner. i'm writing in response to your recent letter to secretary geithner [inaudible] >> you said you cemented these questions previously to mr. ron bloom, who has since left this position with the administration and please allow me to respond on behalf of the secretary. we recognize that the bankruptcy

of delphi has been extremely difficult and challenging for all employees. and we are acutely aware of hardships that the entire u.s. automobile industry has faced in years. the issues that you raise in your letter pertaining to certain agreements by general motors corporation in 1999 when the old gm spun off delphi into a separate company as well as decisions made -- around the time of delphi's 1999 spinoff from gm, the old gm entered into a top of agreement and commitment to pay supplemental pension benefits to certain participants in the delphi pension plan. represented by three unions, united auto workers from the international union of electrical electrical workers and united steelworkers. those agreements provided an immediate event that benefits

provided by the delphi plan were frozen in the when the plan was terminated, the old gm would cover any shortfall below the level of benefits promised. over the next several years, delphi suffered a large loss and filed for bankruptcy in october 2005. in 2007, the old gm, delphi, and the three unions agreed to extend these commitments, although there were negotiations between the old gm and other unions concerning similar arrangements, the old gm did not enter top of agreements with any other union, nor did it enter into an agreement with participants into the delphi salary pension plan. at the time of the spinoff from the delphi salary plan was fully funded, whereas hourly plan was underfunded. delphi's original plan was to merge from bankruptcy proceedings without turning the pension plans.

in 2009, four years after delphi filed for bankruptcy, it was determined that were delphi to merge from chapter 11, special plans would be terminated. as a result from the entered into agreements with the pbgc to terminate the delphi salary plans and the delphi hourly plan and place both plans under the receivership of the pbgc. the treasury did not have a role in authorizing, proving the plan. in 2009, in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, general motors company agreed to honor certain commitments into which old gm had entered, including the 1999 top of agreements. the new gm has stated publicly that although the delphi bankruptcy was a very difficult situation, it felt that it had made appropriate permissions for the delphi salary plan at the

time of the spinoff in 1999. the questions you cemented to mr. bloom asked whether the presidential task force in the auto industry was involved in the decisions made by the pbgc and gm regarding the pensions of former employees of delphi. as mr. bloom explained in various testimonies, and more recently before the subcommittee from the previous administration provided temporary loans to general motors to avoid these two company at a time when our financial system was already severely stressed. president obama agreed to extend that system provided that the companies produce a viable of your plans as to how they could become competitive. on every 15, 2000 and from a president obama created the auto task force, made up of cabinet level officials and the treasury to review the plans for the companies. the overall writing objective that guided the auto task force

was to bring much-needed stability to this crucial sector of our economy. hundreds of thousands of americans working and give general motors and chrysler chance to become viable and competitive in american businesses. as treasury officials have stated from the president directed the auto task force to take a commercial approach and insured than in any restructuring, the companies took on only those liabilities necessary for the successful operations. the auto task force refrained from intervening in the day-to-day decisions of these companies. these companies restructuring, including gm's decision to assume top of agreements entered into by gm in 1999, were consistent with those pencils these matters have also been reviewed by the judiciary committee into context, as well as by the government accountability office. as you may know. apparently the subject of

litigation versus pension guarantees for the corporations come the court dismissed on september 2, to that some of them dismissed a portion of the case against the treasury, the auto force, mr. geithner and ron bloom. they reviewed and approved this. in assessing gm's decision to honor the top of agreement, the bankruptcy court found no violation of the bankruptcy code or applicable case law and concluded that as a reality or the purchaser needs a properly motivated workforce to enable the new gm to succeed and enter into satisfactory agreements with uaw, which include uaw retirees. in addition, the district court approved the transaction in every step.

none of those judges serves the question the legal process, which is typical for bankruptcy. in fact, the bankruptcy stated while because of the size of this case, and the interests at stake, the case hardly could be regarded as routine. jim's proposed section 363 breaks no new ground. this is the situation where there is a good reason for an immediate sale. as of march 30, 2011 review of the key events leading to the determination of the plans, gao stated, and i quote, that the auto task force did not indicate what should be done with the delphi pensions. we are committed to continuing experience regarding the company of general motors, they have a public record available considering treatments of delphi employees and retirees. congress had held several

detailed hearings and there are a number of bankruptcy court opinions and reports and statement on 10 statements from delphi and general motors. they are pursuant to a request from you and other members of the house committee on oversight and government reform, and has provided numerous documents related to delphi pensions. in the end, there was a fair and open bankruptcy. this requires deep and painful consequences. and countless communities that rely on a vibrant auto industry. however, the steps of the administration took, not only avoided a catastrophic collapse and brought needed stability to the industry, they also kept hundreds of thousands of americans working and gave gm

and give them a chance to be viable, competitive and would never avoid it at a time when we could least afford it. thank you for your continued attention to this important matter. please feel free to contact me or my staff and be of further assistance. sincerely,. mr. wickham have you learned anything else in an effort to satisfy the germans questions? >> [inaudible] >> i yield back. >> lester you you committed in writing that you never cemented answers to. the reason why i appreciate you sitting here and answering them is because i wanted on

television, your demeanor and lack of answers to be evident. we have had this hearing because i refused for 14 months to answer sigtarp's questions. you are responsible for affecting billions of dollars and thousands of people's lives. these are taxpayer's life. people are not only hurt, they are angry and this is exactly contrary to what president obama promised us with the most open administration, not someone like you, sitting in front of us, unwilling to answer the question.

mr. cummings read the letter and i want to reemphasize a paragraph on page two. pbgc is the subject -- [inaudible] as you may know, determination of the plan under the trusteeship of the pbgc is currently the subject of litigation. this letter is not an answer to the questions i had submitted to you. then we have secretary geithner's answers which were similar questions that were posed to you. we're just trying to find out how were these decisions made, who made them come as we could have the appropriate type of oversight over taxpayer dollars. that is how our government works. it is open and it is a democracy. we're not playing with the on discretionary dollars of the president. you are actually effectuating and administrating taxpayer dollars. so timothy geithner had the same questions and i will submit these for the record, and he says openly in the beginning,

the determination of the delphi retirement programs placemen under the pbgc is trusteeship in black versus pbgc. i cannot comment on the specifics of the litigation. for the next eight pages, these are the secretary's response. i cannot pop in physically as they're the subject of the pending litigation. they are the subject and i cannot comment on these topics that they are the subject of pending or litigation. he goes on to the next two, three, four, five, 67891011, ut- [inaudible] [inaudible]

almost 35 questions he can't answer us. people have lost their pensions, billions of dollars spent, the secretary treasury won't even answer the questions. you won't answer questions. sigtarp has many of them. we are can work with sigtarp on their processes of trying to solicit from you so sensitive and valuable answers to questions. this committee has the subpoena power and deposition power, mr. bloom, i assure you that we can continue to revisit those with you and your panel members. i would certainly hope that when you say you're going to participate in answer sigtarp's questions, then it will be thorough than more than a your answers here. mr. blum, we are all waiting for a sigtarp report that will tell us what happened. the gao cannot give it to us. this process should not be in this manner because of the commitment to the taxpayers.

the will try to answer fully to the greatest ability the questions that sigtarp will offer you? >> i i will answer the questions the best of my ability. >> mr. bloom, we will end here. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span 2, how speaker john boehner and senator rob portman talk about the economy and tax cuts at a conference in washington. then the mayors of tampa and

charlotte, north carolina, talk about the preparations for this summer's political conventions. later, a congressional ceremony for the first african-american marines. >> when you realize that the armies or resident armies -- they were trying to escape the west, that is one he collapsed and felt he realized it had come to an end and it was a question of suicide. >> anthony beevor, on his book about the dark final days to he was captured by the russians. he is afraid of being spat on and would've cooled. it was dependent on these things. more with anthony beevor.

>> house before and senator rob portman spoke to the associated subcontractors, both republicans discuss the economy and tax policy. speaker boehner criticized president obama's middle-class tax-cut proposal and to the house plans to vote at the end of the month to extend all of the current tax rates. this is 40 minutes. >> thank you, greg, i would like to introduce our first reader. the honorable rob portman. mr. portman is the junior u.s. senator from ohio, he was elected in 2010 after running a campaign focused on conservative values and bringing in overzealous spending in washington, senator portman previously represented ohio's second district in the house for over a decade. before serving in cabinet level

post as the united states trade representative and later, as director of the office of management budget. he was one of three senate republicans appointed to the joint committee on deficit reductions. a reflection of the brought respects that he commands on fiscal matters. born and raised, a small-business family, he has been fighting for progrowth, pro- jobs policies, help get ohio in our nation back on track. please help me in welcoming senator rob portman. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much and good morning everybody. it is good to have you in washington dc, we need you here. we need your message this is a group that understands that hard work and risk taking and

investment this is what will take to get the economy back on track and get your businesses back on track. help working-class families in ohio where i am from, but also around this country to get things moving again. i appreciate the introduction. i did open a small-business. we dealt with some construction equipment over the years. but that was about 40 years old, he was a salesman for a bigger company and he left his job in the security of job that had health care and had a retirement plan and he started his own business. that is the story of many of you. i know a lot of you from my home state of ohio. i was five years old at the time that if i had known about it, but asked them not to do it because it was a big risk. you know the story. borrowed money, can get the money from the bank, does that sound familiar?

>> he brought money for my moms on call, which was a big risk, because my mom was a bookkeeper. five employees lost my first two years. then calmly you know, dan, that was kind of risky with the uncle supporting the effort. they found their niche as many of you have in your business and businesses over the years. by the time my brother took the reins of the company, there were about 300 employees there. it's not a huge company, but that was a greater opportunity in the area, and it was a prime example of the kind of the american dream that we hope every person has the opportunity to achieve. if they work hard and take a risk and make the investment. unfortunately, that is a risk today, i believe i work hard to try to change the direction of washington is going.

if we don't change direction, those opportunities will be there for my kids and your grandkids and yours. and i think we are at a point in our history right now we have to make some fundamental decisions, don't we? is great you are here because you are here to talk about why free enterprise does work and how we need to get back to the time-honored principles that has made this country the envy of the world. we created not just the best economy on the face of the earth, but the greatest middle class on the face of the earth because of working hard work and the kind of businesses that you all created in the hope to be able to expand by getting this economy moving again. i appreciate the fact you are involved in this critical battle, while you are here in washington dc, you will be talking about it. if this group stands firm and you stand tall, and i'm a little biased on this, because about three years ago now, when i was

first running for the united states senate, the election was in 2010 and this was in 2009, the very first group to endorse me in the entire state of ohio was abc of ohio. [applause] [applause] [applause] i appreciate the fact that some of those folks are here today, i haven't had a chance to find them yet, but another brian williams is here from ohio, and several members of the chapter here. i appreciate them for the fine work they do router state on behalf of free markets and free enterprise. in promoting those interests. we are beginning to get the state back on track. we are doing it, you know, because it is the right thing to do for the next generation, rather than the next election. some of these decisions are tough quickly, but they have to

be made. ohio is a good model of what washington wants to do. a billion dollar hole in our budget, it's a big deal. bring back jobs, not by not just raising taxes but by reducing some taxes and regulations and focusing on how to attract businesses. what we need to do -- this is unfortunately very difficult time in our economy. some of you saw the jobs numbers on friday. the fact is, and i don't have to tell you this because you have been experiencing it for a few years now, we are living through the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. it is really sad. when you look at the numbers on friday, we had unemployment numbers, but sure that we only created about 80,000 jobs in this country. that is not enough jobs to account for people coming into

the workforce and we are losing ground. when you add up the last three months together, it is the worst quarter of employment numbers that we have had for two years. we also heard some bad news last week about manufacturing, and a bunch of you know are involved in building things on the industrial side and working with manufacturers. manufacturing actually dropped last week the first time since the month after the recovery began. for the first time in three years we actually saw a dip in manufacturing. if the president is out there saying private sector is fine. he needs to get out more. [laughter] >> the private sector is not fine. he needs to talk to people in this room and go into ohio and talk to small-business people who are struggling and trying to make ends meet in an economy that is not doing fine. he did have a solution to it, as you know, which is that we send more money to washington, higher taxes on you, washington takes

its cut, and we turn around after borrowing 40 cents, some of it from the chinese and others, we borrow 40 cents and then take that money and send it back to the states the states can hire more government workers. does that sound like a good solution to you? >> no direct i don't think it makes very much sense. that is the solution. he said the private sector is doing fine and we need more public-sector jobs and everything will be all right. folks, this is the fundamental difference in philosophy that the voters of america are going to face in this election. is about growing the private sector and doing the things here in washington not to create jobs, but to create the environment for job growth java which is what you're talking about today. or are we going to create more government jobs. that is what this is about and remember the stimulus, if we put

more money in the government we will create more jobs. he said that the unemployment numbers will continue to go down to the point that today, based on analysis of the president's economic team, we would be at 5.6% unemployment. the unemployment number today is 46% higher than what the president had promised it would be if we passed is almost billion dollars stimulus plan. >> don't you think it is appropriate that they will hold him accountable for that? >> is a fundamental difference that affects families of the country. if we don't have the right policies in place, we will not get the economy on track and we will not people that worked for were, were not going to get back to what we talked about at the beginning come risk-taking and free enterprise investment, hard work that is rewarded, that is how we're going to get the economy going again. so we all love this country, the president loves his country, i

believe he thinks he's doing the right thing. i don't think he gets it. i don't think he understands how the private economy works. the states doing fine and that the real problem is the public economy that needs to have more of a stimulus, it indicates that the lessons have not been learned. we gave him the ball, the american people gave him the ball at a time when he was inheriting a tough economy. let's be honest. it is time to give the ball to someone else. someone who has a game plan. someone who has strategy who understands because he has experience in the record and the public policy positions to do it, and that is why i am supporting mitt romney. [applause] [applause] [applause] some people say well, this is just a typical recovery after a tough recession, there is something else going on here.

i think it goes to the policies that have been put in place that have not worked in the policies that we are not pursuing that we need to do you are advocating here in washington today. in 1981 we also had a tough recession, a lot of you lived through it and you remember it. actually come the unemployment numbers in 1981 were higher than they were in this most recent recession. in that respect, it was a deeper recession than the one we are trying to recover from now. let me give you just one statistic that shows the difference. at this point, after the 1981 recession, ronald ronald reagan's leadership, we have an aggressive pro- jobs agenda, we had been back 7 million new jobs. after the recession. 7 million net new jobs. today in the weakest recovery since the great depression, we are still bound 4.9 million jobs.

that is a pretty big difference, isn't it? remember that the jobless recovery of 2001 and no jobs are coming back come at this point after that recession we had been back over 4000 new jobs. as opposed to today where we were still down almost 5 million jobs. something is not working. it is time to try something else. again, i think it goes right to the policies are making it more difficult to create jobs. some people say that the president isn't doing enough, but i think it's worse than that. what we are doing in washington and what the president is advocating, it is making it more difficult to create jobs. [applause] we need to follow ronald reagan's example and we need to enact progressive policies to get us out of this mess. that is not more government spending, it's not the president

obama and the democrats have pursued, which is not just on government spending but more regulations, more taxes, more antibusiness rhetoric, more class warfare, with we saw it yesterday. way to get out out of the economic problems we are in is to raise taxes on small-business owners. some of them are in this room. look, i think we ought to reform the whole tax code. ..

in the industrialized world now. and we are losing jobs every day. i'm a beer drinker. maybe there are others in the room. some of you little little groggy when i say that this is the issue of companies now. sam adams, who said that? raise your hand. there's a beer drinker. i love sam adams. the guy that started it is from cincinnati's i am proud of that but they have 1% market share. all the other one smaller foreign companies. why? foreign taxes, partners, companies that we compete with far more competitive than house, our tax code is driving jobs overseas with.

we're sitting at 25% when you add up the state taxes, closer to 40%. the highest industrialized in the world when ronald reagan reformed to and a half decades ago clinton backed up 1.44%. he did that deliberately by saying we want to get the rate down below the average of the countries we compete with. every single one of our trading partners and the oecd countries have the world every one of them has reformed their corporate tax code and lower the rates to be competitive to attract jobs and capital and investment. presidential leadership is required never in the history of the country have we done things like tax reform or entitlement reform that has to be done without presidential leadership and has been lacking. we don't have it. so this is part of why we need

some new leadership but we also need new policies. let's talk about those policies for the second because again you all are here talking about what needs to be done and i want to tell you what i think would help. i think it's consistent with what all you are talking about. first is tax reform as we talked about and again this is not just about the corporate rate it's about the individual rate and having a tax code with 21st century that makes us competitive and more efficient and gets rid of the complexities the tax code is now nine times longer than the bible and not nearly as interesting. [laughter] second is regulations. people say well, you know, what does that mean? it means small business people are around america including you'll have to look over your shoulder all the time and hire more compliance people. and literally can't do things that makes sense business wise we are about to shut down by the

way probably ten coal-fired plants in ohio for six or seven of them and other companies that are about to do it. now, with the heat wave we are experiencing right now and the potential for blackouts because the need for air conditioning we want to lose ten power plants in a place like a high you were pennsylvania or west virginia and it's all driven by the epa. and companies are giving it. it's happening. some of the regulations have been put off, but a lot of them haven't and those that have been put off have been put off until after the election so watch out. look what dan is doing. they tell us the united states company they can't move from one state to another because one state is right to work and another is not. it does that make sense to you and sound like an american approach the economic policy or does that sound more like something you'd find in a country that considers itself to be socialist or the government is going to decide where the companies can move, by the way it is going to also create more jobs in washington at the same

time which were union jobs. so it's unbelievable. across-the-board, this administration has increased regulation. it's true. there is a way to get out of this by the way as there is an approach to tax reform that makes sense. and that is to force the government to go through a rigorous cost-benefit analysis as you were talking about this year. i hope you look at the legislation we have bipartisan legislation that does this. use the least burdensome alternative which they don't have to do now. an independent agencies don't have to go to the cost-benefit analysis at all and that is a bigger and bigger part of the government under this administration. then finally regulators should be subject to judicial review just like you are. so that they can be held accountable. so the things we can and should do in addition to taking the regulations as we tried to do in the congress a couple of weeks ago with the new utility regulations and force them to

come back to congress because many of the regulations as you know the a administration hasn't been successful getting everything they want congress so they just use the administrative branch of government which is what it is becoming. the exit of branch agencies doing what congress really as elected representatives ought to have a say in because we are accountable. those can all be done and all be done now with the deficit. here's some interesting data just recently from the congressional budget office. we have imperiled spending as you know, record spending. the average spending over the last 50 years or so since world war ii has been about 20% of our economy. average texas revenue has been about 18.3%. the difference has been the deficit. with the congressional budget office tells us is if we continue to have the economy grow as the suspected well out of this weekend recovery, the

tax part of it will come back to the rate of about 18.3 per cent of gdp. the problem is the spending part because the spending is not that 20% right now it's at 24% or better. and what happens over the next ten years goes up to about 30% of the next ten years about 35% and so on and so on to the gap in the revenues pretty clear. i'm for tax reform and it's going to raise more revenue. our problem is on that our taxes are too low. our problem is that our spending is too high and if you look at it historically, that's what it is. [applause] the congressional budget office has asked to make estimates of the 75 year budget projection, an economic projection that the deutsch periodically. recently they tried to do this

and they discovered that in their economic and fiscal models, they could then do it because the spending gets too high. cbo couldn't proceed functioning economy under the federal budget conditions that would occur under current policies. because again the spending goes so high to the point that it just you couldn't have a functioning economy. you can't chase that kind of spending. you just can't catch it. so that's the situation that we are in not just historic deficits hurting the economy today but to link future generations we are going to leave you and that is immoral. it's not just bad economics. it is immoral to do to the country. so the president isn't going to lean on these issues. he had an opportunity by the way with a some symbols commission this was his own commission that he put together and alan simpson and erskine bowles will tell you we are facing the most economic crisis we have ever faced

because we are not dealing with our debt and deficit, and they had a balance 3-1 spending versus taxes. there's going to be at the end of the day i hope some agreement on this but it requires leadership. the president rejected the proposal for his own confession. some democrats as you know again say this will all be raised taxes under the current tax code on those who make over $218,000 i think is the number. they don't recognize 85% of the small businesses in america pay their taxes as individuals and recognize that most of you pay taxes first a show of hands. how many of you pay your taxes as individuals? look around you. this is how america works. my brother and sister aharoni hotel and restaurant in ohio and the recession has been tough.

i grew up in a sub chapter. this is how america works. i know it may be good politics for the president to play the card, but it's bad economics, and it's bad for the middle class workers who says he wants to help. folks, our founding fathers of this follows the recent democracy. i believe the proposal that we are pursuing today's grindle helpless follow. i think that's where we are. so again i think you very much for being here today for working on regulatory relief, tax reform, health care we didn't even get into but i would just tell you one thing about what i'm hearing that in ohio and i assure you all were going to talk about it you hear whether this was unconstitutional or not within the penalties of the tax the supreme court deemed it to be a tax, by the way that falls disproportionately on the middle-income americans 75% of

the people with its request and $2,000 a year. is it a tax? the supreme court said the whole thing was constitutional because it is a tax but the problem is that it is unaffordable. it's unaffordable for our families. again, another promise the president made your going to see a reduction in the premiums a couple thousand dollars. what happened? not a couple thousand down, a couple thousand up. it's unaffordable for you, for businesses, chamber of commerce recently did a survey of the small business owners to the job growth 75% came back and said the health care law is an impediment hiring people. do you agree with that? that's what i'm hearing. and finally, it's unaffordable for the country. we talk about the debt and deficit and the bankruptcy that awaits us if we don't change course. what the congressional budget office said which has thrown up their hands that this is unsustainable.

this health care law of course makes it worse because it adds a huge cost. the president says the steps are neutral. if you add up to 500 billion-dollar cuts to medicare, not used to offset the problems that we have in medicare because it is an unsustainable program and its current form that used to create this new entirely due to end at 500 billion-dollar tax increases not including the tax increases on the penalty, by the way, 21 different tax increases, you could have made an argument that there was a deficit neutral lead one point but now people look at the numbers and said including the congressional budget office it's not even deficit neutral under those circumstances. we have to explain this to the american people. people need to understand that this bill don't hunt. i mean, it just doesn't work. and again, there are better ways and that's what you say about all this. there are better ways to get health care costs under control. we need to deal with the losses

will save billions each year. we need to put the free market principles and health care and force the companies to compete for business by letting them sell across state lines. to the kind of thing -- [applause] the kind of things that are not done in this legislation. by the way, look at all this. they look at dealing with medical malpractice reform and frivolous lawsuits they decided not to deal with it. they looked at providing more competition and transparency giving us more choices as consumers decided not to do it. there are lots of things you can do to get health care costs down. they look at expanding the health savings accounts which is a good idea in my view. what did they do? the made it less advantageous. they took away the tax and bandages there. unbelievable. so, there are things that can and should be done which would encourage account of the and prevention and wellness and dealing with our health care issue and again we need the leadership and the policies of that energy another area we have an exciting opportunity to develop our domestic resources

here in this administration to take a look the of the way blocking the keystone pipeline that seems like a no-brainer to me the would create tens of thousands of construction jobs right away. will that be good for our economy, the biggest infrastructure project in america? [applause] so there is hope, there is hope we can get back on our feet and we've been through a lot in this country. the revolution of one thought we had a chance of winning. we were the little guy of david and goliath of the civil war that put the country apart but brought it back together stronger than ever, the great depression that seemed like a was never going to end. a couple world wars my grandfather and father and world war i and world war ii veterans and this year that cannot the conflict again that the end of the country stronger we can do that again we are a crete country and a great people and

we have that innovative entrepreneurial spirit and you are still willing to take the risk. i will tell you we lost my dad about a year-and-a-half ago, and before he died all of this was going on with the health care bill and the stimulus in the dodd-frank and all the regulations and stuff, and i did ask him, i said that, would you do it again? and to start off talking about the rescue took when he was 40-years-old it was a big risk and he almost didn't make it but he believed in himself and he believed america and he believed in the fact that if he took a risk and would help other people to create opportunities for the families all across southwest ohio in our case. with what's coming on i don't know. and some of you may be wondering that. were you going to tell your kids when they get into your business if you in joining abc coming to washington is a risk worth taking is there another job with more security.

if that happens someone say it's already happening people are losing hope that when we are no longer the beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world i think the alternative is going to happen and we will get back on our feet and the american people will make a smart decision. if they give the guy the ball that got fumbled we need to give it to someone else and give it back to make the country great riches free enterprise principles. we do need tax reform and regulatory relief. we do need a new health care system we are using these resources. we need to do with of the debt and deficit and create innovative new ways but we can do all that. because we still are that shining city on the hill that ronald reagan talked about.

thank you for the role that you are playing. god speed. [applause] i would like to introduce the next speaker, speaker of the house john boehner. congressman john boehner serves as a 61st speaker of the united states house of representatives where he represents the eighth district in ohio. the son of a tavern owner, mr. boehner worked his way through college before embarking on a successful career as a small businessman. remember as the gang of seven, they republican revolution the key author of the original

contract with america the chairman of the committee on education on workforce and ultimately as a member of the house leadership long thought to reform washington, d.c.. today, he's focused on moving the government barriers to private sector job creation and economic growth cutting the government spending, reforming congress and rebuilding the bond of trust between the american people and their representatives in washington. please help me in welcoming congressman john boehner. [applause] >> the good morning everybody. >> thank you. i would begin by thanking all of

you for what you do in the communities in which to live and when you do to help get the american economy going again. you're not going to hear this much in washington, because most people in washington have never had the real job and don't really understand that you have to risk your life savings and risk capital, take out loans at the start of business, hi your employees to buy e equipment, and hoping that you will find the customer, hoping that you will find some business. most people in washington don't understand the risk that's involved. and when you do to help grow the american economy. but as one who took the same kind of risk that all of you that i want to say thanks for what you do for the country and when you do for the communities in which to operate your business this. listen, as you know, i came here as a small-business guy. i came here to slide for a smaller, less costly and more accountable government.

but you know many in washington haven't quite seen the light yet. the president and i get along just fine. but we have got some really different views about how our economy works. as a product of the free enterprise system i'm a big believer in the free enterprise system and in a limited government here in washington. the president's instinct is the micromanage manipulate what the stimulus bill. what we are seeing with obamacare again is driving up the cost of care, and that's making it harder for small businesses that create jobs. so tomorrow the house once again is going to vote to repeal all of obamacare. [applause]

-- after the supreme court ruling that we announced we were going to vote again. so forth why, why we need to know how they are. why, why resolve. we are resolved to get rid of the law that will ruin the best health care delivery system the world has ever seen and make it impossible to grow our economy to rein in the regulatory nightmare that's going on here in washington, d.c.. it's not just obamacare but it's 159 sports commissions and mandates. it's the epa that's driving many businesses out of america makes the dodd-frank financial services regulation, another 358

mandates in that bill rules and regulations that are coming and so we are going to bring another round of bills to the floor in the senate which would reign of the regulatory nightmare that would make it easy to expand their business and hire more workers and then all of us plan for america's job creators. the president has a different plant he would start talking that yesterday again. for four years the president has been on this crusade to make those that meet to under $50,000 or more pay higher taxes. he talked about it in 2008 when he ran and talked about it in 2009, talked about in 2010. of course again in 2010 he signed the bill that extended all of the current tax rates for two years. but here we are we are back at

it again. what the president wants to do for a $250,000 half of those people that are going to be taxed or small business people who have passed through entities just like many of you and just like i have. i have a sub chapter corporation the earnings i've made in my business i had to pay personally we would be expected to create jobs in this country makes no economic sense maybe he's going to do it because it will have some impact on the deficit, congressional budget office looked at this and what the impact on the budget deficit is negligible he can't even count at so why would the president once again be out there beating on this mantra? the president can't run on his record because the policies of his economic policies have failed and make things worse and as a result he's turned to the

politics of the individual. that is what this is about, nothing but pure politics. the american people vote and this is and the referendum on the president's economic policies. the house will vote this month to extend all of the current tax rates because it will help us give more certainty to small businesses in the country and help create more jobs here in america which is what the american people want. but we are going to rise up and do it one more time and send it over to the senate can't hope they will take some action. we can't raise taxes on the people that we expect to leave jobs. i'm a small-business man at heart. it's about the size of government here in washington so that we can allow the free enterprise system to grow and to

create opportunities they gave everyone of us in this room a chance that the american dream. i can hear because if we don't get the government in washington under control my grand kids if i ever have any in your grandkids not going to be there because we are going to snuff out those opportunities. i'm an optimist and i've been an optimist i wouldn't have come to washington i wouldn't have stayed this long. you have to be an optimist and fight this fight every day to preserve the freedoms that we are all entitled to and frankly accustomed to god bless you and our country. [applause]

this year estimate of the party conventions. the mayors of the two cities spoke with politico reporter mike allen and discussed the preparation for the conventions that began in a few weeks. politico posted decedent at the museum in washington, d.c.. it's an hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for being in the early-morning crowd. really appreciate it. i'm the chief white house correspondent and this is the convention edition of the playbook breakfast. we are excited to have today the mayors of both cities, may year fox of charlatan, republicans

will go first as the republican convention and each of the conventions hosting the political hub where we will be doing live shows daily and three defense we have a playbook breakfast every day both conventions hoping to see some of you all at lunchtime policy discussions and we will have a lot to talk about and we hope and look forward to seeing some of you guys there. before the mayors come onstage we have a pregame with one of the politico rising stars that has been both in the romney and obama doubles for those of you on twitter we hope you are following along with this.

he came to us before that we start in wisconsin and great things happen. he's also worked at "the wall street journal" the letcher of jackson mississippi and worked in his hometown illinois. thank you very much for coming. >> come on up and have a seat. you were the first reporter in the cycle. you just cannot with president obama. for the bubbles different? >> the organization for that so it doesn't put some lines in hiding with a think about reporters there much more aggressive, sort of personal the about pushing back people on the phone at events where the obama

campaign bins over backwards to be nice to people. >> the suggestion is they feel the same way. >> of course they feel the same way about it. but i found for me at the end of the day the matter how the folks treated you, you could talk to them and you could get them to sort of go off the talking points that the campaign was pushing where they are more disciplined in the traveling bubble in the way of the folks that were in the road show. a sort of half a specific set at eight sentences and no matter what the question is that is the answer is going to be. >> i didn't warn you i was aghast this. what do the baubles think? what do the scorers think about the campaign?

>> you know it's a little bit different. i'm not sure that i have been in a long enough to sort of half a inform the answer to that question. i would tell you that the romney bubble as far as the reporters have been together going on a year now, and sort of any time you were in such close proximity with people that long, some might think it is summer camp where at the end of the session, sort of you know what is plenty irritated every of a person there and you know that the things they do that are going to irritate you and so you have all these different sort of personality disputes and long-simmering issues sort of often stupid personality issues about where people sit on the bus or things that someone says. in part because the campaign is not as on the road every day for a year in the way that the romney campaign many seem to not

have that dynamic taking place. >> these microphones? >> for me i want to get information and knowledge coming on. so i would much rather have people be not nice to me and be able to have a story and have information that of the people don't have them to be sort of treated and have the food be better and still not have anything. some there is an odd paradox that in the way we have more information than ever because when i started out on the campaign trail, the stories were the policy papers the had you on the bus and the reaction of people in the crowd but now everyone in this room gets all that because we can watch them and see their reaction on

twitter. they post the policy papers. so what do you >> you know, what to do i try my job on the road this to come back to something you can't get by watching because obama's evin for all on tv. romney's eve ensler almost all on the internet somewhere and so i -- my job is to add something for our stories that somebody in the office can get. so what your it is talking with the edify answers in the back of the event come sort of pushing forward with their trying to accomplish for the message they are trying to push for what advertisement you're going to run next come things you can get because you know these people and you are there and see them in the bars that you are not

getting by watching the same event. >> take us behind the scenes a little bit. he mentioned advisers and that really is amazingly valuable to have like in the past campaign carvel rolph will drop in. tell us about that. >> early in the campaign in october and november to see essentially one hotel, the marriott. and i was watching one of the big faith and family events from their early afternoon coming and i filed had gone to the bar at the hotel freely to dinner and was the only one of the bar, and new gingrich comes in and sits down next to me because -- system is this a barstool? i'm trying to picture this. spaghetti end of the bar

wisconsin none undefeated. i watched the fourth quarter with him because he came to the basic the the same thing i did. he finished up with whoever he needed to schmooze with and then he came to him a drink at the end of the night and the on the other person was a reporter so we chanted that we both went to the same college and we talked about the race. more than anything else we talked about a football game going on. so you see that happening more often early in the campaign when there's less everything there's less media so you get to know the candidates and the staff better. now it feels few are covering it

you're not free to get anywhere close to the candidates, but even the at pfizer's how the president's advisers are in a different hotel than most of the press but you will see them having a drink late and get information out of them then you wouldn't get on the road. >> you have a fantastic coverage on the twitter. thank you for your great coverage. >> thank you, mike. [applause] thank you and we would like to thank the bank of america for their continued partnership in the practice. these breakfasts are an important forum for the issues that matter most in washington and we appreciate bank of america's partnership which is about to get more amazing in the

year ahead. thank you in life stream land. we appreciate you. we would love to have you join us. the main years will be getting your questions so we look forward to that. also want to thank rich gold. we appreciate that. the first guest -- its 48 days until the republican convention in tampa. the mayor is with us. come on up. [applause] thank you so much for joining us. he's actually from here. >> you have family year, your brother? >> a journalist from cnn.

so if you see someone that looks like the that's my younger brother. [laughter] as a kid we only had one parcel we would take my dad to put in the morning and pick him up in the afternoon. parked on 14th street i would look at the national press club and he would be there tied to the way i'm sure cigarette hanging out of his mouth and a bottle of whiskey as the secretary is banging away on a typewriter and loving every minute of it. >> [inaudible] what do you hope will you remember? >> and most people coming to tampa it's about that market. so many of you in the room have never been to tampa before so it is a mid-sized city hosting an event that the olympics will be the most television watched in the world.

tampa is a place that what i hope people walk away with saying wow this is a city i didn't do anything about. i would like to potentially visit again the reader will be in the tampa bay times or you can purchase a baseball out of there that would go into the gulf of mexico. i think late august in a tampa everything feels sweaty. i don't think some of our friends will be coming down to offer alternative opinions and realize how hot it is. so there will be a dynamic. many delegations will be spending time at the beaches. many hotels will be at the beaches. many people will use this opportunity to visit disney world or bring their families, so it's -- i think you're going to the flavor of a dynamic and

will have a florida feeling to it did seem to want to talk about alternative opinions. you are a democrat who's in the republican convention. >> i am indeed. but for me coming and i have said this from day one. i don't care what goes on inside the building. for me this is an economic development opportunities and for my city it's an economic development opportunity. i look at this as a chance to showcase for the of world and tell tampa's story. this line a democrat but i intend to be the first host as republicans have ever had. my job is to replace that. why do they say that? >> because the mayor who is the chair at the time was jury transactional and understood this was an opportunity to showcase the league and he did everything he could to make sure that experience was a good one.

my theory is the same thing. i don't care what your politics are. i may disagree with some of it but my job is to be the host and provide a safe environment but important showcase camp florida for the rest of the world. alterman the opinions are expecting demonstrators and for the team to actually go to chicago to watch with a demonstration is light -- >> we've been training for this for a year-and-a-half. they have done ten or 12 of these events and have told us that this point in the preparations tampa is well-positioned and as prepared as any city the have ever been and so we are expecting demonstrations that dynamic in the country and the emotions around this come the motions are not this economy will lend itself to fervor and expressions of our alternative views. we are going to be prepared for that. we try to accommodate everyone, first amendment rights, while expecting people are going to believe that we are trained for

those who choose not to and if they choose not to it would be a small minority we would deal with them respectfully. we will extract them from that environment and we would be happy to house them but we are hoping that they won't but we will be prepared if they do. >> are you worried? >> i worry about a lot of things. i worry about hurricanes. i think we are now as well-positioned as well-trained as anybody could be for this event. we would deal with it, we would deal with it well. there would be and since i'm sure. we expect that but we are going to do it any way any form and fashion the would need americans prop competing. >> how realistic threat estimate we haven't had a direct hit. >> i appreciate that. no, we are okay.

i think we calculated that at less than 1% and that is the good thing of moving to florida you train for her cancer every year so we are ready if that happens and the decision to evaporate but we think that we agree to be fine. we understand that but we are ready to do with hurricanes on a daily basis in terms of our preparation so we are meant to be okay. >> they are trying to get people to live in florida people don't live in cities they live on the golf courses. what are you trying to do to get more people? >> the offender to a store downtown. they seem more growth in the last year than in the last ten years. >> you have the river walk. >> the obama administration came through just recently to allow us to finish the river walk and it is a very dynamic place on

waterfront we haven't taken a vintage of the waterfront like we should have, but you are seeking a huge explosion in professionals moving downtown. i think that is occurring and the country. but specifically in the tampa pyrrophyte tampa is leading the way out of the recession in florida coming it's being driven by young professionals who enjoy a better. we've tripled the level of attendance in some of the downtown parks in the last year because we tried so much activity and once people get exposed to the waterfront they walk away with a lot of the delegates and convention visitors will walk away from tampa to say i never knew the city existed. this is a cool place. we know of the and when it in downtown bank of america and other financial services. what do these young professionals in tampa deutsch? >> it is a diverse economy part of it is back off the wall street operations. >> in downtown tampa, it is

probably one of the banks. we wrote a regional headquarters for the bank institutions that we have a large technology sector and the university south florida which drives a lot of technology in the incubation and we have the tampa general hospital. we just built what is called the center for the learning and simulation the will to robotics assimilation and parallel to across-the-board. that will drive about 30,000 from the visiting insurgents who will come to downtown tampa to train. it's an emerging city and to change from real-estate and tourism to a technology i look at this recession for the last year-and-a-half for me coming on the recession and repositioning tampa to change its dna and make it a place i have a six-year-old

and the 11-year-old that's how i know god is a woman. [laughter] if i want them to come home sunday and not go to texas or san diego i've got to create an environment that allows them to come home to a job that won't see the education and i'm very passionate about this. >> and the picture for us. the main hall the media will be in the convention center pittard to be there as a delegate or a journalist. >> the convention center and at the tampa bay is on the riverfront. the two major hotels will host the delegations closest to governor rahm er in the perimeter as well. yet the violent directly across the channel which is where 7,000 residents left as well was some of the delegates.

you have the city which is the historic district that is literally half a mile away connected by the st. so it is a very pedestrian oriented environment many delegations at the beach is unlike some of them distant. some accuse the challenge for tampa and charlotte. we were inside the cities hosting a major international event. tampa has listed four super bowls. we do this as well as anybody in the country listing in major international event like republican and democratic convention is a different challenge for us as it is for the mayor so logistics will be different if it were chicago or new york or l.a.. we can't absorb all that the way the big cities can come as no the committee has over 400 buses that will move the delegation back and forth. tampa is spread out more than charlotte. >> that's the nature of florida but what people want to stay at

the beaches because the one to bring the families and the edification of of this and so literally almost from orlando to sarasota the delegations will be. >> of our is orlando? >> it's 90 miles. is that sarasota is about the san. they will be coming downtown every day. most of the delegates that they are not in downtown tampa will be at the beach in pinellas county which is about the 25 minute bus ride. one of the surprise is a kiss or not the catches used to get the federal funding they need more security. binders and you spent 50 come 60 hours. tell us about that. >> we spent a good bit of time in washington, d.c. and the initial stages to free up the 50 million that has been committed to but cities with charlotte and tampa each for

security. that wasn't something we thought was in your market was a necessity. it's only security money. to give an example i would have a thousand officers having to hire from all over the state of florida 3,000 more law enforcement personnel, troopers, deputies come in addition to the national guard, 25 to $35 million would go to feed, clothe, house and yclept the 4,000 law enforcement personnel. the remaining 20 million chris to the security purchases like cameras and equipment so that 50 million will go and it's not a christmas list for the cities. it's a serious use of money for security the related purposes to keep the nominees safe and the convention safe but it's a big chunk of money and both charlotte and tampa had to get the money from the federal democracy. obviously in this environment of

no earmarks that camel challenging but thankfully the congress can through and we are spending that money as we speak. >> how is fund raising going? >> it seems to be going well. i'm not as involved as the mayor in charlotte. we have assumed that responsibility to raise the money necessary. the estimate they will raise upwards of $50 million. sing think about a direct capital over the economy you have $50 million i will spend part on the security related things and 50 million at the pope's committee will spend putting on the party then you have another 50 million of estimate so in the short term for that five day period you are looking at close to $175 million. you ready multiplier on that you are looking at close to two and $53 million invested in the local economy that creates jobs and opportunities, small and minority businesses have the opportunity to participate.

it's a good thing for both of us. >> there are local skeptics. >> ask me in september. >> part of our challenge in spite of the sleepless nights and the preparation i think when this is said and done the world will have a different view of tampa florida for the first time we will be dancing on the international stage like we've never danced before and i think any time we get in front of anybody as a city inevitably we come away and there will be criticisms we understand that inevitably we come away with folks impressed with what we have to offer >> there will be actual horse trading or who's going to get the nomination. conventions now don't have much rope and then and it's possible governor romney will name his running mate that will take away should these conventions be modernized cracks connect it's a

trend the last convention the democrats in 1960 were 56. i don't know. had they become archaic as the nominee been pre-decided? both of the cases we know who the nominee is going to be carried on the democratic side we know who that will be in the unforeseen circumstances but i would imagine the governor would not be for the convention to get it going in the convention but i think this does is energize and i think that's important because the folks that come to the democratic convention of the true believers the will go out and fall congress and make the phone calls and post the yard signs that it energized to the survey purpose? absolutely. it is a purpose with $100 million of tax money? good question. what if it were three days or

two days does it have to mean for days? >> i think it's worth. >> a shorter convention -- >> sure kube i think so. from new york and chicago but for tampa florida to tell the story with its one day, two days, three days. we are going to tell stories in whatever language we choose to access and whatever platform you choose we are going to tell a story. >> i put this different from the super bowl. >> everyone comes to have fun. this event some will choose to do. we could do the super bowl in our sleep. we have gotten so at. this is 50,000 people, 5,000 of them press. we estimate 15,000.

synonymous spoke. it's been a plus the delegates about 6,000 plus the protesters which are an undetermined number so it is a combustible mix but we expect that and we are ready for it and we know who they are we know what their tactics are but for the most part it's going to be a good event and we are excited. >> i didn't let them occupy much of anything but the one of my neighbors in a big sign in the yard he did a bed sheet hung from a tree across the street from me and i live anyplace that wouldn't be typically occupied. >> what do you mean by that? >> there's probably a lot of democrats are now where i left. >> a gated community? >> it's not a gated community

but it's off of downtown i'm usually ghana when it's dark and come home when it's dark so i saw the picture in the newspaper through by wouldn't let the occupied anything. anyone and everyone coming and i'm not going to let someone to go for the party for whatever purpose. so we wouldn't let them occupied the downtown tampa and i think most of the mayors are not of the country that did find themselves having to extract them later on had a great political cost. >> what are you getting? >> the 99.9 that will come on could call law abiding americans. the 1% less than 1% that will come that have been described as anarchists are there to cause

mayhem and what we saw in minneapolis, st. paul, what we have seen with of the wto is a group of people with no ideology. some of the same folks use of that the united nations event in chicago will be at tampa. we've been monitoring direct the and study their tactics and we will be ready for them but you can assume -- >> we hope not but they will be prepared if they choose to go down that path. >> tell us about the state house. >> it is a world renowned steakhouse in florida with a great deal of certainty any of you have ever been to it's the largest collection of any

restaurant we think certainly in america about this big and they used to steal at. estimate your lucky to get a reservation it is well worth at, and i would definitely do it if i were you and then i would amount of the city it's like the latin quarter and tampa and enjoy yourself but it is well worth the visit. >> also politico is picking up the tab. [laughter] is that what you told me it was? >> for review, sure. >> then i would have to read about it. >> we've got some great restaurants and you'll find but tampa florida do you know what

is? its a spanish - to be a pyemia on the table none of this works when you put it in the digit makes a spectacular deal. that is what tampa is. we are hispanic, latino, we are telling incoming cubin. br a metaphor for america and the genders and orientations it is in most southern cities we speak three languages, spanish, italian and english in some cases didn't exist anywhere else. just because of all of those six together and sort of create the campaign. >> the spelling of seven in spanish -- some of the street

signs are hard to find any spanish dictionary but that is what they call it, so it is so ingrained on the street signs others would say that's the way we see it so it's an exciting place. for those of you coming you would really enjoy. >> i would like to bring you all when the conversation. this question, sir. if you don't mind stating your name. >> edward, sunshine press. the one per cent always been a big presence of the conventions hosting evens and fund-raisers and so forth. given that the caps are off and billionaires' are now spending as much as eight figures on a single contribution, have you seen any upsurge in the huge home and spending by the fat cats that fia