the rescue. one private equity firm approached us and made 1 billion. what would the reaction of the taxpayer have been or of this panel had someone agreed to do that. it should have been rightfully outraged and of course, we said no and that was the state of the world in which we lived in march 2009 in the context in which we had to make decisions. >> i guess it was easy for people to sit in the bleachers and look down at the game and then try to second guess the efforts of the team and even when the team wins and wins big time, sit on the side lines and criticize the calls of the game. that's just my opinion. i yield back. mr. kelly? >> i sometimes get confused and

i've been here a year and a half and the confusion comes are we in washington, d.c., or are we on mount olympus because the discussions made by government, we talk about they bail the out the auto industry. a car who sold cars for hishold whole life, it is the market that saved the auto industry and we're not talking about union jobs or non-union jobs or democrat jobs. oui talking about american jobs. there is such a fragility to this market and i really get confused sometimes when people who have never actually done it can tell you exactly what caused this. i can tell you what caused it, overcapacity, overproduction. when you're structured to do 16 million units a year and my goodness, do you think you have a problem when you've lost 40% of your market? the answer is yes. the government interfered with the natural flow of the business

cycle. they picked winners and losers. there's no doubt they picked winners and losers. this idea that we have+++a7z whenever we determine that one is bailed out, that's just flat, outright wrong. let's not become confused. this is pure folly that it had not been for this measure that all of the manufacturers would have collapsed. are you kidding me? do you know there were auto manufacturers that gained market share during that period?

the market, not government, determines success and failure. what happened to this situation is that the government decided who win withes, who loses, who gets fully fund, who gets nothing and who gets to sit at the table to eat and who gets to sit outside. let there be no confusion over the definition of fair and equal. in the country i grew up in it's the same thing, and i get sick and tired when people use a legal argument to buy, and to do it and run on what's right for the american people. that's absolutely pathetic, and if that's what we reverted to, no wonder the american people don't have faith in the institution anymore. no wonder they don't have faith in a judicial system that picks and chooses winners and losers. you can fight it if you have enough money. you know it and i know it and everybody else knows it in this country. i am not against the unions and i love what they do, but why did you bring them to the table.

there's an old saying, if you're on the table, you're on the menu. this government picked and chose who the winners and loser were. the rekof reeft american automobile industry has nothing to do with this. these companies would have gone through a bankruptcy with a comeback. we didn't save millions of jobs. a bankruptcy with historical, what a recovery period. biggest bankruptcy in american history. 30, 60 days, bam, we're back up running the streets and no problems. we talk about what's clear and transparent. when we talk about what's fair and we talk about the 99% and the 1%. fairness to me, is pretty much hand picked and i'll be fair with certain people and i'll be fair with others, but having been there and having to navigate through those very difficult times, keep in mind one thing, it is the market that will also be the opportunity. how you address that market and youra believity to compete in a

market that's global and your ability to compete in the market will be contested. you know what the problem was? it costs too much to build them here. american people go out and you know what they look at? how much is it going to cost me a month? that's what it comes down to, and i'm going to yield back, but i have to tell you, having been there and having been in those waters without a life jacket and without anybody throwing me a line and it's offensive to me that some were picked to win and other people were picked to lose. >> i have tremendous respect for you, and i know you know that, ji uft want to make sure i understand. you're saying that the -- that this situation could have gone into bankruptcy and we would have still had the results that we have, is that what you're trying to say? >> i'm reclaiming my time? >> most respectfully. >> and i appreciate it mr. cummings, because you and i do

have a good relationship. the it did go through bankruptcy. gentlemen, i appreciate you're here today, but it took a year? it took a year to come? it took a year to answer these thin things? really? i have a passion for this, too. kelly, you don't make any sense to me, you left what was probably the next to the last on the list of what people respect in the automobile business and you went to the worst. we rely on you. your the people who we rely on for the answers and when you don't testify what does that look like? tell me. not in the legal jargon, but in common-sense, everyday american jargon. what does it look like to the people who pay for all this the american taxpayers? it's pathetic. the fact that you can do it, and that you take advantage of it is even more pathetic upon i yield

back my time. >> thank you. as we proceed with additional questions, i want to remind everyone that the topic of this hearing is the automobile bailout and the delphi, who picked the winners and losers. it is not the issue of the auto bailout itself, the bankruptcy itself and it is what happened with the delphi pension decisions. we're having this hearing because these three gentlemen refused to answer questions and mr. bloom refused to answer questions at a hearing and refused since to answer them and these three gentlemen have refused to answer sig tarp's questions. the jail report is not sufficient. we need the sig tarp report and without that clarification i'll turn to miss maloney and after her question we'll open it up to unlimited time period since mr. bloom said the only way he would answer questions is to be asked those questions in this hearing room. i will stay and ask him those questions. >> will the gentleman yield for one second, one question?

>> yes. >> i just want to make this clear. is that -- i thought i -- i just want to be clear on this. did mr. bloom, i've been here and listened. did he say the only way that he would answer get is to -- is that what you said? >> if you would answer these in writing and you said that you would not, and i certainly intend to answer these questions here because of that and your answer stands in the record. >> what i said was if you want to go through these questions, i'm here today and i also said i would like to have sig tarp, ask me the questions i would do it. >> but you refused to provide me the answers as you promised -- as we showed you the video, before this committee previously in writing. >> responded to that already. >> thank you. >> miss maloney. >> 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 up their pensions and since everybody seems to want to attack mr. bloom, do you recognize that pain, too, mr. bloom of some people who were not made whole? >> of course. the -- speaking personally, and to my knowledge, everybody on the auto task force understood and had great sympathy for all of the people involved in this tragic circumstance who had to make sacrifices and the delphi, sorry employees were on the list, but unfortunately, congresswoman, the list is very long and as i've said repeatedly, our judgment was on balance while there was terrible suffering and much greater suffering was averted, but that

in no way is to suggest that there was not suffering. >> i agree with your statement, had delphi failed and had gm failed and not only have the workers suffered, but also the entire community, and i would say the overall economic health of the country would be worse. i'd like to take issue with the prior gentleman's statement that he said it accidented have been handled and it would have worked out on its own and i want to reference and put into the record a november 17th publication of 2010 and this publication was entitled impact on the united states economy on the successful automaker bankruptcies and this was issued by the center for automated research. so this is an independent validation and in this research which is independent from the gao research that basically says

the same thing and the government's actions avoided personal income rosses totaling over $96 billion and and avoided 1.1 million net job losses in 2009 and another 314 thousand in 2010. so mr. bloom. since everybody wantious to answer the des i'll ask you and mr. feldman and mr. wilson, if you'd like to comment, is that correct? do you agree with this number source had it not been for the government intervention, your work for crucial months in 2009, could the country experienced more than a million net job losses and i predict tfsz even more. the impact hit new york state for the suppliers that went out

of business that were supplying the auto industry. i wonder, do you agree with the statement from the independent research organization? >> i haven't reviewed the exact -- >> it basically says had we not acted -- >> our judgment at the time and the material i've seen since then that i've reviewed that suggests that the losses would have been very significant in jobs, cars and a million others have used larger numbers, mark sandy recently said 2.5 million jobs were at risk. so i'm not enough of an exist to choose between them, but i think our judgment that the losses could have been quite catastrophic has been confirmed. >> i just want to ask you, mr. bloom, has any member of congress congratulated you and thanked you for your hard work and what resulted in by all accounts, saving over 1 million

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

of congress have acknowledged that some good things happened. >> mr. feldman, has anyone ever thank youed? i thank you today. >> i think this is the first time i've been thanked. >> well, thank you very much. you're an american hero. i appreciate your hard work. mr. wilson? >> thank you, as well, congresswoman. i've had a few democrats and republicans, but thank me over time, but it's always nice to hear it. >> i think more of us some shh say it, thank you for your public service and you saved jobs and helped america and grew our economy. thank you. >> miss romero, i would like to thank you for bridging forth to light that these three gentlemen have refused to talk to you and for your bringing it to our attention that they are before us and get them to talk to us to commit to talk to you. we'll go through a ten-minute round of questions and my next question is to mr. feldman, and i do have a question for you, you said in your letter that you

believed sig tarp believes that the auto task force played a role in the pension -- in the pension decision and these individuals' failure to speak is a significant article, right? >> you do believe that, right? that they played a role. >> yes. >> mr. feldman, we're going to spend a significant amount of time on the issue of what you did, what your role was because that's really what you guys aren't speaking about. the whole questions from sig tarp, j.o., this congress, what was, what did you do? what was your role? what was the basis of your decision making, now, i'm going to read you your bioand i assume you approved or wrote yourself. mr. feldman was recruited to serve as chief legal adviser on the obama task force. this cabinet-level task force was assembled to, quoting your bio, help develop the overall strategy to restructure and

recapitalize general motors corporation and chrysler, quote, unquote, strategy which resulted in the ground breaking legal proceedings that implemented a comprehensive financial solution for both companies. sig tarp believes that you were involved. you said you were negotiating among the parties. could you please -- you know, i understand that from an absolute legal standpoint that pbgc is a party to this and has an ability to make its own decision in settlement negotiations, but they didn't do that in a vacuum, right, mr. feldman? they had you running in between a bunch of different other people making proposals as to what they should or should not do, isn't that correct, mr. feldman? >> i think what they would or would not be willing to do, and to just take a step back the auto team which was a -- which was the working group at treasury which reported to the auto task force was really charged with helping restructure chrysler and general motors.

we took on additional tasks that were critical to those two entities including the financing arms of chrysler, the financing arm of general motors and ultimately delphi because general motors was providing funding and at the time we got involved was the sole source of funding for delphi, but we did not -- go ahead, i don't -- you can take back. thank you. >> going to the issue, then, using your language instead of mine of determining what they would or wouldn't do, who are the parties that you ran in between of doing the negotiating determining the would or would aren't do. would or would aren't, it's still calling to pbgc saying someone will like you to do x, will you do x, right? >> the pbgc and general motors were the main parties involved in making decisions. the pbgc was the main party in making decisions about the determination of delphi's pension plans and what the impact of that was, it had an

impact on general motors and i was playing essentially shuttle diplomacy between general motors and the pbgc which didn't get along well. >> and who else? >> on that issue? >> i reported to the auto team, but i didn't -- and there wasn't a -- i'm not thinking of a party that was directly involved in that. >> you didn't share any information about what the package was and developing this strategy that's in your biowith individuals of the white house and with individuals at treasury and is that what your testimony is, and i worked for treasury, so certainly i reported to the auto team. >> outside of the auto team. >> i kept george madison informed. >> in treasury outside of the auto team. and it was not part of the auto team. i was in the legal department of treasury and so i did keep mr. madison updated and he was the general council of treasury, but in terms of the white house the only people i ever spoke to at the white house was brian deiss and larry summers.

okay. we're going to turn to e-mails now. we have a july 6th, mail from joseph house at pbgc. this one we don't have on the top. it's a july 6th e-mail, 9:45 p.m. and he's mailing late and i just spoke with matt feldman who relayed the following. quote, we agreed that any settlement discussions would be best saved for direct coordination between u.s. treasury and pbgc. at this point rather than a subject of group coordination. now he's saying that the settlement discussions were at that point as a result of his conversation with you a direct coordination between treasury and pbgc. he does not mention general

motors. do you disagree with his e-mail? >> you would have to ask mr. house what he meant by that e-mail and i interpret what he meant to men mean that we were going to talk to the pbgc and then that wield talk to general motors that we do not have authority to settle issues between the pbgc and general motors. >> you do have a role in making recommendations and proposals. >> i would comment on proposals and recommendations and do i think something would be acceptable? general motors would say do you think pbgc would find something acceptable? i certainly gave them my judgment. >> what occurred after the july 6th, mail. this is joseph house saying he had just spoken to you and he agreed with you that any settlement discussions would be saved between direct coored nation rather than group coordination is followed by the e-mail i show youed previously which is slide 6 on july 8th.

if we can have slide 6, please. where again, mr. house is reporting that he'd spoken to you and this one is 6:23 p.m. and this is july 8th. so subsequent to your reported agreement by mr. house that we're going directly coordinate this settlement negotiation in pbgc and he then reports that you say that feldman reported that he made progress discussing our proposal with a number of key folks in treasury and at the white house, that has not yet wrapped up his coordination. let's turn to slide 5, then. feldman. this is july 15th, 10:57 a.m. again, mr. -- this is karen morris forwarding one from john minky and it says feldman will take it to gm and get their approval which will either be a rubber-stamp or one last chance. we all accept that pbgc has the

legal authority with respect to its decision making. we also know that he did that in the environment of the pressure of these negotiations and we also understand that we had a number of parties who had positions and roles and proposals as to what pbgc should do or as you're using your language, would or wouldn't do. mr. feldman, we'd like to get a better understanding of that which is why you'd be called before this committee and why sig tarp wants to talk to you and why we were actively involved in the decision making. now i'm going to ask you a very simple question. i'm assuming that with respect to the delphied salary pensions that the proposals that ended up with the pensions being cut did not solely generate -- were not solely generated by pbgc, that in the negotiations with your liaison with the white house and others in treasury outside of the task force, the auto task

force and general motors that they had positions and recommendations as to how those pensions should be handled snasis that correct? >> i never had a conversation -- >> i didn't ask you that. >> i'm sorry. >> i asked you whether or not anyone else had a position or a proposal in your shuttle negotiations with respect to the delphied salaried pensions other than pbgc. that's a pretty simple question. i would assume the answer has to be yes. >> i don't believe so. not with respect to the salaried. so you're testifying under oath and before this committee that at no time did anyone else that you were working with in your position as the chief legal adviser shuttling negotiations, no one else offered you and no one else provided you any other proposal with respect to the

delphied salaried pensions in any aspect? >> let me correct it. delphi, certainly its position was it wanted to retain the pension plans and have general motors pay for it or assume, as i recall, the timeframe was a little bit fuzzy, but as i recall, delphi certainly did not want to give up its pension plans in the early stages of my involvement. >> anyone else? had a position or proposal with respect to the pensions during your settlement negotiations. >> i don't want to be unequivocal, but i don't recall. >> well, you were before. >> well that's part of the investigation is sig tarp's investigation, and i wish you well in your recollection process. >> i'm happy to look at more e-mails or other information. i don't recall it. >> excellent. mr. cummings? >> mr. chairman, out of curiosity are you planning to end the hearing now are you

going go on and on and on? >> no, i'm going next to mr. bloom for him to answer questions for him to answer questions for the questions he refused to 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 from the rest of the panel members so mr. bloom can stand before us and answer the questions he's refused to answer. >> well, that's fine with me. and i hate to waste people's time, so i think that's very generous of the chairman. and -- one of the things, mr. chairman, that's come to my attentions that your questions of mr. bloom have been answered by the secretary of the treasury and mr. bloom forwarded your questions after the hearing. >> actually, no, they haven't. i have the secretary's answers

and his answer was this is a matter of litigation. i cannot answer. >> i see. but if the chairman wants to dismiss, i think we should allow these folks to go. >> if that's -- i have no problem with that. >> do we have any questions from anyone else? i am certainly fine with that. at this point -- >> one other thing. i did forget to say one thing. when miss maloney was answering the question asking if anyone thank youed. i thank you very much, to miss romero, i'm hoping you get the cooperation you need and we on both sides of the aisle support your efforts and we want to make sure you have access to the information you need in order to do your job and i want to thank you for working with both of our offices to try to make this thing move along. >> thank you so much, member cummings. we'll take a one-minute recess,

and for mr. bloom, they can excuse themselves.

mr. bloom, we'll get started. we have votes that will occur so we're going to be limited, as i'm certain that you are sad to hear, and the number of questions that we're going to ask you. i want to reiterate these were questions that were given to