nothing to try to help lower the cost of healthcare overall, not just within the public sector, we will simply have shifted the expense of health care in medicare and medicaid to those who use health care, to our seniors and are disabled. the reality is medicare, our seniors and the disabled. the cost of health care under medicare is growing slower than the cost of health care in the private insurance market. we went through that in the bowles-simpson committee. if he were to get rid of medicare and send fees to the private sector, they would end up paying more because the cost of the private sector is growing at a faster clip. how do we corraled the cost of health care so we do not end up shipping costs from the people

to the actual beneficiaries, our seniors who are retired? if you could give that some thought, that would be instructive. the health reform of last year meant to do that, to help corral the cost in the private sector. if we do not do something about overall health-care costs, telling seniors they will pay more in medicare does not help with our health care costs. thank you for your service to this country and your time. >> the co-chair recognizes the congressman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to agree with each of you. these deficits are unsustainable. i appreciate your candor and your service and your hard work. we know a little bit about your work. we have spent hundreds of hours over the last number of weeks.

you underscore our respect for each of you as truly great americans. my home state of michigan has had 34 consecutive months of double-digit unemployment. as i talked to people back home as i was again this weekend, people know we are in a rut. senator simpson, i know what you are talking about. they are relying on us to get our car out of a ditch and back in first gear. i put a chart of here. i think you have a chart in front of you. it stores the president's health 2023.plan from 2015 to 2

there will be almost $2 trillion in additional spending up with the next 10 years. each of you noted that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. you identified health care as one of the most important items this committee and the nation should be focusing on. as you see from this chart, the exchange subsidies are the primary driver of this dramatic expansion of medicaid. cms certified that because of the president's proposal, 25 million americans more will be on medicaid after 2015. one in four americans will be a medicaid beneficiary. based on that and the statement you made about the budget crisis, do you believe we should revisit the expansion of the

medicaid program in the president's proposal? erskine bowles, sorry that you start on that end. >> i am happy to answer any questions that you ask. you will not smell in here -- any fear out here. we had questions if the affordable health care plan could slow the growth of bddp. we believed it would solve the problem of providing more people health care. we did not believe is solved the problem of controlling the cost of health care. we made additional cuts to medicare and medicaid and other federal health care programs hoping that would slow the rate of growth. if it did not slow the rate of growth, there has to be an overall cap on all of these areas of spending in the federal health-care spending.

you would have to look at some options like the robust public auction like the single payer plan. >> alan? >> we just knew that whatever you call it -- if you want to use the negatives and called it obamacare -- it will not work. you have this imploding of people. you have diabetes. you have one person in america and that weighs more than the other two. you have people who choose to do tobacco and alcohol and use designer drugs. you have pre-existing conditions in three year olds. what happens to their 50 years of like? all you have to do is or get the charts. if you torture statistics long enough, they will it eventually confess. this country cannot exist in any

kind of situation where a guy who could buy this building gets a $150,000 heart operation and as i get a bill. that is nuts and that is where we are in america. there is no affluence testing. you have to raise co-payments. you have to deal with physicians. have hospitals keep one set of books instead of two. that would be a start. >> what did you do about medicaid? you were going to convert it into a block grant for the states. it was my understanding you dropped that proposal. >> we thought that was too big of a shift and two on proven of a theory. government can cover more people with less costs.

we said let's test it in 10 states. if it does lower the cost of health care and provide coverage to people who need it, we can support it. you need to test its first. that is what you do in the business world. it is being tested in rhode island. washington state is asking if they can test it. >> beyond those tests, did you ask for any other reforms on the medicare side? >> yes, we did. having run a public hospital in north carolina for the last five years, you can see the game that goes on in medicare programs. it is a shared cost program. it is 50/50 between the states and the federal government. the doctors would raise the amount they would charge to cover the higher fee charged by

the state. they would come out events, but the taxpayers would end up with a -- they would come out even, but the taxpayers would end up with a $50 billion bill. >> there was a program called the per-capita cap. it state would receive an allotment determined by the number of folks in the specific category for medicaid based on the state population for those numbers. that would be increased each year by dpp plus one -- by gdp plus one. you were part of that proposal. are you still supporting that idea? >> we looked at a number of ways

to reduce the rate of growth in the cost of medicaid. one was split in beebe's by stability between the federal government and the states. it is really two programs. acute-care, which is for children and their mothers, and long-term care. one of the things we looked at was, split the be spots ability for those two between -- would- be to split the response ability for those two between medicare and the government and not have the matching program that results in a certain amount of gaming. we also wanted to get rid of the kind of gaming that goes on with medicaid as erskine bowles has suggested. one thing we were clear about was the dual eligible, those

who were eligible for medicare and medicaid. it is getting into managing multiple diseases. we wanted to fix backed -- fix that. >> what did you do to allow the states to have greater control over what services were eligible? >> we did not come down clearly. we offered a menu of options on what to do about medicaid. i think it is the harder problem, much harder than medicare. we thought we had a good plan for medicare. we offered a menu for medicaid. >> on medicaid, ways and means and energy and commerce have jurisdiction over this issue. we have felt it is the toughest entitlement to try to curb the

cost curve downward. it is my understanding that both of your groups also increased the age of eligibility. is that right? >> no,. . we did not do it for social security and we certainly did not for medicare. >> it is not in the first tenure when del. >> when you looked at all of the options, what was the priority order you came up with in terms of what you thought we should do to reform medicare. ? >> we said drastic steps are going to have to be taken. those steps include looking at a premium support plans. it has to look at a robust public option. it has to look at block granting medicaid to the states and

things like a single payer plan. it has to look at things like raising the eligibility age for medicare. those are the options we saw that have to be considered if you cannot slow the rate of growth to gdp plus one. >> before yielding to the next panel member, senator simpson, i have been informed that you have to depart. >> i have to get to dulles airport to get out of town before they find out i have been here. [laughter] >> certainly, senator, we appreciate your participation today. you will be excused from the panel whenever you need to depart. >> erskine bowles has a remarkable thing to present to you. if i had to leave early, i will give him my time. it is important that you hear

what i think is a solution for you that on the he in his bright ness -- brightness can propose. it can get you somewhere where only he can help you get. i want to hear from my colleague who came to the senate when i did. i will stick around until about 25 or 20 of. >> the co-chairmen will yield to the gentleman from montana. >> thank you, congressman. everyone wants to reform the tax code. i do not know anyone who doesn't. it is in the eyes of the beholder. what is reform to one may not be informed to the other.

you mentioned tax expenditures. i think it is important for everyone to know that only about $200 billion of those are itemized deductions. the rest are other tax expenditures like retirement income provisions and earned income tax credits. there is a whole host of others. if the proposal is to repeal them all in return for lower rates and deficit reduction, people have to realize what that means. a lot of people have relied on those provisions. their in kind income is not taxed. the question becomes, how quickly do you recommend we attack all of that?

we have november 8, 1923 deadline. what you suggested that this be delegated to a committee so that we do tax reform with a ticker at the end, a penalty if the committees and the congress does not act. i would like you to comment on that. i hope this visitation include something i am talked about. address revenue. when you gave your presentation -- we are all big fans of all of you. you have worked so hard. when each of you were speaking, you could hear a pin drop. you have spent so much time on this subject and so conscientiously.

people know that. one of your four principles was tax return -- tax reform. you did not say anything about revenue. my understanding is that the commission suggested something in the neighborhood of $1 trillion in new revenue to be offset with spending cuts. is that true? it is my understanding you make permanent the middle income tax cuts but not the upper income. you propose raising revenue on a current policy basis of about $1 trillion. does that sound about right? >> you were on our commission and you attended a few of our meetings. you know exactly what we did. in the baseline, we extended the

bush tax cuts for everyone except the top 2%. we reformed the tax code by broadening the base and simplifying the code and by eliminating the tax expenditures in our zero option plan. all of the tax expenditures did disappear and 92% of the money went to reduce rates and 8% went to reduce the deficit. >> in the answer to the senator's question, is it about $100 billion in debt as a reduction? >> that is about $100 billion approximately. >> how can there be that much revenue when there are spending cuts in your plan. you have a 2 to 1 ratio of revenue raised to spending cuts.

>> it was more than that. we had about $1 trillion in additional revenue coming in. we had about $3 billion in spending cuts. we were working toward that number. we were trying to get it to be no more than 1/3 revenue and 2/3 spending cuts. >> do you recommend that we try to enact -- cut all of those expenditures and rates or delegate it to the tax committees? >> we recommend you delegates it to the tax writing committees. you cannot rewrite the tax code between now and november 23. you cannot rewrite the entitlement legislation and get it scored by november 23.

you can provide instruction to the appropriate committees. to raise about $1 trillion in revenues. >> i wonder if you would yield to me for one minute? can i offer a suggestion? we felt ourselves extremely confronted by the problem of the shortness of time and the big of the tax code. it took two or three years. what we did in our testimony and what we sent to you in a packet is that we have taken section 404 of the law that created

you, a section that intentionally gave you an extreme amount of authority and more flexibility than we have been talking about. that flexibility prevents you from setting up a direction with specific things you ask the tax- writing committee to do. they have to do it by a date that could be 3 or four months from now. it would go to the committee. it is not reconciliation. >> we want tax reform in the worst way. we are trying to figure out exactly how to do a bang. it. there are recommended defense cuts. compare that to bthe sequestration. does that mean you suggest another $450 billion?

>> we recommended about $1.70 trillion in discretionary cuts and outlays. it was about $2 trillion in budget authority from the president also proposed discretionary budget. he proposed $11.70 trillion in discretionary spending. we proposed to cut it to $9.70 trillion because the budget authority plays out slower. it worked out to $1.70 trillion. that should be split between security and non-security spending. we recommend there be a firewall between security and non- security spending over a time. the future congresses would not come back and load it back up. >> there was a recommendation on

the overseas recommendations. it is currently not a cap. asn't it true that the appropriations committee transferred $9 billion to an overseas contingent operation to escape the limitations? >> i do not know about that. >> do you suggest a cap to help minimize that? >> we wanted to keep it from being a slush fund. >> whatever you do, just do a plan. you don't have to worry about who is doing this and the timetable. let me tell you why the rating agencies do not mess with germany or france or great britain. each of those countries have a plan. all of these people are

waiting for a plan. you can decide how many teeth to put in the jaw, but just do a plan. you will see a difference around the world with the ratings agencies. >> a concern some have is this, with the election, there would be a debt spiral. insurance companies will attack sales policies to the most healthy. the most healthy will buy these policies, leaving the most -- the less healthy in medicare. the more that happens, the more sick people are in medicare. medicare costs go up because the sick is are there. i am shore -- medicare costs go up because the sickest are

there. >> we have avoided that possibility by the rules we put in. any plan has to accept anybody. they would be compensated on a risk adjusted basis. they got more for people are older and sicker. they have no incentive not to serve those people. >> you have all made a tremendous contribution to this country. thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the co-chair rackham -- the coach here recognizes the gentleman from ohio. -- co-chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you. the budget committee tackled the most difficult crisis our

country has ever faced. we talked about a lot of the same issues that this group of 12 has been grappling with, revenues and spending. i would like to focus on some of the issues that we talk about, but with a different angle. if you would not mind putting up the bipartisan policy charts again, that is the that thatsenator -- that senator domenici put up earlier. health-care spending with respect to our gdp is expected to increase. it is the backdrop to this question. erskine bowles said kermit benefits encourage all --a- erskine bowles said -- erskine

bowles said current benefits encourage over-utilization. he also said that in the simpson-bowles proposal that you recommended reducing -- there it is -- reducing health-care spending over a detained here. -- a ten year period by $500 billion. given this enormous growth, or unsustainable growth in health- care expenses, let me ask you about the couple of ways to get there that we have not talked about yet. one is means testing. this is one that republicans and democrats alike ought to be able

to come together. they will pay $119,000 in medicare taxes and receipt $357,000 in lifetime medicare benefits. that is 119,000 in taxes for 357,000 in benefits. that is about $3 in benefits for every dollar in taxes. if you multiplied this by the retiring baby boomers, it is not hard to see why we have an unsustainable program. we can talk about this to be sure that those at the lower income scale are taking care of. it is hard to justify upper income seniors getting benefits that exceed what they have been paying into the system. how do you feel about means testing? >> you never want to use the

word mean in anything. you call it affluence testing and then you get juice. you are going to have to start affluence testing some of these benefits. it you know that in your own community, these people use these systems and pay nothing. co-pays half to go up and you have to affluence test that. >> the photographer's love that -- a photographers love that. >> i do favor it. i always talk about it. bob kerry and i and bradley were all involved in that years ago when we were here. we were called on american,

cruel, evil, breaking -- contracts un the space american -- unamerican, cruel, evil. >> we already have in the part b premium and we are in favor of increasing that. >> can you talk a little bit about some ideas. i will put you on the spot. one was raising the age. how do you feel about raising the eligibility age given the statistics on longevity. the eligibility age on medicare. >> we did not have that in our plan. i have thought about it since that time. under the affordable health care act, which provides subsidiesfor

s for people who have chronic illnesses and people who have limited incomes to get something so that they can afford health care assurance -- health care insurance in the private sector. that did not exist before the affordable health care act. people 65 and 66 would still be able to get health care. i can support raising the eligibility age for medicare since we have other coverage available for the affordable health care act. >> let's go to tax reform for a second. all of you have talked about broadening the base. they have addressed this. it is something they are interested in. simplifying the code and reducing marginal rates and getting rid of some of the loopholes. one thing we have not talked about is " reform.

we have the second highest -- one thing we have not talked about is corporate reform. we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we are at 35%. we do not have a territorial system. we have a worldwide system. it puts us at a disadvantage. can i see a show of hands? do you agree with getting the corporate rate down to a manageable level? does everybody agree with that? >> if you are pinning us down to a rate, we took the rate down to 28%. we did not do territoriality.

the reason is interesting. simpson-bowles has strong representation from multinational corporations. small businesses were not enthusiastic about territoriality. we left it ain't out -- we let it out. -- we left it out. >> we did not come down as far as they did,. . the problem we have with the public on that is that it is disgusting isolation. they say we are lowering tax es on the fat cat corporations. >> i am talking about not lowering the tax. it would be revenue neutral. you get growth from that based on all of the economic analysis we have seen. it would add more revenue, not

from increasing taxes, but from growth. >> i do not disagree. i was just giving you an explanation i had heard. >> with regard to balance, the " chair talked about balance -- the cochair talked about balance. what is the right balance? you talked about this earlier in terms of where you were headed and where you ended up. senator samson, can you give us a sense of what the right balance is between revenue generated through tax reform, but new revenue on the one hand. on the other hand, a reduction of spending. what is the right balance? >> we thought it was no less than 2/3. we worked on 3/or coming from

spending and was last three coming from revenue -- we worked three-quarters coming from spending. we did not want to see revenue going below 3%. we wanted to balance the budget at some point in time. >> we have an historical average of 18.4% on revenue. the tax cut would continue to get back to 80% in the next several years. my time has expired. i want to thank you for your help. the help you have given us up to this point, you have made contributions to our efforts individually and parts of your groups -- individually and as

part of your groups. >> the co-chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you to all four of our panelists here today. thank you for your service. i want to start with a statement. i would like a chart to be put graph i expect a many of us have seen in the last week or so. we talked about when dr. elmendorff was before this committee. it shows the widening wealth gap that is existing in our country today.

it shows the last 30 years. we have 3143 counties in the united states. of those 3001 to 43 counties, or what is 70 -- of those 3143 counties, for much as 74 of them, =%-- 474 of those 474 of those counties have citizens living beneath the poverty level for the last 30 years. it is interesting because i did not think about this until the weekend. several months ago, i joined a congresswoman on trying to focus

on these counties and try to direct resources to these counties. back when we did the american recovery and reinvestment act, the stimulus bill, in the development section of that bill, we were successful in getting that bill to focus on these counties by directing its expenditures of at least 10% of those funds into those counties that have 20% or more beneath the poverty level for the last 30 years. the report came out from cbo a couple of weeks ago. its focus my attention once again on those communities. when i first came on this panel, i said i wanted to focus on the human side of this deficit.

what i would like to ask today is whether or not it is feasible to do $1.50 trillion in reduction of the deficits by cuts only. what will that do to the bottom 20% that has seen only 18% growth in their income over the last 30 years? and those communities where 20% or more of the population has been beneath the population for the last 30 years. what we do to those communities and those people if we were to reduce the deficit on the by cuts that have been proposed? i would like to ask all four of

you that. >> i am delighted to go first. as you know, if you go east of interstate 90 and you are in north carolina, we have more cavities that all in that category than any place in the union. if that part of carolina was a stake in itself, it would be the poorest state in the union. if you think about what you have already done, if you look at the continuing resolution and you took $400 billion in cuts through the continuing resolution, and if you think about what you are working on now with the budget control act

in the two parts. the first part was $900 billion in cuts. you have another $900 billion in cuts that have already been done. there were cuts already before you started on what you are doing. i thought there has to be some kind of combination of revenue and cuts in order to get to be $4 trillion number we focused on. it is important for all of you to think about the fact that the deficit is eating the budget allies. it does not leave any money left over to do the kind of -- it is important for all of you to recognize that the deficits are eating the budget alive. what we tried to do was to make sure that in the plan we put forward, we did not make any cuts in income support programs like ssi, food stamps and

workers' compensation. we tried to make sure that on things like social security, that we raised the minimum payment to 25% of poverty. we gave them a raise every year. we tried to be sensitive to those people that were most disadvantaged. we try to make the cuts we needed to make to put our fiscal house in order. >> we have enjoyed our time with you doing our work. you have been cordial in listening to us. i appreciate that deeply. the irony is that if we do not get there, there is a tipping point. i do not know what it is, but it

will come swiftly. it will come by the ratings. would not come by anything that any charge has never disclosed before. at that time, interest rates will go up and inflation will go up. the people who will be hurt the worst in that procedure are the people you speak up with such passion. this is a tremendous irony to me. by doing little or nothing -- the tipping point comes. the little guy is going to get hammered worse than he or she is now. that is the irony, the strange and hideous irony. >> if you were to do it, let's do a $1.50 trillion deficit reduction and let's do it on the backs of those same people. what happens to that chart in the next 30 years where we have to what is 70 precise -- to lead

to 75% increase in the upper 1%. -- where we have 8275% -- a 275% increase? let's do it by cutting medicare and medicaid, cutting education, cutting health care. we will have saved the markets. but what will we have done to these 474 communities? >> that is not a question that we should answer. you should not do that. we are making the same two point. we need to cut the deficit, but not by hurting vulnerable people. you should avoid doing that. secondly, the importance of

avoiding a double dip recession and a lost decade of growth is extreme and will hurt those people most if you do not avoid it, . >> you have heard almost anything humankind can think of. i would suggest that the answers given are relevant and important. one of the reasons the other group did not get as big of a reduction in appropriated accounts as other plants was because we came upon the idea that we were going to have to come up with some revenue. we should have a budget that was understanding in this area. it would be attacked with equal vigor to destroy the it as we were trying to create a country that was strong again.

i will tell you from my own experience as i leave the scene , one time i asked a wise man what we do to help poverty. the person said, i can tell you in one word. i thought, you must have direct ties with the holy spirit. he said, educates. . people must get educated. that will not solve the plan on the table. any plan you have in mind should look at whether poor people are getting educated or not. secondly, you can grow it there is nothing to split. there is nothing to give to our people. that is why our tax plans are growth tax plans. theirs is an hour's is and we call it that. -- and our is and we call it

that. people say, why do you cut the fat cats? they are not making as much here because they are going elsewhere because of our taxes are too high. the reality is competition. we cannot force them to stay in america if taxes are too high. education and taxes for corporations the long on this list. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the cochair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. i would like to thank camps for arranging the joint production committee. your chair is comfortable. [laughter] >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses for being here. i do have a question. in the simpson-bowles plan, you

recommend that the united states moved to a territorial tax system. i agree with that recommendation. our current system is one that means our companies and workers are not competitive. do you share that view? is that why you recommended moving to that system? >> i read the report this committee put out. i was in favor of what you put out. >> do you believe there are ways to move to a territorial system that does not create incentives for companies and employers to move jobs to other parts of the world or their investments or there are indeed -- or their research and development? there is a possibility to craft a plan that gets that policy wrong.

you were focused on moving to a territorial plan that did not make out companies less competitive. do you think that could be done in the context of a revenue neutral territory a plan? >> if you stay on a worldwide system and you almost forced companies to leave those dollars overseas, naturally they will have to pay a big tax on those dollars to bring them back. it is more probable they will create the job somewhere else rather than here. that is why i support a territorial system in addition to the fact everybody has got to that system accept us. >> you also recommend an overhaul of our tax code. i appreciate the model you set up where you try to lower rates in exchange for doing away with various provisions and

exceptions in the code. that has shifted the debate on what tax reform might mean. your reform proposal would raise revenue compared to the current policy baseline. you did not do it by raising taxes. why did you choose that route, raising revenue rather than imposing new taxes? >> based on my experience in the business world an economists i talk to, it would create jobs and opportunities for people.

opportunities for people. it made sense to get the spending out of the tax code and to use that money more efficiently and effectively by lowering rates and reducing the deficit. >> dr. rivlin and mr. domenici, in your plan, you have had the government share gdp are around 20%. is that correct? >> yes. >> one out of every $5 in our economy would come to washington, d.c. that is a higher level of revenue that we have seen in the history of the nation. there's only one time when the government got close to that level and that was during the internet bubble. there were capital gains revenues associated with that. review do an analysis on the impact of the economy -- on the economy of having revenue and gdp reach that level? >> no, not on ourselves. we examined other people's research on this. i do not read the record as having much evidence of a connection between the exact

proportion of the federal government's revenue and economic growth. the reason hours went up was we did not see how, in this new situation of a much older population and to the tsunami of the baby boom, we did not see how we could fulfil our obligation to those people and performed the other services of government without having the government in that range. it has been there before. it is not a disaster. this is not taking on new government responsibility. we have a lot more older people and we have got to take care of them. that is going to mean slightly higher government spending that

we had when the population was a lot younger. >> senator? >> yes . i, too, in my past life have use percentages like that. i have learned that, on many of them, there is no reality as to the number. 20% or 19% is better than 19.5 or 20.6%. if you have the rest of the policies rights, in our kind of economy, we will get growth. in this country, the population is growing older. the population had fewer workers per retiree. when we look at it 19% or 18.5%

that was used as an historically significant number, we did not have this demographic. we did not have this kind of problem. we solved it by trying our best to use the tax code to generate some extra revenue in the matter we have suggested here. at the same time, we have taken on the responsibility for the programs that are going to sink us if we sit by and say we have to have 18th with 5% on the revenue side. what are we going to do about the exploding costs of the program's? we have done it in a reasonable manner. if you want to say that that one -- say let that one go, we can fix it some day. that is my answer. there is no absolutely positive evidence that any of these numbers are absolutely right.

they are in the range. he do the other causes great, we will survive with 21%. i am sure. >> you also had two new tax structure proposals. you had the value added tax. the other was the tax on sugar and beverages. you do an analysis about the cost of those tax structures on our economy and what that might mean? >> you are right that we did have the debt reduction sales tax. it is analogous to that. the senator and i and the members of the group all believe it would be sensible for the united states to move parts of

its tax burden off of the income tax and on to a broad base consumption tax. this is not the moment to do that. we realize that. we eventually took it out. we revamped our income tax proposals. the sugar drinks will not change our economy. at the margin, it discourages people from drinking too much soda. i don't know. >> we did not look at the economic significance of it. sometimes you are out-voted and you have to do things that are not necessarily the greatest. >> i get that part.

thank you. i yield back. >> the co-chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, senator kerry. >> i want to thank each of you for your extraordinary service. not just in this effort, but over the years. we are appreciative of this contribution to the dialogue. i hope it will be more than a dialogue, but a result. i want to spend a few moments on the context that brings us here. administrator, you open up with a comment that caught my attention. you said this is the most predictable economic crisis in history we are looking at coming at us. even as you peg the minimum figure as $4 trillion, which is what we should do.

then you said we could fail. i would like you to speak to that for a moment. >> you all have done a great job of stopping the leaks coming out of your committee. extended period of time. i have been able to put together some proposals you are considering. i have also listened to some of the back-and-forth that has been in the press. i have heard people talk about simply selling for $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction. doing it across the board, which is 70 smart way to make any kind of -- to control any of

your budgets. i have even heard talk that it you in the building 600 in defense -- due in 600 in defense and 600 in non-defense, you will have people in the house and senate working to get sequester. that would be a disaster. people with that this country and say, you cannot govern. they would think we were on our way to becoming a second-rate power. >> we know that the figure we should hit to stabilize the

debt should be the mission of the congress. it is $4 trillion. what is the impact in the marketplace. if we hit $1.20 trillion or $1.50 trillion, earned we going to be back here immediately with the same issues on the table? >> you could lose and you would not be accomplishing much if you did that. the effect it would have on how people would look at this country would be devastating. when we went through this debt default fiasco, before august, i can tell you globally, countries lost a lot of respect for america.

they lost confidence in us that we would stand up and address our long-term problems. >> un die have the great pleasure of working together on a number of issues. i trust in you and i have had the pleasure of working together on a number of issues. you are a republican. i would like for you to share with us your perception as a longtime legislator, went in your memory has a committee in congress ever have the right to put together a proposal that would be voted on by expedited procedure in both houses of contreras -- congress on majority without amendment? >> the answer is never.

the bill that created the budget committee was to the authorized the power of the president to impound and create the budget committee. they spent weeks trying to figure out a way to assure the passage of bills that pertained to the budget and not destroy the filibuster rule. in the end, he quietly gave in. i decided it meant i could take the reconciliation bill to the floor of the senate and it cannot be filibustered. i defeated robert byrd.

his own way said he had found a way to get around filibuster in without changing the rules of the senate. we gave a budget committee in the senate to act without filibuster. there's nothing as powerful as this committee. >> you have headed up the cbo and omb as well. what would be the implications of the united states not meeting the financial challenge facing us question must -- challenge facing us? given the fragility of the world and priests committed sector. >> i agree it could be devastating.

i think we could face a long time of spending growth, another recession which would be worse in the one -- than the one we are slowly climbing out of. it is very hard to predict when this might happen or what the course might be. in the last few months, we have seen dramatically in europe that sovereign debt of solid-seeming countries can go their own -- very fast. we could lose the confidence of our trading partners and ourselves. if weaker seen by our own citizens as not being able to face up to problems and solve them, -- if we are seen by our own citizens as not been able to face up to our problems and

solve them, we are in deep trouble. >> it is possible to put revenue on the table to the tune of $1 trillion plus with tax reform. you do not have to raise the tax rates. you could do the tax reform with specific instructions to hold the rates down, lower them down , broaden the base. >> we went out of our way to get the next era -- to get the best experts together and asks them of 404 gives the kind of authority you just alluded to for the committees. that bill would carry with it in the senate the same prerogatives the original bill carried when you were creating it. >> you and i met.

we talked about your concept with respect to health reform. i appreciate the contribution of it. i have been trying to work through how we might be able to do those things. there are some issues on how you guarantee the coordination of the lowest health care plan and still get coverage in certain areas. i do not want to get stuck on that for the moment. i want to deal with the bigger issue. i assume you all would agree that you can do structural reform and medicare entitlements that is not just the premium support approach. is that accurate? >> certainly. there are several approaches. we like that one. >> the age thing is structural reform. >> i would not think of raising

the age as structural reform. >> give us some thoughts on what would alter it. could you begin to move the entire system of of fee-for- service where possible -- office of -- off of fee-for-service where possible? >> yes. that is roughly what we are proposing. >> i have a lot of opinions about health care. i think the current system does not make sense to pay twice as much as any of the developed country for health care and have our results ranging between 25 and 50. we have 50 million people who do not have health insurance. i just ran the health care system in north carolina.

they get health care. they get at the emergency room at five times the cost of the doctor's office. that cost does not disappear. it gets shifted to those of us with insurance and in the form of higher taxes. we have to have real reform in health care. i believe all people ought to have health care. i do not think anybody should get on the government or tax. checkbook -- taxpayer check book and cadillac plan. we ought to make sure people have skin in the game. if everybody has coverage, everybody has to have a medical home. if everybody has a medical home, you have to make sure that educational institutions like mine are producing more primary- care doctors, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants and not so many

specialists. if you want everybody to have prescription drugs, i do not know why you would not have medicare negotiate with the drug companies for the drugs the taxpayers will pay for. i do not know why anyone getting drugs from the taxpayers ought not to have generic drugs. doctors and hospitals practice defensive medicine. we have to have real tort reform. we have to pay for quality and not quantity. at the end of the day, you are going to have to do something about the end of life scenario. those things have to be done if you are going to really address health care. >> become chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania -- the co-chairs recognizes the

gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i want to add my voice in thanks to the work you have done. let me touch on some issues and develop a few further if i could. we all know federal revenue is a function of our economy. i think you will all agree the growth in federal revenue is related to growth in the economy. federal revenue will grow faster as long as the economy is growing. as a general rule, if we have strong economic growth, we will have even faster federal revenue growth. >> that used to be true before we indexed the tax system. it is much less true now.

federal revenue will go up a little faster than the economy but not much. >> we could have a discussion about how much that magnitude is. even now, there is some additional growth that is faster than gdp growth. one thing that came out with our discussion with cbo is that 0.1% of gdp growth results in about $300 billion of additional revenue to the government. this is not perfectly linear. if that were to be roughly true, less than 0.5% of average growth would result in about $1.2 trillion which is the statutory goals. i am not suggesting that is an alternative to doing the work. but it underscores the we should

attempt to create an environment to maximize growth. the most constructive thing we can do to maximize economic growth is major reform of the corporate and individual tax codes. i do not think there is dispute about that. there are many approaches one could take. if we were to reduce the value of all of the deductions currently available to individuals and had an equivalent reduction in rates, everyone agrees that would be pro-growth. my understanding was that when you look at this exercise of reducing deductions and credits, if you did it with a roughly 10

to one ratio. for every dollar dedicated to lowering rates, there was a dollar a dedicated to deficits. that was about the ratio. do you recommend we take an approach like that? should we do that kind of simplification and lowering of rates? >> i think he will run into some of the problems that senator baucus brought up. that is why we presented two options. if you. of all the tax expenditures, if you do create enough resources -- if you do get rid of all the tax expenditures, you do create enough resources to generate $1 trillion of additional revenue that could go to reduce the deficit. if you are going to go back and keep some of the tax expenditures like the earned

income credit, some of you may want to go to a credit for mortgage debts. some people might want to go for the credit for charitable contributions. anything you keep the issue a smaller pie to work with. that one to 10 ratio will not work anymore. >> does everybody agree that if a package were to include net tax revenue, it ought to come in the context of reform that lowers marginal rates? >> yes. >> let me move to help care -- care.car i think it is unanimous that is

driving the debt and deficit crisis. our medical plan drives the health care sector. there is a private-sector component, but it is a reaction to it and fax in the context of what medicare does. medicare is the real driver of the health care picture. do you agree with that? >> yes. there are instances where medicare has done significant reforms and the private sector has followed. >> medicare is one driver of the deficit problem. it is not the only one. >> i said health care and meant to say it is the primary driver.

meaningful structural reform means getting away from the four service. to me, that is the heart of the design. -- meaningful structural reform means getting away from fee-for- service. what we have is a committee in washington that specifies the price will pay for every medical procedure, the circumstances under which it will pay, the people permission to perform it, where they are allowed to perform ait. it is a completely government- controlled mechanism. it does not account for whether the outcome is successful or whether the procedure needs to be repeated. is that a fair characterization of fee-for-service? >> what i said earlier it is that we are going to have to move from paying for quantity to

moving to quality. i think you are saying something similar. >> this creates inefficiencies, perverse incentives. the solution has to be to get away from this. are all of you confident -- >> i did want to make an observation. we do recognize that medicare has significant problems. that is why we are suggesting it be changed. at the same time, we have explained that we do not move so quickly in getting one in establishing the other that we lose all reforms. >> as long as we leave a significant fee-for-service component in place, i worry about whether the reforms are capable of defeating the

mechanism and perverse effects of the fee-for-service. the think it is possible to devise a plan that would transition completely away from that to support model that is designed to ensure the most vulnerable people have coverage that they need? >> i will say it seems to me you cannot do that. you have to go with some transition to get it done. i am not an expert. practically, i do not think it could be done now under this circumstance. >> i am not suggesting that. i appreciate the response. >> i agree with the senator.

we believe competition on a well-designed exchange between comprehensive health care plans would win out in a fair competition. there are parts of the country where it probably is not feasible to do that right now. that is why we think there ought to be a transition. it is much less scary for seniors to say that if you like what you have got, you can stay with it. you will be offered something that is likely better. >> pilot projects in the affordable health care act have a good examples of experiments

to do what you are talking about. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland. >> i want to join my colleagues in thanking you all for your terrific service to this country in different capacities. mr. bowles, thank you for recognizing the actions of the congress and are taken -- have already taken have achieved savings. that is not far from the targets that all of you have set in your work. the major difference is that you had a higher part of that coming from defense cuts. is that not the case? >> we divided hours between security and non-security.

ours betweend hou security and non-security. >> many of us view of your approaches as balanced frameworks. i want to put the discretionary pieces to the side. we have come close to overachieving your targets in some cases. in simpson-bowles, you had about $500 million gross cuts in medicare and medicaid. you took some savings out of that. it was around $400 billion. on the revenue, i want people to understand. what you had in both of your plans was genuine tax-score will revenue. you assumed we would have about $800 billion. that is equivalent to the amount

of money that would be generated by allowing the rates for the folks at the top to elapse. you had proposals for tax reform and other things to generate another $1.2 trillion. >> that is exactly right. >> when we are comparing that to the current policy baseline, that is about $2.2 trillion tax cuts compared to current law -- revenue increase, excuse me. you come in about the same place on the current law baseline, correct? i take it from looking at both of your reports that you would

want tax reform to be done in a way that maintains the current tax code. >> we worked very hard to do that. >> ours is slightly more progressive. >> you have both suggested you may want to do two-step processes with a down payment and then something else. you say you would include $450 billion of what you call a tax expenditure savings. i assume you see that is something you could do for deficit reduction purposes and not necessarily at the same time as tax reform. the one she picked out you think could beat rifle shots -- the ones that you have picked out are the ones you think could be rifle shots.

your tax reform ideas would generate $2.2 trillion. let me talk for a minute about jobs in the economy. the congressional budget office has said over 1/3 of our current deficit today is a result of the fact that we have a weak economy. we're not operating at full potential. we all agree we need to get the economy moving again. dr. rivlin, you pointed out your plan had about $650 million in payroll relief. you said you would go bigger than the president's job plan. do you believe something like that is necessary at this time? >> yes. i think we are in danger of slipping into stagnation and should do something about it.

>> do you agree it would be a bad idea for every working american to see an increase in their payroll tax relative to last year? >> i think was about $240 billion in the president's plan. it is hard for me as a fiscal conservative to say this, but i could support a continuation of the payroll tax deduction for another year for employees. it is very hard for me to understand how a $600 deduction for the employer on a temporary basis is going to be enough to get them to hire a full-time, permanent employee. i do not think i would support

the payroll tax deduction for the employer. i could see supporting it for the employee if we could pay for it. >> i would not argue if you followed his suggestion. what he is talking about is certainly better than nothing. >> dr. rivlin, you have testified many times and stated you thought the affordable care act introduced a number of very important innovations. i agreed we need to do more in terms of modernizing the medicare system to focus more on the value of care and quantity of care versus quality of care.

if you are congress -- confident in market forces driving down prices and your argument is that medicare is driving those market forces, why would you need a fail-safe mechanism? why would you need to say if you do not achieve the savings goal, you have to have gdp plus 1? it is not keeping track of the market, is that just a cost transfer to medicare beneficiaries? >> i am not absolutely certain how the markets will work. we have seen in the limited market of medicare advantage that in some places, they work well and come in under fee-for- service. in other places, they do not. we think this is a much more robust plan than medicare

advantage. the reason you want the fail- safe is so that congress will no what they are going to spend going forward on medicare. it is not going to grow faster than this. it is a defined contribution. we think that is very useful. there might be some cost shifting. then you could arrange it so it is not on the lower income people. it is cost shifting on to people who can better afford it. >> if we're confident the market forces are going to work wthe way intended, i do not think there would be the need for a backup. i do know members of congress and those on the federal

employee health care plan, different clans did -- different plans bid. we would bere why rub proposing something different for medicare beneficiaries. we announced cbo to take a look at these -- we asked cdo to take a look at these. it was not the second lowest bidder. just having competition among the managed care plans came out to about $9 billion. adding in the other mechanism to queue up to a total of about $25 billion. it is clear from these numbers that we are going to need to do

other things. this is not a panacea according to cbo's numbers for dealing with the medicare challenge. we need to look at other innovative ideas, including some of the things talked about today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> questions have concluded. prior to senator simpson's departure, he did mention mr. bull's might have something to present without objection. i was certainly yield you a couple of minutes if you have something else to present. >> i can do it very quickly. i tried to think if i were in your shoes or the go-between in what became the simpson-bowles plan, it was possible for you all to get to the $3.9 trillion deficit reduction given where

your positions are today. i think it is. i think you can get this done. i will briefly go through the arithmetic. you have to flesh out the policies. if you look at where the tip of sides stand -- the two sides stand for listing in the middle, the proposals for discretionary spending in addition to the $1.3 trillion in spending cuts already done, you are between $250 billion and $400 billion of additional cuts for discretionary. i assumed we could reach a compromise of an additional $300 billion on discretionary spending cuts.

on health care, you are between $500,000,000,000.700 $50 billion in additional health care cuts -- you were between $500 billion and $750 billion in additional health care cuts. that is about $100 billion that comes not on the provider side. that would balance it out. on mandatory cuts, you are around $400 billion. i settled on $300 billion we had enough cuts to get you there. you agreed on cpi of

approximately $200 billion. the total left me a little short. that gets me to revenue. on revenue, i took the number of the speaker of the house agreed to. i was able to generate $800 billion from the speakers recommendation. if you did that without dynamic scoring -- on dynamic scoring, trust and verify. if it comes, you will use it to reduce rates or the deficit. if he had the $800 billion -- add the $800 billion, i think you have something you might be able to work with the democrats on. that would give you an

additional $2.6 trillion added to the $1.3 trillion you have done. that would be $3.9 trillion. i think that would create excitement in the country. that would go a long way toward building of confidence we really could stand up to our problems. >> thank you, mr. bowles. he certainly created some excitement with the president, i think. do not necessarily believe everything you read and hear about the proceedings of this committee. i want to thank every single member of the panel on behalf of the committee your presence and more importantly for the entirety of what you have lent to the body of work to try to address a very real crisis we face.

thank you for that. your testimony was sobering and helpful. it was also timely. all members have three business days to submit questions for the record. i would ask our witnesses to respond promptly to the questions. members should submit their questions by the close of business on thursday, november 3. with no other business before the committee, without objection, the joint committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> steny hoyer on the efforts to reduce the deficit and the 2012

presidential campaign. >> reading the right books is helpful. reading the wrong books can be an education. it is good to see what can be done wrong to avoid those faults yourself. >> she spent time as a senior editor at simon and schuster. >> publishers are desperate for a good, new book to publish and an exciting new author. there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> the house is in recess next week. the senate is in session. members gavel back again on monday for general speeches. they will return to work on legislation to repeal the 3%

government withholding on contractor payments. a procedural vote is settled for 5:30 p.m. eastern. also possible work on 2012 federal spending. you can follow the senate live on c-span2 when members return on monday. on thursday, republicans on the committee for oversight voted to issue a subpoena for internal white house documents related to the solyndra loan guarantee. the vote was 14 to 9. solyndra is a bankrupt solar manufacturing company received money from the department of energy in 2009. this is one hour and 45 minutes.

the purpose of this meeting is to authorize two subpoenas to the white house and office of the vice president for documents related to the loan guarantee to solyndra. this is only the second time this subcommittee has considered a resolution authorizing a subpoena in this congress. earlier this year, omb failed to cooperate with our investigation. we put off the vote on the subpoena because we were assured that engaging in a dialogue would resolve all the problems without the need to resort to a subpoena. that was just a stalling tactic. we were forced to issue a subpoena several weeks later. unfortunately, the same

uncooperative conduct continued. it has necessitated today's vote. on september 1, 2011, this committee requested documents from the white house counsel related to the solyndra loan guarantee. specifically, the kennedy -- committee asked the white house to produce all documents related to solyndra and its investors. two weeks later, the white house began to produce selected communications the revealed senior advisers in the west wing were monitoring and discussing a solyndra. based on these documents, we sent a second request on october 5 for all internal communications relating to solyndra. we requested they engage in a dialogue with us. we wanted a dialogue on how best to manage the production of documents. instead, the white house

counsel's office waited until october 14 to respond. they informed us in a letter that the opinion of the white house is that the committee did not need to see such documents. on october 18, the committee staff informed the counsel's office that it needed to invoke a valid privilege or produce the documents. to start aagain dialogue, the white house counsel's office refused to engage in any discussion. one week later on october 25, the white house counsel sent another non-responsive letter to the committee began refusing to produce documents because in the opinion of the administration the committee did not need to see such documents. only after repeated failed attempts to engage the white house did the committee notified the white house and administration that it intended to notice a business meeting to discuss the possible issuance of subpoenas to obtain the

requested information. this finally got the attention of the white house counsel. we met with her yesterday. unfortunately, the white house was unable or unwilling to answer even the most basic questions. do you have any response of documents? are you going to be exerting executive privilege? quantity of documents to you have? and you conducted internal investigation to inform us as to what types of documents you have? without answers to these basic questions, it is nearly impossible to limit the scope of our request. as the president himself has stated, the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosures or because errors may be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears. i regret we have reached this point.

the committee has been investigating this for over eight months and has clearly established the legitimacy of our investigation. two of the three companies to receive funding have filed for bankruptcy protection. yesterday was stated in congressional testimony that the loan guarantee program has been badly mismanaged. he testified the loan guarantee program could not readily demonstrate how it resolved or mitigated relative risks prior to granting loan guarantees. this is extremely troubling. we have a right to know who was involved, what decisions were made, and why. at this point time, i am not confident we will have a good faith response from the white house without issuing a subpoena. the committee does not take this action lightly. voting to authorize a subpoena is a necessary step in carrying

out this committee's constitutional obligations. we cannot allow the executive branch and its highest level to pick and choose what they will produce or whether they will produce anything at all. keeping documents confidential because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosures or because failures might be revealed is inexcusable. the american people demand more. we have a constitutional duty to pursue this important investigation of the doe loan guarantee program to further our legitimate role in conducting oversight over how the executive branch has spent the taxpayers' money. the committee needs to better understand what the white house involvement was with regards to solyndra's loan guarantee. if the white house has nothing to hide, they should cooperate with the investigation and readily produce the documents.

i believe the president owes it to the american people to explain in detail what happened to their tax money. i now recognize my distinguished colleague from colorado for five minutes. >> this is a sad day for the subcommittee. in my 15 years on this subcommittee, we have forged a strong bipartisan commission of thorough and meaningful investigations. that could have been the case with the solyndra investigation. we have a $525 million loan guarantee made with taxpayer funds that went bad. we need to learn the circumstances of the original deal and the refinancing. we need all of the facts, witnesses, and documents. after seeing the conduct of this investigation, i do not believe they share this goal. in the last hearing in this subcommittee where there were e- mails by the treasury employees

suggesting the loan restructuring be sent to the department of justice, the majority only brought the treasury department in. they never give anyone the opportunity to find out why the doe did not give an opinion from justice. they resisted our efforts to put the legal opinion of justice into the record. i agree white house documents should be produced. the administration has provided this committee with over 800,000 pages of documents -- let me try that again. 80,000 pages of documents. the departments of energy and treasury and the office of management and budget have all produced documents on the matter. they have all sent witnesses to testify before the committee. the white house has also produced almost 1000 pages of documents regarding communications with solyndra and investors in the company.

i believe the majority action in moving forward today was the subpoena resolution as an act of irresponsible partisanship. the committee has every right to seek and obtain relevant information from the white house to advance its legitimate oversight needs. a subpoena to the white house is a serious step in a congressional investigation. it is a step that should only be taken after alternative avenues have been exhausted. we clearly do not face those circumstances today. in contrast, a subpoena to the white house has the potential to reach communications all the way up to the president's desk. that is why it is the longstanding practice of congress and this subcommittee to engage in meaningful discussions with the white house to attempt mutual accommodation when congressional oversight needs confront executive branch equities.

i am unaware of any subpoena to the white house ever from the committee on energy and commerce under previous chairs, both democrat and republican. with respect to the subject of today's resolution to subpoena the white house, the starting point was the committee's request to the white house for documents relating to the solyndra loan guarantee. in response to this request, the white house proposed the committee narrow its request to the following areas. the influence of campaign contributions on the decision as to whether or not to grant or restructure the loan guarantee. involvement by the white house and the decision of whether or not to make a conditional commitment to solyndra for the loan guarantee. involvement by the white house in the decision on whether or not to close the solyndra loan

guarantee. involvement by the white house in the division -- decision to restructure the loan guarantee. the white house never said they wanted to keep documents private and embarrassed people. the white house never said they did not want to produce documents if the implicated certain donors. the offer to produce all of these categories of documents. -- they offered to produce all of these categories of documents. when i received the media advisory late last night, it says despite the bipartisan outrage to avoid a subpoena, the white house failed to turn over requested documents. it has a quote from the chairman that the white house still refuses to turn over internal solyndra-related communications. i sat in that meeting yesterday. mr. waxman sought in the meeting yesterday.

our staff sat there with the majority and white house. the white house repeatedly said they had turned over documents and were willing to turn over more. mr. chairman, last night mr. waxman and i wrote a letter to you and mr. stern's respectfully asking you to postpone the date of this subpoena issuance in an attempt to continue to work with the white house. unanimous consent to put copy of that letter into the record. i implore you to please post on the steering -- postponed this hearing so that we can continue to work with the white house and avoid this unprecedented step of subpoena. >> both documents will be part of the record. we respectfully disagree with the ranking member. the chair reminds members that

all opening statements will be made part of the record. and recognize the distinguished gentleman from michigan. >> i do wish it had not come to this. oversight is a core congressional responsibility. it has a proud tradition in this committee under republicans and democrats. sometimes in the course of an investigation, we find ourselves unable to secure the necessary evidence. house rules give us the power of subpoena to compel cooperation in these instances. it is a tool we use sparingly and only as a last resort. today is our last resort. we began reviewing the loan guarantees made to solyndra by the federal government all the way back last february. several news accounts identified problems with the company. industry experts questioned whether their business model was

sustainable. solyndra was not chosen at random. we had reason to believe taxpayer dollars. the areas. we had -- we have recently taxpayer dollars could be at risk. we had a responsibility to look into how the loan was made. we have had eight months of frustration. there is a natural and appropriate tension between the legislative and executive branches. what we have seen in the course of this investigation is downright obstruction. most of the documents have been highly technical. they never mentioned that producing those documents was like extracting a tooth without anesthesia. it was unnecessarily painful and time-consuming. last night, the department of energy turned over several boxes of documents, probably sharing them with the press, long before

develop -- delivering them to our investigators. these documents are not in response to the request today. they are long overdue in response to requests we made months ago. many documents were produced only after being compelled by a subpoena to omb. we repeatedly reached out to the administration. administration lawyers feigned willingness to cooperate while steadfastly refusing to deliver the documents needed to get to the bottom of the solyndra mess. we began the investigation 8.5 months ago. the administration has put up roadblocks at every turn. we were forced to contemplate a subpoena before. we did everything we could to avoid that outcome. after months of negotiations and broken agreements, we had no choice but to subpoena omb's

record. we had to issue the subpoena over the objection of every member of the minority. we cannot get to the bottom of this mess with top white house corporation -- without white house cooperation. they promised to deliver something but no details on basic questions. what does the white house have and when will they let us see it? yesterday, the chairman and i met to try to broker an agreement. the ranking members joined us for that meeting. the white house offered the open-ended pledges given to us before the omb subpoenas. we still have not received all of the documents from omb. they are using the same tactics now. we have no choice but to expect the same outcome and move forward with the subpoena accordingly. last night after the house

recess, a house counsel's office contacted our investigators with a last-minute attempt to narrow the scope of our request. the white house made no commitment to produce documents. the lawyers did express a willingness to conduct a search of the internal communications for only the items in the category they identified. it is encouraging but insufficient. this is the sort of negotiation that should occur after the initial request for documents and not on the eve of a subpoena. any sign of cooperation is better late than never. we fully intend to take last night's proposal into consideration as we refine the scope of the subpoena and work with the white house on document production. with the solyndra loan, we smelled a rat from thes start. the investigation established we were on the right track. red flags were ignored with the

loan guarantee and a restructuring white house officials havd knowledge of the loan and were pressured to make the loan. we made our case for the need for the documents. the white house has refused to produce them. we have no choice but to authorize the issuance of a subpoena to compel them. i wish it had not come to this. but it has. i hope members on both sides of the aisle will join me today to assert our authority and issue the subpoena. i yield back. >> i recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. waxman. >> i agree with the statement that our ranking member made. we should not be having this business meeting today. a congressional subpoena to the white house is a serious step. it should be the last resort.

it is justified only if an hon. joe -- it is justified only if an unbridgeable impasse has been reached. i never issued a subpoena to the white house. i sat down with president bush's white house counsel and worked out an arrangement that met the legitimate needs while preserving the president's prerogatives. that is what we should be doing today. that is what this committee has always done. john dingell never issued a subpoena to the white house either. he always worked it out. president obama's council met sith chairman upton and stern'

study. she said the document request is so broad it would include everything from the logistics of the president's trip to solyndra to the president's personal blackberry messages. she offered to revise internal white house communications voluntarily without a subpoena if the committee would engage in good faith negotiations to narrow its request. the white house council specifically offered to provide the committee with documents that show whether the white house intervened on behalf of campaign contributors and what involvement the white house had in decisions to issue or restructure the loan. that is a lot different from what we just heard from the republican leadership. they said the white house said they would only pick and choose what to produce or whether they would produce anything at all. these are central issues the committee is investigating.

the chairmen refused her offer. apparently the committee really wants a confrontation with the president and not information for an investigation. the wonder the public polls this congress in such low regard. our focus should be on jobs and rebuilding the economy not manufacturing controversies with our president. this is an important investigation. it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the committee is abusing its powers. with every hearing, it looks more like a big process a partisan stunt. in june, we invited the deputy director of omb to testify with just four days' notice. he was not available the day the committee wanted. he said he could testify any other day.

the committee held a hearing with a chair. in september, the ranking member and i asked to invite the solyndra executives to testify. when the sea of testified, the republicans publicly humiliated him region when the ceo testified, the republicans publicly humiliated him for asserting his constitutional rights. they accused the department of energy of violating the law but refused to allow anyone from the department to testify to defend the agency. the republican majority resisted releasing exculpatory information. today we're being asked to give chairman adopted a blank check to subpoena the white house needed to give chairman up in -- today we're being asked to give chairman upton and blank check to subpoena the white house.

it is an unprecedented departure from the practices of this committee. we have heard there is no other choice. i think there is another choice. there is another choice reasonable people would take to get the documents. if that is insufficient, we could always go to a subpoena. instead, we want to go to the subpoena first. later we will see what requests are out of bounds with the white house raises them. i think a subpoena should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. this is not the case we see today. we are entitled to information from the white house to advance our legitimate oversight needs, not for a fishing expedition by the republicans. i think it is sad to see what is going on today. >> the gentleman's time has expired.

the chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from texas. >> i was saddened to hear the comments of ranking member waxman. we can argue over conclusions and interpretations of facts and documents. we should not argue over whether the american peopleranking membd against the initial subpoena. i believe every member of the minority party did that, based on his statement. it appears that he is going to vote against this issuance of the subpoena. that is sad. again, to be have a long history of four together -- we have a long history of working together to get the facts. we are here today because since trying to get the fax from the to -- to get those facts from

the obama white house. they have refused to cooperate. that is a fact. that is not a supposition. we want to know what changed in january of 2009. the bush administration department of energy made a decision not to proceed with the solyndra loan. two months later, the obama administration department of energy made a 180 degree turn and not only decided to find this particular loan guarantee, but they decided to expedite its and required whether the

president and vice-president might participate in some type of a full opportunity at the announcement. what happened? what changed? that is why we are here today, to get those facts. it's took chairman upton making a personal phone call to the chief of the white house to even get a meeting yesterday that they participated in with the council of the white house. in that meeting, the white house has not claimed executive privilege or that the subcommittee is not entitled. they just have various reasons not to produce them. omb has produced documents. the department treasury has produced documents. the department of energy has produced documents.

the private sector has produced documents. until six or 7:00 last night, the white house said done nothing but issue press releases. last week they introduced independent counsel. participating for almost a year. we now have a billion dollars of taxpayer money has gone down the tubes. we know there have been repeated contacts within the white house from outside forces that were very active. from various officials. we do not have an e-mail. we do not have a document. that is why we are here today. we can argue over what the documents mean. we will. we should not argue over whether the american people have a right to what the facts are.

this has tainted the entire alternative energy program. i happen to be a supporter of loan guarantees for alternative energy. i was chairman when this was authorized. we now have people on my side of the aisle making serious recommendations to terminate the entire program. it is not being well run. we need to get the facts. to get them, we need the documents. the only way to get them is to subpoena them. we have the authority delegating to get those documents. i would hope that once the white house receives them that they will comply. then we can work together to determine what if anything can be done to prevent future activities from occurring.

>> thank you. >> i did not roll off the cabbage wagon yesterday. i was chairman of this committee for 16 years. we always got the information on the white house. they required that exercise a certain amount of patience and not that we come in with resolutions like this, which gives power to rival that ofwe think this should be properly aired. but i use the word "properly."

i sometimes threaten the use of the subpoenaed during my time as chairman. i was always able to negotiate with the administration. we consider this only as a last resort. it racist executive privileges, -- it raises a strong possibility of a defense of executive privilege, an area that has much area for them to lose power. we worked with the white house. we had very few confrontations over whether subpoenas would be issued. the democrats ordered them almost overwhelmingly that were suggested by the republicans when they ran the subcommittee. i have been told of the efforts have been made by the majority democrats.

and yet administration. we do not see it that way over here. it appears that the republicans are having a hard time understanding what the meaning of the word "yes" is. understand? getting information is a careful work that has to be done. why have we not? they provided tens of thousands of pages of documents without being issued a subpoena. they refuse to deliver nothing more on the request for this

committee. the subcommittee heard jointly. they invited solyndra officials. then we also heard from treasury officials. to we had no background in energy. -- they had no background in energy. they testified they and a decision making authority. little permanent testimony? i am concerned with the president we're setting today. issuing a blank check subpoena. this is without any real basis of misbehavior. i have said earlier i only use subpoenas as a last resort. we always brought the moment to discuss the business of the community including what information we want, what would be done in the hearings, while investigations, and whether earliest. i hope the members will take a

minute to think about what effect this will have on future subpoenas on either republicans or democrats. and when either control the white house. i have not agreed ofttimes with republican presidents. they serve live is chairman. -- that served while i was chairman. i have respect for them. i have respect for the white house. the process of this committee so far has showed a great inclination toward haphazard behavior and shows a lack of respect for the president. the base is conducting an event here that forces us to this conclusion, that this is politically motivated. information has been offered by the white house, more or less formally, to deliver what you

want in the wake of papers. mike advice to you is to take that opportunity and let us get these back to the point where they are bipartisan rather than have they become vast haggles about what we're going to do. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. business meeting. relating to the stimulus. the said committee started this nine months ago. we have been patient. today the white house has refused to give the subcommittee any documents relating to the loan guarantee to solyndra carried the american people deserve answers. did they footed the bill.

we know the white house was closely involved in monitoring the loan application review. we need to learn how extensive the white house involvement was in approving the loan and whether they place political pressure to approve it. at the end of the day, $535 million of taxpayer money has been lost on the solyndra loan guarantee. there are questions about how this was allowed to happen that need to be answered by the white house. as a longtime critic, i will vote in favor of the subpoena to make sure it complies with the investigations. i yield back the balance of my time. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> this is the way it is going to be.

yes, we need to determine what happened with solyndra so the ome program can be more effective in future. the white house has a marching with the committee. -- has been working with the committee to produce all the relevant materials to the solyndra loan guarantee and the white house counsel to produce a more targeted request that addresses the issues relevant investigation. this is a majority that will not take yes for an answer. why not you asked for more documents relating to the place of his birth or some numbers? it seems this is the political trend that we're going to.

it is a real shame. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy is recognized for one minute. >> they called it a fishing expedition. now they're seeking a tarnished. they accuse them of hypocrisy. none of this is true. why rush? @ think they had some small -- i think they had some smoke and mirrors. no loan can be guaranteed unless they can get paid back. if it is not broken, and the taxpayers want to know why the money is gone.

this must go on and not be delayed any further. nothing we do is more important than protecting taxpayer money. we'll back. -- i yield back. >> i respectfully disagree with the characterization by the majority that the executive branch has not cooperated. this committee has made a formal document requests. to the treasury department, to the office of management and budget. over 80,000 pages have been produced. they have a review of documents. these of the representatives we

have had. i do not know how you can see how the a ministration has not cooperating. i think the committee has the responsibility to be straightforward. i regret that they have not done so today. that is to the detriment of figuring out the matter. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> i think he for the recognition. they say this is unprecedented activity. it is unnecessary had the white house not practiced pay the mantra of "delay, delay, delay." this would have been a one day story.

the white house has fought every step of the way. this seems to be the management plan. the ranking member said it is no way to do this. they might do well to follow the counsel. the recommended when you have a problem to get it out and getting out early. the white house has refused to assert executive privilege or that they might have documents that would be covered. the white house might have been much more cooperative. that is the real shame. i yield back the balance of my time. >> you're recognized for one minute. >> thank you. i'm disappointed on the way this investigation is being conducted. i agree.

we must investigate. the unprecedented action will be conducive on both sides. our former chair, this program was traded in 2005 when he was but chair of the committee. we ought to have this available. we ought to see what happens with this investigation. we could be doing better. today's hearing is more about the generating since they stopped headlines instead of living of to our constitutional authority. my opposition has nothing to do

with protecting the president our politics. i oppose the subpoena because it is an abuse of process. let's get the investigation started and start turning congress to do something that we really do not need. today the committee is like during chun to the sharks. -- like throwing chum to the sharks. i yield back my time. >> the lady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> and a 2008 presidential debate, they received a question about executive privilege. president obama responded "richard nixon mounted similar arguments. that is not how we operate. we are a nation of laws and not men and women. you know, that is the precedent i do not mind living with as

president of the united states." since she first began back in february, we worked diligently with our friends across the aisle. we tried to be cooperative and throw in conducting oversight. they would deem it were the of responsibility they have given us. however, this administration has delayed the release of pertinent information that is required in order to conduct a comprehensive review. the american people have a right to know. they expect this to get to the bottom of the solyndra issue. i yield back. >> the gentle lady from the bridge and islands is recognized for one minute. -- from the virgin islands is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. the white house has agreed to

cooperate on this investigation. they have been true to their word. executive privilege has been exerted. this president has done nothing more than that. i have to ask a question. what is different in the case of president obama? we have a responsibility to investigate. we should continue with what we have. this is not the priority. they need jobs. this is what we must turn our attention to. while we may be able to wait to get more information on solyndra, the people of this country are demonstrating they cannot wait. >> the gentle lady is recognized for one minute. >> i yield my time. >> shields her time. -- she yields her time. >> thank you.

i am saddened by what we're doing today. it is premature. i support a full investigation of solyndra. the fact is they administration is cooperating with house investigators at this time. they provided more than 80,000 pages of documents. the ministrations turned over -- the administration turned over 15,000 pages of documents to the committee this week. at a time when the american people want to see us working together and to put country before party, it seems like this is nothing more than a

political gimmick. the administration is working with this committee. should it stop, i would support this. they are fully participating and cooperating. i think the investigation should continue and include anyone with any knowledge about any of this. let's get to the bottom of it. let's not have these votes just political gain for someone. it is time for us to come together and work together and put country before party. is an gentleman's time expired. you are recognized. >> thank you. this is a serious investigation of a loan program for renewable energy administered by the department of energy. this was modified by the stimulus bill in section 17 05. it allowed for non money down and no-doc them loans. that surely contributed to this solyndra fiasco. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when given an opportunity several months ago

when a subpoena was issued to the omb for records. they voted against it. we received very valuable records. now they have another opportunity. they have an opportunity today to vote yes or no. they have been entirely necessary. this is an important investigation. let's be teammates. the american taxpayer deserves nothing less. i yield back. >> you're recognized for one minute. >> thank you. the $535 million, you would think that the white house would be willing to operate and give us the information that we have been requesting.

from the very beginning, when our committee started looking into the solyndra scandal, at the obama administration has failed to comply. they failed to live up to the very transparency that president obama tried to make a hallmark of his campaign. the taxpayer money got lost. we may have been able to protect the taxpayer money. here we are again after a partisan attempt to block us from getting the information we already got that is been so important. now they're trying to get more information that the white house will still not give us. we will have given you enough. they do not get to decide that. in the white house is not above the law. there's taxpayer money still atlas -- still at risk. the white house has played a heavy in this. i do not know why they're not complying today. what do you need? they are still trying to doit is time for them to come clean and

finally get to the bottom of this scandal with solyndra. >> you are recognized for one minute. >> thank you. this subcommittee has been investigating the solyndra affair for months. the investigation has been slow and delayed. you cannot lose half a billion dollars of taxpayer money and not provide answers. i hope everyone had shared in the sky. apparently not. and there's nothing to hide, then why hide? i am confused because there seems to be so many people who are unwilling to seek of those answers. i'm curious the spirit of they have the ability to do this within the resistance we have been met with. this is unacceptable. seriously and show some initiative to get to the bottom.

-- i yield back. i yelled back. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you. the white house is saying they want to cooperate. they want to provide all of the you are saying no. the reason you're saying no is back from the minute you took over in january, you have had a concerted effort to destroy the renewable energy program in the budget. this was reduced by 70%. in april, when you brought the government to the brink of shut down, you successfully rescinded $18 billion for renewable but let these 22 billion for nuclear loan

guarantees. that is what this is about. this is just a continuing pattern where the nuclear industry once this competitive wind and solar industry to grow. we have not had any announcement guarantee for this other company or for two nuclear power plants. the stock above this. let's examine whether the economics work at all. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, and i appreciate your allowing me this one minute. frankly, i am one of many on this side that have worried that the actions of the administration in providing loan -- well, not loans, but just massive grants to solyndra and

sun power or cronyism or something, it has endangered renewables, more than any rise in budget. -- annie ryan -- any ryan budget. this creates the perception that this is an unstable, corrupt industry, and i do not think that is a fair label, although there are several examples of evidence of that. we have to make sure that our investigation is complete and that we have these appropriate documents, and i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> cooperation, cooperation,

but there is no cooperation. two years ago, we asked, and still, we wait. i would like all information on this matter to be public. half a billion dollars of taxpayer money gone. $75 million subordinated making the tax payers second-rate or second class taxpayers and in my mind a violation of the law, and the american people need to know who is involved in the decisionmaking process, who knew what when, and when did they know it. it seems the subpoena is the only way to truly fine of this situation. i yield back. >> it appears to me there are no other further statements. we ask the clerk to report. >> a resolution offered. be it resolved by the subcommittee on oversight and investigation that upon the adoption of this resolution, the chairman may authorize an issue

subpoenas to both, 1, william daley, white house chief of staff, or the appropriate custodian of records, white house, and, two, bruce reed, a staff of the vice president, where appropriate custodian of records, the office of the vice president, relating to the committee's investigation of the following matter. a loan guarantee made to solyndra, inc, on september 2, 2009. this resolution is adopted pursuant to the rules of the u.s. house of representatives. >> mr. chairman? >> the lady is recognized. >> pursuant to rule 16, clause four, i move that they posed

consideration of the resolution, authorizing subpoenas to the white house regarding the cylindrical loan guarantee until november 15, 2011. >> the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this morning, we have been haggling around about whether or not the white house has been responsive to the committee requests for documents, and we all agree that the subpoena is unprecedented in this committee, and if there is any way to get the white house to cooperate with us and to provide the documents, that would be the very best results, both in terms of getting the evidence we want without getting involved in a prolonged court battle with the white house over executive privilege, and it would also help us get the evidence we need in this investigation. i would just like to take a

couple of minutes to identify what has happened, because to be honest, i think there has been some real confusion as to what requests were made to the white house and to the rest of the executive branch and when they were made. this committee's first document request to the white house related to the solyndra guarantee was september 1 of this year, approximately two months ago. it asks for all communications between the white house and solyndra -- let me ask for that again, it asked for all communication between the white house and solyndra and the investors, including be administrators, employees, agents, principles, or any other persons operating on behalf of those investors. the white house, mr. chairman, responded to the request document production on september

13, september 30, and october 7, totaling 968 pages. now, there have been subsequent communications between this committee and the white house. the white house has asserted, and i do not completely agree with the white house position on this, but they asserted that many of the documents have been produced by agencies were also documents that had been included in the september 1 request, and so there have been a number of back-and-forth communications about those documents, and now, mr. chairman, the minority was there, the majority was there, and the white house as well as many staffers, in which i heard the white house council clearly say that she believed this was a legitimate investigation. she believed that documents relating to anything about this

loan guarantee were appropriate, including, she said, about documents involving communications with political donors and others, and she volunteered to work with committee staff to further narrow the scope. and then later, yesterday, after many conversations between our staff and the white house, as i said in my opening statement, they offered to produce more documents and the four areas that i delineated, and it was delineated in the letter that mr. waxman and i send it to you last night, so it seems to me, mr. chairman, that the white house is attempting to comply, and for my part, with the members on this side of the aisle, we would urge the white house to go overboard in cooperating with this committee's investigation, but it is inaccurate, if anyone

intends to leave the impression that the white house documents were requested eight months ago. that is incorrect. they were requested two months ago, and there have been good faith efforts to produce documents. secondly, mr. chairman, i have reviewed the proposed subpoena. we got that from your staff late last night to the white house, and it is a very, very broad subpoena. it says "documents to be produced, documents in possession of the executive office of the present relating to the $535 million loan guarantee to solyndra, inc., including but not limited to notes, memoranda, and all drafts of such documents. my concern is two fold. since you are dealing with a very broad document request, there may be many documents that are irrelevant to this committee's investigation, which would slow us down and

trying to figure out exactly what happened with the cylinder alone. the second concern i have as of the white house assert executive privilege, and we end up in court, this is further delayed, so what i have done in my motion, that's the latest subpoena until november 15. that is two days before secretary chu is to come in and testify before this committee. let's work together to the documents that are relevance of the week in question the secretary on them, and then at the white house refuses, we can come back and look at it at that point. that would be my suggestion. >> the gentle lady yelled back her balance of the time. we recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. i would start the last word and i rise in strong opposition of this amendment.

we have been trying to get information for months. we have sent a number of letters. i would note that we said last week that we would want something this week. bell i did not speak with daily, i left a very detailed message. just to see if we could get this resolved.

we had a meeting yesterday. they knew that we were going to sit down with the republican members of 4:30 yesterday afternoon to make a final decision as to whether we would move ahead today. and though they had indicated yes to the morning that they may be willing to put something on paper, not necessarily a letter, 4:30 came and went. 5:00 came and went. i spoke with mr. dingell last night and indicated our frustration with the full knowledge of the white house knew we were sitting down at 4:30, and they knew that for hours. i see that not as a sign of good faith. again, as i said in my opening statement, it was about 6:45 last night when we received a

written response from the white house, and that have no sense of timing when we would save some production. i would say when we went through the exercise last july of seeking the subpoenaed then, it was only that that finally began to see some cooperation to provide documents, which led us to where we are today. i am a former white house official. we have bad stories from time to time, and when does happen, frankly, from the white house perspective, it is best to get them resolved and get them over with versus the drip, drip, drip of bad news. we do not want to delay this investigation anymore. we have seen happen dollars billion of taxpayer money out of the door, and we are likely now

-- we're going to be signing more documents of other loan guarantees that have gone bust, as well. it has played the whole issue of bipartisanship, and it is time we get to the bottom of this whole mess, and that means we need cooperation from the white house. we have not seen it so far, and that is why we are moving forward with the subpoena resolution, and i would ask both sides to oppose this. i move back. actually, i would move to table a motion that is before us. >> your question is on the motion to table a motion to postpone. all of those in favor, say aye. the ayes have it.

the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. gerry? mr. cherry votes aye. mr. sullivan. mr. murphy. mr. burgess votes aye. mrs. mireck. mr. gingry. mr. sculley is. mr. gardner. mr. griffith. mr. barton. mr. upton. mr. upton votes aye. [reading roll]

mr. waxman? mr. waxman votes and no. the chairman votes aye. >> mr. sullivan? >> mr. sullivan votes aye. >> the clerk will report the results. anyone else wishes to vote? if not, the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, there were 13 ayes, nine nays. >> the ayes have it, and the motion is tabled. >> in motion to strike the last word. we have but an unfortunate situation of the solyndra bankruptcy. i think it is important that the committee investigate how this happened, not only to find out

how happened in the past but to make sure it does not happen in the future. this is involved? first, it is the positive energy. those who make the decision. who else is involved? the office of management and budget. there is correspondence with the white house about this one alone. some people love a different opinion about solyndra, so we asked omb for their information. before they had a chance to get it from the congress, the committee had a chance to subpoena them, which i thought was premature and inappropriate. but it is far better to subpoena the omb then the president of the united states. i do not think they should be rushed into if there is an opportunity to work things out. we did not give them an opportunity to work things out.

we slammed them with a subpoena. but let us review where we are now with the white house. the white house council met with mr. upton and mr. stern's and others an outline how they want to proceed to get the information that was important for our committee investigation. we acknowledge it is a legitimate investigation. we acknowledge that they are entitled to this. they said they would get information on the core concerns of the committee. loanher solyndra's decisions were influenced. they were already established. we have not even gotten all of the facts. there is no evidence yet to support it, but we ought to get all the information to see that it is true, and the white house said they would give us that information.

they also said they would give us white house involvement in the conditional guarantee, the commitment, the loan guarantee, closing, and the loan restructuring. those are the reasons we have an investigations. so the white house outlined all of this, and mr. up in just told us, they did not give them anything in writing until 4:30, so because they got him something in writing at 6:30, we are going to go to the unprecedented step of a subpoena. hey, give me a break. two hours? the white house is trying to cooperate. republican after republican today has said the white house has refused to give us anything. that is simply not true. in my experience in congress, i never seen situations where on a bipartisan basis when somebody asked for more time, you did not give them more time. we could have given them a little bit more time, to make clear that the information is

pertinent, but why is the white house still saying they do not want to comply with all of the information that has been requested? that is because the information request is so broad that it could be a violation of executive privilege. the white house has not claimed executive privilege, but discussing whether the president should go to the solyndra factory, and all of these other people are involved in the logistics, and the present the main contact in thurmon, that is just not information that is pertinent to our investigation. it becomes a fishing expedition. it intrudes on the prerogatives of the presidency. the presidency. i just really think it he would look at this question seriously, you do not need to have a subpoena vote today, because the white house did not give mr.

upton his written statement. they gave him everything but. he gave them a clear elucidation of what information they would provide to the committee. after that information has been provided, we can see what else we need. do we need information that was directed to whether the president should enter the west side or eastside of the company headquarters? there are some things we do not need, and there are some things that are just inappropriate for us to ask, so i would urge opposition to the subpoena and would even urged the chairman of the full committee rethink the position in light of what he just said. he did not give the information you wanted by the 4:30 meeting, and therefore, we are going to go to the unprecedented step which was never taken by any chairman of this committee or any subcommittee chairman to issue a subpoena to the white house.

>> the german strikes the last word and recognizes himself in support of the resolution. my colleagues, as chairman of the subcommittee, i feel compelled to offer this resolution. we have to exercise restraint and patience during the course of this over-eight-month investigation, and be administration has resisted our efforts every step of the way. earlier this year, omb did not comply, and we were going to put off a vote because we weren't sure that engaging with the dialogue would -- >> we would like the time being kept for you. >> thank you for your attention. we were assured this would resolve all of the problems without the need to resort to a subpoena, but this was just a stalling technique. we were forced to issue a

subpoena several weeks later, but the administration had won a delay that they were seeking. the administration seems to think that if they can just drag this investigation out, they can give up and simply go away, but we will not. we have a constitutional duty to investigate this matter pursuant to our oversight and legislative functions. we have an obligation to the american people to find out what went wrong with this loan guarantee program. why have two of the companies that have received these loan guarantees failed? why was the taxpayer money subordinated in the solyndra loan? and why were so many red flags simply ignored could happen dollars billion appears to be lost. -- ignored? half of $1 billion appears to be lost. involved in decisions that

relate to solyndra. we want answers, and so do the american taxpayers. it is unfortunate that it has come to this, but we have no faith in the white house overtures that simply seem to want to delay and obstruct. i request that members join me in their full support in this resolution to authorize the full committee to issue subpoenas to the white house. is there any further discussion on the resolution? >> mr. chairman? >> we recognize mr. markey. >> a consent to start the last word. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, in my 35 years in congress, i a presided over the issuance of only one subpoena and the time that i serve as a committee chairman. it, too, concerned an environmental policy matter that began during the bush administration, but unlike this

subpoena sought every single internal white house email related to solyndra, the one i issued was issued on a bipartisan basis with my rankling a member republican member fully supported my efforts to learn more about the bush administration response to global warming. it was a bipartisan effort because we exhausted all other avenues while obtaining information from the bush administration first. that has not happened here. the obama administration has been cooperating with the committing and has said it will continue to do so. the white house just yesterday offered to share internal white house emails on all issues that are being debated about the solyndra loan guarantee. by contrast, what my subpoena

requested was just two documents. one of these had been attached to a single document that epa said but that the white house never even opened. the bush administration white house did not just refuse to provide them voluntarily, they refused to comply with the subpoena at all until the select committee scheduled a business meeting to consider a contempt motion. this committee should accept the accommodation offer the white house made. subpoenas should be the last resort used to obtain information when the septic of an inquiry has failed to fully cooperate. in stark contrast to today's zeal for issuing subpoenas to the white house, yesterday republicans were singing a very different tune. over in the natural resources committee, 100 yards away,

republicans voted unanimously against my motion to subpoena b.p., halliburton, transocean, and another refused -- that is right -- refused to appear before a hearing at our committee to testify as to what had happened since the b.p. oil spill. we were not asking for hundreds of thousands of pages of email or documents. we just wanted the opportunity to question them about the and are meant to catastrophe that actually was the result of illegal activity in the gulf of mexico. while insisting on full disclosure and complete transparency from the white house on solyndra -- a witness

protection program, where they are apparently going to be immune from any congressional where public scrutiny. when it comes to solar energy, republicans and braced the disinfecting power of sunlight and disclosure. when it comes to oil, they seem to prefer to hide behind its murky sheehan. -- sheen. this is not about the subpoena power. this is about fossil fuel and nuclear power not wanting more americans using solar power. that is what it is all about. that is the bottom-line on this debate, and you have to see this story in two parts. b.p., oil, not a word. we do not want to meet these people, but here, with full

cooperation coming from the white house, they want to issue subpoenas. that is all you need to know. that is what this debate is about, them trying to kill a growing industry, 100,000 employees in the solar industry, 85,000 people in the coal industry, 80,000 people in the other industry. their share of it that would generation is growing too fast. we have got to slow them down and put a cloud over their ability to raise funding in the private capital markets, and we are going to do it at the expense of fall procedural safeguards being given to all those who come before this congress. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked to strike the last word. >> thank you. >> i listened with interest to

my friends on the democratic side, and they really are my friends. john dingell, mr. markey, mr. waxman, they are all people i have great respect for and gray affection for. we know on this committee where we debate the big issues, we are going to have spirited debates. and i am reminded of a cartoon character. remember "wimpy?" he would gladly pay you tuesday. "i will gladly pay you tuesday." in two weeks. they do not want to support it today, but they will support it over november 14. this is premature. it is premature to subpoena dr.

-- documents from the white house. mr. markey is upset because over in another committee -- in fact, i would say most of the members of this committee are not a fan of the committee that he is not because they try to take all of our jurisdiction at the start of this congress, so i do not know how you can associate us with those guys. we are here today because half of $1 billion of taxpayer money is gone. and the company that took the loan had been rejected by the bush administration in january

and then the obama administration comes in and approved it and expedites it and even thought of doubling down on it, although they did not, to their credit. and we have been trying to get some documents, and we have gotten a lot of documents, as the minority has pointed out. they have provided documents on a voluntary basis, but the white house has not. if you read the letters that mr. upton said and the letters that the white house responded to, the bottom line is that big white house believes it is not necessary. that is almost, i think, a verbatim quotes, and the only to get the facts is to get a subpoena. some say ours is too broad. well, i was oversight chairman when the republicans first came into the majority back in 1995, and we took the language almost if not exactly verbatim from

oversight requests that mr. dingell had been using when he was full committee and subcommittee chairman. i will at the appropriate time, as my good friend knows. we made a updated because back in those days, email was not a big thing, and blackberrys did not exist, but this is a standard format that democrats have used and republicans have used on this committee for decades, and with all due respect, i understand my friends on the democratic side have to walk a fine line. they have to protect the president of their own party, but they also have to be supportive of an investigation. it is gratifying to know that they and the white house have magnanimously decided that this is a legitimate investigation. we appreciate that. we knew that all along, but if

you really want to get the facts, and the white house does not want to comply or cooperate, they just want to sandbag and drag their feet and gladly comply next tuesday, then we have to issue this subpoena. it has to be brought. and then we have to insist that with all due respect, i say we should vote on this and work together to get the documents, review them and analyze them and we can have a debate about what the conclusions are. with that, i will yield to mr. dingel. >> i ask unanimous consent that i have the additional two menace. >> you can recognize yourself.

>> he was speaking with affection for me. let him continue. >> i have been recognized -- i have recognized chairman emeritus for a full five minutes. >> i do not need five minutes. let me make one observation. i never served a subpoena on the white house. the subpoenas or also discussed with the minority. we had a policy we would discuss them before we issued them. i did that with the gentleman from texas and i did it with every other ranking republican member when i was the chairman of the subcommittee or the full committee. none of those things are being complied with here. this is a fishing expedition. we are asking for everything from the present's schedule to his travel plans to where it --

president's scheduled to his travel plans to who he was going to meet with. this is a fishing expedition and there is no way to get around that. >> anyone else seek further discussion of this resolution? the gentleman from georgia? >> mr. chairman, we are the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. we have a responsibility to the american people, to the taxpayers. this loan program for renewable energy built up by the stimulus bill is $36 billion in taxpayer money. there is an article in politico talking about 100 criminal

investigations that have already been initiated by the inspector general in the department of energy. i do not know about you folks, but that sounds like a lot in a program, a bill that was just passed in february 2009. we already have 100 criminal investigations. think back to the time when the community reinvestment act was passed. back in the 1970's and plussed up in the 1990's. you that organizations like acorn pushing banks to get no money down loans and all kinds of red flags raised for a number of years. it was ignored until we got this country into one heck of a ht. to say that it is nothing but a

fishing expedition and a witch hunt and it is all political, that is clearly not the case. my good friend from massachusetts talked about a murky sheen. we need to get a clear view of these related documents from the executive office of the white house. what they are doing is putting up a murkey shee -- a murky sheen. it is time for us to get out the windex. >> you said 100 criminal investigations by the i.g. the i.g. may look at whether things were done properly or not, but every time they look at something, it is not a criminal investigation.

if you have further information about the 100 criminal investigations, could you give it to us? >> i would be happy to give that to you. i would refer you to the article this morning in politico. i would be willing to retract that. they may not have all been formal. i may be mistaken in that. 100 investigations have been initiated over this loan program for renewable start-ups. that is the that i read this morning in this article on politico and i will refer you to that. >> does the gentleman yield that his time? >> i asked to strike the last words. i have questions to correct the chief counsel. is he here, please?

>> he is not in the room. i ask that the clock not begin to run on me. >> he is presently in the room now. >> if he will come down to the witness table and the chair will start the clock when he gets there -- >> i will not quibble about 20 seconds. >> these are yes or no questions. have you included staff in any and all meetings with the department of energy and the white house? have you included minority staff in any and all meetings members of the department of energy, the office of management and budget, and the white house? yes or no. >> yes, sir.

>> have you shared any and all details of your meetings with the minority? >> they have been involved in all of the meetings. >> yes. >> have you requested documents from solyndra? >> no, sir. >> have you requested documents from omb? >> no, sir. >> have you requested documents from the white house? >> yes, sir. >> have you received those documents? >> no. >> what were the dates the requests were made in each instance? will you provide that information? >> yes.

>> did you share with minority staff all documents being requested at the initial designation of the document request as set forth in the resolution and the subpoena? yes or no? >> can you repeat that? >> that you shared with the minority the list of documents -- have you shared with the minority the list of documents subpoenaed in the resolution we have before us? >> yes. we gave a copy of the schedule we are attaching to the subpoena. >> have you received documents showing the white house directed directed -- the white house directed the department of energy to approve the loan to

solyndra? >> we do not have all of the documents. that is a matter of interpretation. >> as the minority counsel seen the documents you have requested and directed the department of energy to approve the loan to solyndra? >> we do not have the full production. everything we have gotten, we have directed at our instructions iraq to send copies to the minority. they have -- instructions to send copies to the minority. >> my staff did not receive copies of the subpoena until 10:00 p.m. last night. is there a clarification on the subpoena resolution or anywhere that the majority justifies to be for the subpoena? if so, we are? yes or no? >> i am not sure what you mean

is there a clarification. >> define what the documents are that you are requesting. you know what it is you are requesting. the subpoena and the resolution are without letters -- are without limits. i am trying to find out what the documents requested are in the subpoena so i know what we are voting 4. the answer to the question is yes or no. >> the answer is no. i disagree with that. >> the subpoena asks for specific documents that the majority knows the white house has not turned over. yes or no? >> the subpoena does not ask for particular documents. >> that is precisely what i meant. the subpoena ask for just about

anything they have down there. have you held discussions with the white house to find out whether a compromise could be arranged with the white house to either turn over the documents or to allow the majority and minority staff to review the document in the presence of white house counsel? yes or no? >> we have requested to open up a dialogue with the white house. >> have they said yes or no? >> that did not happen until yesterday. >> will the gentleman yield? i would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from michigan have an additional minute and ask that the gentleman yield for a question. >> i will yield for a question. >> the resolution authorizes the chairman, that would be me, to

authorize and issue a subpoena. it does not indicate specifically what the request will be. as i said in my opening statement, "we fully intend to take last night's proposal into consideration as we refined the scope of the subpoena and work with the white house on document production." >> that is not sufficiently comforting. i got to the subpoena last night. i do not know when the white house got it. i do not know what is you are asking in the subpoena. that is what i want to find out. i want to know whether the committee has an understanding of what is constituted in this document you have given us that

give you authority that approximates that of nero. >> if the gentleman will yield, as i said in my opening statement, we intend to take last night's small step up cooperation here -- if the votes are there to approve this -- >> i will support this gentleman in the getting the books and papers and records he wants in a proper and traditional way. i move that we be adjourned. >> the gentleman makes a motion that this committee be adjourned. is that what the motion is? >> all those in favor say aye.

all those opposed say no. it looks to me like the vote is no. >> i would like to strike the last word. i just want to respond to what the chairman said. he would use the discussions that happened last night as the parameters of the subpoena. yesterday in the meeting we all had, i asked committee staff to give me the draft subpoena, which is the subpoena that mr. dingell is referring to. i would ask the chairman, because your staff can bust the subpoena and this subpoena says all documents in the possession of the executive office of the president relating to the $535 million loan guarantee issued to

solyndra by the department of energy including but not limited to notes, analogies, reports, memoranda. this is the subpoena that the committees that has advised us it intends to serve on the white house. i ask that that be included in the record. is it not true that that is the subpoena you intend to serve upon them? i will yield to be chairman. >> i did not hear the end of your statement. this resolution we are voting on today authorizes the chairman of energy and commerce to issue a subpoena. you have seen some draft language. it is not done yet. that contract language -- draft language was written long before the statement of last night. it is not done. as i said in my opening

statement, we are going to use what the white house presented to us last night. >> reclaiming my time, the subpoena was provided to us after the white house made its statement. >> will the gentlelady hills? i would like to see the subpoena. -- will the gentlelady yield? we were shown what subpoena. now we are showned is authorizing you to make up a subpoena later. not ask us to give you the power to subpoena. that is putting the cart before the horse. yield back. >> i will yield back to the chairman if he would like to clarify what he is intending to do.

it makes it concerning about what this resolution is allowing him to do. >> this resolution authorizes the chairman of energy and commerce to issue a subpoena. this is a draft. it is not done until it is done. we are going to take last night's proposal into consideration as we look at a final document should this committee vote to send the subpoena. we are going to take this discussion and what the white house provided last nigh and add a few things. not sure what that will be yet. we will have a timeframe, something the white house did not offer last night as it began to come forward with some of the communications that they may provide. i yield back. >> if we all take for this open-

ended resolution, we are giving carte blanche to the chairman to ask for anything he wants to ask for without consulting with anybody. i think that is even more cause for concern of this committee. this committee has a longstanding mission of working together on documents that should be produced. -- longstanding commitment of working together on documents that should be produced. these subpoenas do not say draft or potential or anything. they reflect the broad language. >> are you asking unanimous consent to put that into the record? >> yes, i am. >> i would like to add the two letters as well. >> it has always been the

tradition of this committee to vote on specific language of a subpoena. that is the full force and effect of the subpoena. now we are being asked to vote on the language of the subpoena and authorize the chairman when he gets around to figuring out what he wants to ask for to go ahead and issue the subpoena. suppose the chairman says he wants the president's personal blackberry. we would not have a chance to debate that because we have given you that pop. this is unprecedented power to be chairman of the committee to give this kind of subpoena power. we are not voting for a subpoena. we are voting for the authorization for the chairman to issue it. >> if there is no further discussion on the resolution, the vote occurs on the resolution. all those in favor say aye.

those opposed say no. >> i asked for a roll-call vote. >> mr. murphy. mrs. blackburn. mr. gardner. mr. griffith votes aye. ms. dagette votes no. mr. ross votes no. mr. markey votes no. mr. greene votes no.

ms. christiansen votes no. mr. votes no. mr. terry votes aye. >> anyone else wish to vote who has not voted? >> there were 14 aye and 9 nays. >> the business of the committee is hereby adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> after the panel voted to issue the subpoenas, white house council responded in a letter calling the request of broad and an intrusion on executive branch and trust. it urged the panel to submit a request that was not so broad. the white house has until this thursday to submit the documents requested. today on c-span, a debate between republican presidential candidates herman cain and newt gingrich on economic and social issues. the two spoke at a forum last night outside houston. it will be at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> reading the right books are helpful. reading the wrong books can be

an education. you can see what was done wrong and avoid the mistakes yourself. >> stacy schiff spends time as a senior editor at simon and schuster. editors are desperate for a good new book published -- to publish. there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. ." tonight on c-span's "q & a >> next a discussion on a measure that would reduce the federal work force by 10% over the next three years. this is about 35 minutes.

guest: when two no. 3 federal workers leave, they would only be a place that worker with one worker. host: what was the idea behind one worker for only two or three that go. guest: to shrink the federal work force. there were folks on both sides of the aisle that believe the federal work force has gotten too big. it would be good to reduce some of the roles. host: is that any other effort to talk about the reduction of federal workers?

guest: mitt romney has mentioned that that is something he would want to do if he were elected. he would want to shrink the federal work force. there are other proposals under consideration by the super committee in addition to other efforts to reduce pay and benefits of federal workers. host: we have some statistics. according to the office of personnel management. can you give a sense of what these workers do? guest: the federal civilian work force is about 2.7 million. that includes federal workers,'s workers, seasonal workers. most are white collar. they do many professional, administrative type duties. there are many specialized jobs. contract management, budget analyst, food inspectors. it runs the gamut.

people who provide that trends -- veterans benefits. contractors are separate. that is about 10 million people. when you look at the contractor work force, is a sizable amount of people. host: another is the statistics says 85% of federal employees -- another statistic says 85% of federal employees work outside washington, d.c. guest: that speaks of the pay debate that is going on. one of the debates across the country is why the federal workers are over-compensated as it relates to their counterparts in the private sector. when you look at certain areas, washington se tend to be higher than in the rest of the country.

-- washington salaries tend to be higher than in the rest of the country. host: will the government worker make more? guest: it varies. the compensation debate is an imperfect science. it is apples and oranges. it depends on various factors including education, experience, age. a lawyer that works at the irs is not necessarily going to make the same compensation as someone who works in the private sector. someone in the private sector is going to make more money than that person in the federal government. as far as the other jobs are concerned, there are jobs that make more. host: 2.7 million in the executive branch. 1.6 million in uniformed military personnel. what are those numbers in the

context? guest: most of the federal work force contains career civil servants. many of them have a lot of seniority, a lot of experience. that is why you do not see as much turnover in the federal work force. they have the institutional knowledge and they have been there for a while and do the bulk of the work. host: our guest with us until 10:00 to talk about the reduction in the federal work force and the reduction in size of the federal work force. we have four lines set aside. we have set aside a special line for those of you who are workers or the federal government and you want to give your perspective on what is going on here, especially the

reduction of the workforce. if you want to give us your story -- you can also send an e-mail to journal@c-span.org. give us a sense of the average length, how long a person has been there, what kind of qualifications they bring to the table and how they get hired for these positions? guest: the average federal worker is about 46 years old. many have been in government for a while. part of the draw of being in the federal work force is that with seniority, you move up the pace scale. you developed a specialized area of knowledge that is beneficial as far as compensation, as far as if he wants to go to a

special -- a different agency, you bring that skill set with you. federal workers tend to be more educated, they tend to have specialized areas of knowledge whether it is immigration or border patrol our budget or contract management. you tend to see people who enter the federal work force states for a decent amount of time. host: for those federal workers themselves, how do they react to the idea of the reduction taking place on capitol hill and on the presidential trail? guest: not so well. some folks believe there is a little bit of bloat that could be trimmed back. overall, proposals to reduce the federal work force does not sit well with the federal work force. they feel they have been targeted in the name of deficit

reduction. they are not only value for the work they do by congress and to a lesser degree by the public. host: je = =kekkie kybbe -- kellie lunney is our guest. caller: there are a substantial number of workers in maryland and west virginia. can you clarify which percentage is maryland and west virginia versus further away? thank you. guest: the 15% comprises the metropolitan watch it -- metropolitan washington area. many live in begin and suburban maryland. there is a smaller group in west

virginia. the bulk is in and around the district. host: from california, good morning. caller: you were talking about the compensation in hiring in the private sector for particular jobs. i was wondering if he were taking the compensation packages into consideration that the federal workers received and their benefits and retirement packages. i will take my answer all of the air. guest: that is the way it is looked at. it is basic salary. that includes the overall compensation package, which comprises retirement benefits and health care benefits. there is a school of thought that the compensation package for federal workers is much more generous than certain jobs in

the private sector. it is an imperfect science. it is apples to oranges. no job in the federal government is an exact replica of a job in the private sector. it depends on the specifics of the particular position you are talking about. host: when it comes to pay, they have grades and a half steps. how does that work? guest: there are 15 grades that are linked to a specific case scale. if you are gs-12-1, you make a specific type of salary. it changes based on different things every year. it is a rigid schedule to some degree. people in the federal work force

do not have the opportunity for bonuses the way the people in the private sector do. you are locked into that pay scale. >> if you are in great 12, the most you can go would be $78,000. guest: that can be difficult depending on the agency and the work that you do and the budget the agency has. do they have enough money to pump you up to that next grade? host: rock hill, maryland, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to ask a question. we are looking at cutting the federal work force. over the last 30 years, hedge fund managers and other folks

not in the public sector seem to be making away like bandits. is there any type of balancing and looking at how much financial services people make and have made over the last 30 years over the public sector folks who support a lot of our agencies, support our defense? day two day to day work that keeps our society running. guest: the caller makes a point that is central to the debate right now. a lot of the work that they do is essential. it is essential to the public. you are administering the benefits and protecting the borders. that is why they feel that in some instances that they are the scapegoats in be that as a

reduction debate. you have folks who may make a pretty good living depending on how you factor in all of the compensation. they are not living extravagantly by the most -- extravagantly for the most part. in the financial-services industry, they might make more money and have good bonus situations. there is that this connect as far as how federal workers feel they are valued in this society. host: someone asks, reduction of the federal work force reduces labor or services and the federal budget? guest: you have to look at it back that if you reduce certain positions at certain agencies, like the veterans affairs department or the social

security a ministration, that is less staff to carry out the job. with respect to those two agencies, they have to get benefit checks out the door. if you have fewer people, those checks may not come out in a timely fashion. host: in utah, thanks for waiting. republican line. go ahead. caller: my question or comment is i would stay away from being hired at an air force base. i am under a little bit of personnel management review for my background. i have already been through the hiring process other than being given a thing or print and the necessary means to be hired. i just received an e-mail saying that my name has been taken off of the list for consideration.

am i completely done? does anybody really know? for all of us who are waiting in the wings for employment and have come this far, where do we stand now? are we done or are those jobs going to be completely abolished? we are not going to get much from the personnel people because they do not know much. thank you. guest: one of the issues that the office of personnel management is that they have tried to institute -- they want to strangle at -- streamline the

process. there are glitches in the system. there are a lot more hoops you have to jump through as opposed to getting hired by a private firm. host: there is a message that says there is no such thing as firing a government worker unless they kill someone. guest: it is difficult to get fired from the government. there are things you can do other than murder to get fired. it is a little bit more difficult than being in the private sector. the government operates on the

merit system. they strive to be diverse. they strive to get people at all compensation levels. they try to get them into training programs. they want to keep them there and have them be career folks. the system is set up to retain people. at the end of the day, they want a talented work force that has the experience and the knowledge to carry out their job. firing is still something that can happen. as far as it relates to the private sector, is more difficult to get fired from a government worker. host: in dallas, texas, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. this conversation is the meaning the federal workers. if you look at what the requirements are, it is usually a master's degree.

it is usually by plus years of experience. it is not easy to get -- is usually five plus years of experience. it is not easy to get in. i am actually working. i am turning my pay. there is a lot of pressure. we are already getting darts thrown at us. in all honesty, i could make twice as much if i went into the private sector. one of my issues with having a government job was the stability. i am not sensing stability now. host: which branch of the government do you work for? caller: i work for cms. i am an accountant. i have been here since 2002. guest: it is true. many federal workers at the

higher grade are well educated. they could get jobs in the private sector that would pay more money. in the current environment, it is legitimate to have a debate over whether or not certain pay or benefits are passed their time or if there are retired and systems that need to be modified. the issue for the federal work force is that there is this environment where they feel they are under attack and they are being demonized in the name of deficit reduction. that takes away from having the legitimate policy debate about whether certain pay and benefit structures should be changed. host: the troy, michigan. thanks for holding on. democrats line. caller: we are concerned about

deficit reduction and salaries and individuals taking cuts. why is it that our senators and representatives in washington have not offered cuts for their salaries and benefits. they are only in washington six months of the year. they do not put in a full hour day while they are there. why are we paying them $175,000 per year for part-time work? what happens to their staff when they are not in washington, d.c.? are they still in the office? why can they be laid off until they come back to washington? they want to talk about what the little man does or what the little man should get. the prima donnas do not want to entertain the idea of them losing some of their benefits.

i will take my answer all of the air. thank you. guest: congress has voted to freeze its own pay for the last couple of years. as most people know, the federal workers have a two year pay freeze. congress has voted to freeze its own pay over the last two years. there is a move in congress that is bipartisan. it was shepherded by representative gabby giffords that calls for a 5% cut in congressional salary. what did that is going to go anywhere is another story. there are folks in congress who are sensitive to the issue and what to do something to fix it. host: arlington, virginia. david on the republican line.

caller: i want to speak to the overall issue. when our country was founded, men were serving out of willingness and motivation to serve our country for the greater good. as time has progressed, there has been a shift where people seek a job with the government for the security and the safety and the benefit. the overall deficiency of the individual worker has declined. i am a government contractor. i work in a building that houses a government agency. a crowd of people gets on the elevator at 8:00 a.m. they go to starbucks and they and they are8:00 3

all fed 4:30 p.m. -- they are off at 4:30 p.m. it is a not-for-profit entity. the efficiency of the individual worker declines. a reduction might be good to incentivize individuals to actually produce more and the more it is end. guest: that is an argument that has been made, that the government and federal workers are not as efficient and productive as they can be because the system is set up to benefit them. and it is difficult to fire them. there are paid for performance systems within the government where you do not -- pay for performance systems where you do not get compensated if there is

not appropriate performance. there are ways to punish workers who do not do their jobs efficiently or effectively as far as talking -- clocking in and clocking out. law-enforcement officials and folks who work for fema. it is difficult to quantify the fact that folks work an 8 hour day. it is difficult to make the argument that the government is inefficient. there are deficiencies with and in it,. . the federal work force is doing the best it can with what it has. >> what is usajobs? >> it is an online federal jobs

board for people inside and outside the government to apply for jobs at different salary levels and different jobs. you can search by agency, you can search by geography. it is in its third version. the federal government took it over for rompsmonster -- over from monster.com. it was relaunched in october. it has not gone well. there are a lot of technical glitches. resume is have been lost. people are frustrated. it has been an embarrassment for the administration, especially an administration that prides itself on being tech-savvy. there are issues with it and it is not where it should be. >> it cost $18 million to drdo

the si -- to redo the site. guest: data of the contract from monster. monster had a contract going back to 2004. the government decided to do that because there was a security breach on the monster site. they were worried about mingling federal worker applications with the private sector. they wanted to take its in-house because they thought it would be more secure and it would save money.rs- caller: i have a question on whether there has been an analysis done on what it costs

is administratively in the private sector composed -- private-sector opposed to what is in the public sector. i am wondering if that is where the waste is. i will take my answer offline. guest: i am not an expert on administrative costs. it depends on what you are talking about specifically. there are any deficiencies in government, duplications of services, duplications of work. part of what the obama administration and administrations prior to this administration have tried to do is to reduce some of that and create more efficiencies and have federal managers and federal workers work to reduce waste, however small it may be.

that is an initiative that is ongoing. whether that produces serious savings is also another story. host: in texas. mark is on the line. caller: i wanted to talk about federal law enforcement. i am with i.c.e. i want to talk about how much of a sacrifice the agencies at the border make. a lot of us are from that region. we are moving our families down there. we are at gf-12. we work weekends and all holidays. you really cannot compare. when we get into these

arguments, people need to understand that people work until 4:00 and go home. federal law-enforcement workers make a big sacrifice. it hurts the overall morale of these guys who do not follow politics when they see something like this. they think they might lose their jobs or get a salary cut. we need to separate federal law enforcement from the regular workers. guest: as i mentioned before with the last caller, you cannot say every fellow -- federal workers -- this speaks to the issue of morale and how law

enforcement officials feel about some of the rhetoric that is being used to describe what they do. it gets away from the central issue of whether it is a legitimate debate to have and how benefits and pay my to be brought a little more in line with the private sector. -- might be brought a little more in line with the private sector. the subject of the debate gets lost and people focus on the negative. host: if you reduce the number of federal workers, would contractors be brought in to supplement them? guest: that is an argument to be made and to fear by the federal workforce. there was a big downsizing

initiative and contractors were brought on to supplement those positions that were eliminated. the problem is that it sets up a tense relationship between federal workers and contractors, who works side-by- side on many projects. one of the year's federal workers have is that their jobs will be contacted -- fears that contractors have is that their jobs will be contacted out. there are things better handled by contractors banned federal employees. there are jobs better -- than by federal employees. host: family on the democrats' line. -- emily on the democrats line. caller: she just said the

workers do not have the authority to do the work. there is so much work and they let their federal workers go. guest: a lot of federal workers are committed and dedicated to their jobs. they do not necessarily have to go in on a saturday, but they do. they feel a strong commitment to serving the public. there are many contractors who feel that way as well. the public gets the best service when you have federal workers and contractors committed to providing the quality services in the most efficient and effective manner. in an ideal world, that does not always happen. by and large, services are delivered. we talk about how essential they are.

they are to some degree. the federal workers get their job done for the most part. host: california. republican line. good morning. caller: i have a trillion items from the sec. there are so many. the dinosaur in the room with us is the woman who called in this morning bragging about, i am working right now as a government employee. she is calling a talk show, calling c-span from her desk. in the private sector, you would be fired for that. this is absolutely asserted -- absurd that i am paying for her benefits and her 80 efficiency, which is monumental. host: mike, go ahead.

caller: i work for the betterment of administration. i happen to be a republic -- i had vet be veteran. the v.a. works on a shoestring budget. i took a pay cut to work for the v.a. i have not heard it mentioned that much. guest: the v.a. is an interesting case. there have been different proposals from both sides of the aisle about exempting certain agencies from attrition, from the 10% reduction or whatever it is if it comes to pass. the v.a. is one of those agencies that is talked about

because it does such critical work, especially with the drawdown in iraq. there are soldiers coming back who need benefits. many believe that it is not a good idea to shrink that workforce. homeland security is another one. and defense. all three of those departments increase in size -- increased in size after 9/11. both sides of the aisle are looking to protect those agencies from any work force reductions. host: for all of the talk of the interest of reducing the workforce, what is the actuality that that will happen? guest: as is the house is concerned -- it is republican- led -- there is interest to get

this bill passed. what happens when it is to be senate remains to be seen. there are proposals in the senate to freeze pay for federal workers. they are looking to get federal workers to contribute more to their cages. that is a proposal from the obama administration. you have democrats and republicans putting together proposals that affect the federal work force. the odds that something will happen are pretty good. as far as attrition is concerned, it is not clear. as i as the other things, there will be something coming down the pike. host: thank you for your time. >> tomorrow, a discussion on the gop presidential primary race. after that, a look at the future of manufacturing in the u.s. of manufacturing in the u.s.