fact, the pelosi-led congress denied us a motion to recommit on 47 separate occasions. so i would say to the gentleman, again, the speaker has been consistent throughout. we intend to continue to strive towards an open process. we intend to offer you a motion to recommit, a stand-alone amendment if you want to offer a tax hike twice. that's our intention, yes, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman, and i will interpret that, mr. speaker, as indicating that if we choose to offer as an amendment the bill that passed the senate, which ensures that there will be no tax increase on 98% of americans, that we would be allowed to offer that bill and it would be protected under the rule in such waivers that are necessary will be extended. that's how i interpret that. if i'm wrong, perhaps the majority leader can correct me. i don't want to -- parse words

or lead to confusion. . i know what the senate bill is. and it is at this point in time our intention to offer that senate bill as an amendment to the bill that's offered on this floor. so i would hope that our understanding is consistent again, and i want to say consistent with the speaker's comments that that will be allowed. i want to say to the gentleman as well i think he's appropriate in referencing the past, and i'm pleased that he's not following such precedence. mr. cantor: i appreciate that, mr. speaker. i say to the gentleman thank you for that note. i know the gentleman is continuing to express his support for the president's plan . as the gentleman knows our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle in the senate feel as strongly as we do over here in the house that the

president's tax plan as was demonstrated recently by a nonpartisan study will cost the economy over 700,000 jobs. the gentleman knows our position on that and we intend to again allow for that vote to occur and look forward to a robust debate that will enview. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i think that clarifies it. he and i both look forward to that robust debate t will clearly differ, mr. speaker, on the impact, of that vote. but there will be no dispute that it will ensure that 98% of americans, every working family, 100% will not pay any additional taxes on the first $ 50,000 of -- $250,000 on their income which we think gives confidence to the people and the economy. we think it's appropriate step to take. i appreciate and look forward to

that debate which i think is an important one for the american people. i would also like to ask the gentleman with respect to the farm bill, he mentions in his comments, there may be some vote on the farm bill. the senate passed a bipartisan farm bill, as the gentleman knows, it saves very substantial moneys, will contribute to reduction of the deficit. can the gentleman tell me whether or not the house passed farm bill will be brought to the floor, or whether some alternative will be brought to the floor? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman that we are tipping to work with chairman lucas and our members to determine the best way forward. i would say to the gentleman that the senate bill he refers to does not have a majority of support in the house, and

actually would ask the gentleman if he would respond to the question whether he supports the house farm bill. i yield. mr. hoyer: i do not. support the house farm bill. my committee, the committee that -- we don't have a chairman of, the house agriculture committee, as the gentleman knows, but as he knows the ranking democrat does support that farm bill. so it has, as the gentleman likes to observe on many occasions, it does have bipartisan support. he asked for my personal opinion, and, mr. speaker, i have given him my personal opinion, but that bill itself will save substantial dollars and bring down the deficit, not as much as the senate bill, but it will have a positive effect on the deficit itself. in either event, however, we have some real discretion --

distress in farm country, very substantial drought. they are in great need of making sure that there is some way to assist those farmers who, through no fault of their own, but through the fault or the result of whether conditions, lack of rain, are in distress. so we believe that something ought to be brought to the floor that will, a, not exacerbate the deficit and, b, help the farmer. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman i'm glad to hear that the gentleman would like to support an effort to address the need for drought assistance and perhaps other programs that have or will expire, and i look forward to perhaps his support. if that's where we end up next week, allowing for that vote to occur and his support.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. hopefully we can agree on how to do that. again without making the deficit worse and adding to that and hopefully helping farmers at the same time. let me ask the gentleman, there are two very important bills that were passed. one in the senate. again with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and here with not an overwhelm bipartisan vote, and the violence against women act, a very, very important subject that has been in -- there was a very significant 62-37 vote in the senate -- excuse me, that's not the exact figure. that's on the postal bill i'll ask you about in a second. 68-31. 68-31, even more bipartisan than the postal reform bill. back on april 26 some months ago

with 15 senate republicans joining in favor. i don't see that on the schedule. i don't know whether the gentleman believes it's a possibility we'll be able to pass that before the election. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman and say as he knows the senate bill is unconstitutional because it contains revenue measure in it. so we are unable to get to conference with the senate. i think i as well as the speaker have indicated that we support going to conference with the senate. they need to produce a bill so that we can go to conference and effect the passage of that very important legislation to allow for the relief money to get to the victims that that bill and legislation is designed to protect. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. of course the gentleman knows that would be a very simple cure to simply drop the senate bill,

which has overwhelm bipartisan support, into a h.r. bill, a house bill, that would cure that deficiency. i agree with the gentleman. i think that's well-known. but that's a technical issue. if we have agreement in both the house and senate, put that in the house bill and pass it. so i think we can act on it. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, the gentleman knows the senate bill can't pass the house. we are trying to produce results for people and particularly for the victims that need that assistance in that bill, and believe that this -- our bill, the vawa bill that passed the house can pass the senate. again it would say that the senate bill is unconstitutional and it can't pass the house. it seems to me that the best way forward is for the senate to agree to the bill which pretty much extends existing legislation with some minor changes so that the victims of abuse needing the assistance can

actually begin to -- can actually receive that assistance. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for those comments, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as the gentleman well knows, the house bill excluded in large number of people from protection. a large number of members -- people who were the victims of domestic violence from protection. as contracted -- contrasted with the senate bill which was designed to ensure protection of all people who were subject to domestic abuse, and designed to encourage people to make complaints against those who abuse them. without fear of adverse consequences to them. so that we could get abusers dealt with in a proper way. and again i would say to my friend, mr. speaker, that 2/3 of the united states -- over 2/3 in the united states 123459, -- senate w. an overwhelming number

of republicans as well, voting for the senate bill because they believed it was inclusive. of course every woman member of the senate, republican and democrat, who probably have greater insight into domestic abuse than perhaps some of us males and male colleagues have. i would hope we could focus on trying to reach agreement and not -- which we did not have in the house as the gentleman knows. we had not an overwhelming bipartisan support in this house at all on the bill that was passed. so i would hope that we could compromise, cure the technical difficulty that the bill -- senate bill passed because the gentleman is right, has a fee in there. has to initiate in the house. but the gentleman also knows if included in the house bill that defect would be cured and we

could pass it. i yield to my friend if he wants additional comments. mr. cantor: there are many women members of our conference that are co-sponsors of that bill, and i know of at least one if not more who have been subject to necessaryic abuse and feel that our bill does provide the necessary protections for everyone who is subject to domestic abuse. and feel that the bill does address concerns the gentleman raises, and in the business of trying to produce results rather than to dwell on where there are differences, if those individuals who sponsor the bill and who have unfortunately had experience in domestic abuse, as well as law enforcement, if that is the case, certainly those individuals would know about it more than the gentleman or i, i think we ought to go about passing this bill and allow for the senate to go ahead and do so-so the victims of domestic abuse can actually receive the

protections and assistance they deserve. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. as i interpret that, mr. speaker, pass the house bill or no bill. pass the house bill that had 23 republicans voting against it. pass the house bill and reject a senate bill that has 68 united states senators. mr. cantor: would the gentleman yield. mr. hoyer: certainly. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman. we really do want to go to conference with the senate. ok. so it's not pass the senate bill or no bill. we want to go to conference with the senate, mr. speaker. i have said that. i do take exception with the gentleman's remarks. mr. hoyer: let me -- reclaiming my time. i'm pleased to withdraw that assertion, but in the comment i want to make it clear, mr. speaker, i do not share the majority leader's opinion that the house bill covers all people. as a matter of fact, i think

that's inaccurate, incorrect. we disagree on our facts there. our analysis of the bill. what we don't disagree on, however, because the facts are clear, we have a bill that overwhelmingly passed in the senate. if we need compromise, i hope we -- i'm fully prepared to work with the conference as the majority leader is and work with him in a conference to get a bill out of conference. i'm hopeful, mr. leader, that in light of the fact in that house the bill passed 222-205, with 23 republicans voting no on that bill. so that we not only have bipartisan opposition, but we have bipartisan support of the senate bill. let me go on to another bill i think is very important because the postal department is facing real stress. somewhat ironic that we are in a congress that has too often

lamented in the senate they could act on things. when they do act in a bipartisan fashion, it seems we can't act. the postal bill has now been passed by a vote of 62 votes in favor. another bipartisan vote of the postal bill. and i'm wondering whether or not the gentleman has any idea whether we might either go to conference or bring a bill out on the house floor that i know has been passed out of committee so that this bill can get to conference in a timely fashion so the post office which is facing obviously default on some of its obligations would be made whole. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, the senate postal bill does not have the majority support in the house, and we are continuing to work with chairman issa to ep sure that there isn't an incident of de -- to ensure there isn't an incident of default on the part of the post

office. i think the postal service has indicated there is no risk of that in the short term, and we are going to continue to address that to ensure that does not happen, all the while trying to address the overall issues as the gentleman knows that the postal service has in trying to get its fiscal house in order. i yield back. . mr. hoyer: lastly, on a note to which we have agreement between the majority and i, which is not always the case as most people know, iran sanctions. both the leader and i, mr. speaker, want to see that bill passed before the august break. and i would inquire of the majority leader his view of the status of that issue at this point in time. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would tell the gentleman, i know that our staff have been working very diligently on this trying to iron out the differences with the other body and very hopeful we can get this done prior to the august

recess. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i look forward, mr. speaker, to working with the majority leader toward that end over the next seven, eight days. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain one-minute requests to speak. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the red tape reduction and small business job creation act. time and again i hear from my constituents they want to hire more workers but they don't

know which regulation will be coming down the pipe next. congress does not spend enough time fulfilling its constitutional responsibility of overseag the executive branch. mr. rokita: that's why in partnership with the indiana chamber of commerce we started indiana's red tape rollback program to hear the concerns and go to washington and get results. this is a page from that report. about 26 pages long. regulatory burdens are equal opportunity. they don't affect one industry or type of people, regulatory burdens for agriculture, transportation and even our home health care workers who fear they won't care for their clients. they hurt everybody. i'm pleased we have achieved a victory in 20 of our cases and we'll continue charging forward. i will continue to advocate for a limited government, and i will continue to roll back the red tape. you can get the report at

rokita.house.gov and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to highlight another milestone in the continuing efforts to honor the heroics of the united flight 93 on september 11, 2001. mr. shuler: the somerset is named in honor of the passengers and crew -- mr. shuster: somerset is the county in pennsylvania in which united flight 93 went down. the 980-foot -- the 980-foot transport dock ship is used to transport and land u.s. marines and also support amphibious assaults by our special forces. located on the property near the crash site are two drag lines they use in coal stripping operations. a huge american flag was

hoisted on top of the drag lines and it stands as a constant reminder of the heroes of flight 93. in honor of the passengers and crew of flight 93, the 22-ton bucket was cast into the ship's bow stern. in addition, the u.s.s. somerset's mass will also contain a time capsule. it is a bold representation of america's military strength and is a fitting tribute to the 40 ordinary americans who took a stand against the enemy and free society and represents the best aspects of the american spirit. their actions prevented further loss of life and destruction that -- of some of the most recognizable symbols of freedom and democracy in the world. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any further requests for one minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of be a requested for mr. -- absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for food. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. nothing like being villeified to -- vullified to get your senses acutely atuned. but we had a hearing in judiciary last week, july 19, actually, in which the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, appeared. during the exchange that i had with secretary napolitano, i said these words, it's from the transcript. and this administration seems to have a hard time recognizing

members of terrorist groups who are allowed into the white house. you're aware of that happening, aren't you, secretary napolitano? absolutely not. well, this week, apparently somebody brought her back in the loop and she testified before pete king's committee. and a couple of articles about it. rather interesting. one from "the hill", jordy yager, apparently posted july 26, says homeland security secretary janet napolitano told lawmakers on wednesday, which would be yesterday, that a member of an egyptian militant

group labeled by the united states as a terrorist organization was vetted by three u.s. agencies before visiting the white house. napolitano said the state department, the department of homeland security and the secret service all thoroughly examined the egyptian man, hanni, before his visit to washington, d.c., whether he met with members of congress and senior administration officials. then, there's a quote in the article from secretary napolitano that says, as we move forward, we're going to continue to have visitors to this country that the state department and others feel are useful to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward who say they're members of a political party that in the past has been so designated.

another quote. he was vetted before he got a visa against all known terrorists and other databases for derogatory information. none was found. as he entered the information, we, too, vetted against all our holdings, including terrorists and information from a variety of sources and no derogatory information was found. before he entered the white house, he was vetted a third time by the secret service. no derogatory information was found. so then we can have some confidence this was not a security breach in that sense. napolitano said she knew of no such intention by u.s. officials to release the blind sheik. when chairman king said, the administration, whether it's

this administration or another administration may feel that some of these people can be dealt with, can be worked with, but if that's to be done, to me it would seem it would have to be an open process, a transparent process where congress and the people know who was being let into this country. napolitano, according to the article, conceded that king made a, quote, fair point, unquote, and she would know whether efforts were taken and notify members of congress. because there's a little pesky detail. there happens to be laws on the books that were apparently ignored in that process. but the problem is, when secretary of homeland security says there's no derogatory information, when the information we have indicates he's a member of a group that we have named as a terrorist

organization, then it would seem that to most americans the obvious thing to be the fact that he's a member of a known terrorist organization when to most of us, at least many of us, be considered derogatory information. the fact that we can't dig up minute details of specific acts of misconduct, nonetheless should not be necessary when someone is a known member of a terrorist organization, an organization designated by this government to be terrorists. it's an amazing thing. but then we're told -- here's an article from "the washington examiner," july 25, department

of homeland security secretary janet napolitano told congress today to expect more members of designated foreign terrorist organizations to visit the united states. quote, i think you are right in pointing out as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that the state department and others feel are useful to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward who say they are members of the political party that in the past have been so designated. unquote. napolitano told house homeland security chairman pete king during a committee this morning. napolitano is defending the decision against hunting a member of the egyptian parliament elected on the political party platform of the islamic group which the state department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. and just to remind, mr.

speaker, in our hearing i said these words, this administration seems to have a hard time recognizing members of terrorist groups who are allowed in the white house. you're aware of that happening, aren't? her answer, absolutely not. so the evidence seems to be pretty clear. he was a member of a known terrorist group. he was allowed into the white house, but the secretary of homeland security, her answer for that happening, absolutely not. she didn't say, we had vetted him many times, and even though he was a member of a known terrorist organization that we in the state department had designated a terrorist organization, we still thought he was safe even though he was a member of the terrorist organization. she just absolutely denied it. absolutely not. the article goes on from

"washington examiner," i think -- and this is in quotes, i think we have to add more nuance to that, unquote, she said when king mentioned that eldin is part of a foreign terrorist organization. quote, we have to know what the group was. is it now a political party that is running the government of a country that has strong ties to the united states, unquote. she added, he went through these three stages of vetting and, quote, everyone who looked at this person felt confident he was not a security risk to the white house or the united states, unquote. king charged the obama administration with violating a law in hosting him at the white house. quote, it appears as if the law was not complied with in that he did not apply for a waiver and congress was not notified

which is also required, unquote. quote, it does not appear that either the letter or the spirit of the law was complied with, unquote, when king reiterated that complaint about the process by which he was allowed in the country, napolitano conceded that, quote, on the process that's a fair point to make. well, there's a reason we have laws, and you would hope that someone who is a cabinet official in a top position of our homeland security would think that it is important to comply with the law. but just as we have seen massive amounts of money go to places that have leaders who say they want to eliminate israel and the united states, we see this kind of conduct from this administration.

and i have reporters asking me if i want to apologize for five separate letters that were written to five separate inspectors general of five different departments with different facts pertaining to that department in each letter, and the facts in the letter are true. and the simple question was not accusation or allegation because it's pretty obvious there is influence by the muslim brotherhood in america, so the question is, how much influence, where is it coming from? and it is an amazing thing to see all of this transpire. obviously it's great fun and sport to attack a messager that

is not liked by certain people in the media, but what we keep seeing that it is amazing is happening and was once the proud tradition of journalism in america,le is our national security -- america, is our national security being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. why isn't the mainstream media making a big deal about a secretary of homeland security who one week says absolutely not. it was not a member of a known terrorist organization that got in the white house, and a week later she admits it did happen, but we properly vetted him three

different times? what apparently is being grossly overlooked also that i get as i speak to muslims in other parts of the world who are our friends, who have fought with us, who have buried family members and loved ones because they want to live in freedom like we do, they don't want a strict group like the taliban dictating their lives, they are moderate muslims who want to live in peace, enwhat they keep bringing home to pea -- peace, and what they keep bringing home to me is what this administration misses entirely. when the president of the united states, when the leaders of this country, this administration, meet with members of known terrorist organizations, and will not meet with our muslim

friends who have fought with us instead of against us in -- from other parts of the world, the message has a chilling effect on our friends wanting to continue to be our friends because it appears to be the most dangerous place in the world to be, in the category of friends of the united states, because it means this administration is one step away from abandoning them in favor of ties and relationships with groups that we know have been terrorist organizations. it's not just the meeting with, it's not just a danger or lack of danger of someone coming in the white house, of course they can check them with the metal detectors to make sure they are not carrying anything, but it goes beyond that. it kev states -- devastates our

friends. it destroys hope around the world for people who are hoping that we'll stand up as we once have not for the muslim brotherhood who want an international caliphate, including the united states, and the united states to be added to the 57 states, muslim states that comprise the o.i.c., it's what we are doing to our friends. i hope and pray that people in the mainstream media will get past the enjoyment of vilifying and trying to destroy the messenger and look at the message. that they'll get beyond the lazy tactics of calling someone, getting with someone, and saying what's your opinion about these allegations and getting a

response, gee, we don't think there is anything to them, instead of digging the facts out and presenting them as the once proud journalist tradition was here in america. there's still journalists doing it, but i hope that that practice will be extended. we are just hurting ourselves, but unfortunately we also hurt our friends when we do that. for those who say there is no evidence of any muslim brother influence in america, mr. speaker, i would urge them to go back and review the evidence from the convictions in the holy land foundation trial obtained in november, 2008, before this administration began embracing the main co-conspiratorser, when

they were named as co-conspirators, supporting terrorism, i would hope they would go back to the 1995 trial where mccarthy did a stellar job and the clinton administration awarded him for his incredible work in proving that there are people in america who want to establish shari'a law as the law of the land and subvert our constitution. he proved it beyond a reasonable doubt among some wonderful u.s. citizens in new york city. and andrew mccarthy asked, what's happened since 1995 to make that evidence no longer true? it was true then. it's true today. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday next. the house may take up legislation to deal with the drought problem in the u.s. democratic leader, nancy pelosi, earlier today, talked about the colorado shooting and

the senate passage of the democratic tax cut proposal. her comments are 10 minutes. >> yesterday was a great day. the united states senate voted to give 100% of americans, everyone in this country, a tax cut. we all agree that that's a good idea. the only thing standing in the way of middle-income tax cuts is the house republicans. the republicans want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to give an extra tax cut to people making over $250,000 a year. and what is the effect of that? it makes the middle class taxpayer pay more. it increases the deficit and it

increases our borrowing from countries like china. extending the middle income tax cuts is very important for what it means to individual families. that's for sure. what it means to our economy, that money will be spent injecting money into our economy creating jobs. and what it means in terms of certainty for our families, for our businesses and for our federal budget. it's a matter of fairness. recall upon our republican colleagues to bring this bill to the floor. today they could do it. today be on the president's desk, signed into law for this weekend. we absolutely must do it, though, before we leave for the august break. yesterday, to get our work done, democratic ranking members of every one of our committees sent a letter to speaker boehner and the republican committee chairman

with a clear message. we must begin bipartisan negotiations immediately to replace the sequester with a balanced deficit reduction plan. the letter went on to say we must initiate this process now. it's long overdue. must initiate it now and complete it by september 30. the end of the fiscal year. to avoid any uncertainty and the devastating consequences for our economy, small businesses and the middle class. we can avoid the sequester if we just come together at the table in a balanced and fairway. -- fair way. do you have any questions? >> a number of democrats have recommended that there be legislation to restrict guns or to stop the sale of large magazines or assault rifles. is there legislation to address

these concerns? >> i listened to what the president said yesterday, viewed it a number of times as i'm sure you probably did in his speech before the urban league. i thought his comments were very thoughtful, provided leadership when he said we need to build a national consensus to reduce violence in our country. he said, americans want -- i think that americans want answers to know how this happened. i'm speaking now for myself and how he -- he, the murderer, that's what he was, acquired the guns and what mental health issues may be involved. so we need some answers about what happened in colorado. that's why i was so pleased with the thoughtful statement that president obama said. he said, so we've been able to take some actions on our own recognizing that it's not always easy to get some things through congress these days. the background checks conducted on those looking to purchase

firearms are now more thorough and more complete. and i think that's very important. they're important, as you know, important voices on all sides of this issue. we really need -- we all recognize the importance of the second amendment and the need to -- and also the need to reduce violence in our communities. our thoughts and prayers are, of course, with the families of those who died, wounded in aurora, colorado. and everyone nationwide who has been affected by gun violence. the president has suggested everyone come together. i think a good deal of this will bubble up from communities that have been working on this on one side of the issue or the other. >> talked a lot in the past few weeks -- there has been some sort of culture shift in the post-9/11 world, the fact that we are more atuned to intelligence issues, the fact

that the technology and the ways that information can be disseminated appropriately or inappropriately, in this case, that that is what has led to this debate and this, you know, prepond rance of leaks that everyone is -- presidents of leaks that everyone is -- prepodderans of leaks that everyone is concerned about. >> there has been approach since 9/11 that people are more aware, people -- the american people who consume your news. i don't subscribe, though, to the idea there's a preponderance of leaks. i don't know that's the case. that's why i'm pleased will are two very well respected u.s. attorneys looking into the matter. >> do you expect to lose, if any, democrats when the republicans bring up their bill to raise -- to extend all tax cuts? the second part of the

question, boehner's office is saying they are not going to bring up the senate-passed bill. do you expect house republicans to buckle on this? >> well, you have to ask them about that, as i have said to you before, but we're very confident about the democrats supporting the president's proposal. it is, again, it's the right thing to do on the basis of fairness, which is an important value in our country. it's the right thing to do and the president's proposal is when it comes to reducing the deficit. it's the right thing to do when it comes to having an approach to the sequester. the money from $250,000 to $1 million, what the president is suggesting that we stop at $250,000, that money will be almost enough to avoid the squest -- jeags -- sequestration altogether.

we're excited that the senate passed this bill, and now it's just a procedure -- a process on the floor. >> [inaudible] >> when republicans bring up their version, it's important to know what it costs the middle class. if you look at any of the charts on the subject, the republican bill gives an average tax break to a person making over $1 million a year, $160,000 tax break. additional tax break than they get for their income up to $250,000. and how does that get paid for? it increases the deficit. so that has to be covered by borrowing from china and places like that. but it also takes a toll on the middle class because they pay more. the middle class pays for. all of us in this room pay more. it is an average, an average, but it could be more, of $1,000 for middle-income tax filer. so an average of $1,000.

middle-income tax filers pay $1,000. that is our message. again, there's a great deal of enthusiasm in our caucus about the fact that this is a way forward. it's a path of fairness but it's a path to avoid a good deal of the sequestration and to reduce the uncertainty. it's a good place for us to go to the table, as we look for more cuts in investments, but as we try to stimulate growth. >> shortly after leader pelosi concluded, speaker of the house, john boehner, held his own weekly briefing. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. you know, by the end of next week the house and only the house will have acted to address the tax hikes that threaten our economy and the defense cuts that threaten our security.

that's because only republicans have offered plans to address these threats. yet, it was the president who came up with the sequester because he didn't want the debt limit to get in the way of his campaign. now these arbitrary cuts are looming and frankly he's nowhere to be found on the issue. and it was the president's proposed tax hike because he thinks if you run a small business you didn't build it. the government did. and since he thinks the private sector and small businesses are doing fine, he believes it won't hurt to raise their taxes. now, the president's off campaigning trying to tell everyone who will listen that he didn't really mean what he said, that he didn't really mean, you didn't build it. well, mr. president, i tell you what, if you want to show that you stand with american small business owners, the best thing you can do is drop your plan to increase their taxes on january

1. this small business tax hike, according to foster -- i'm sorry, ernst & young, will destroy more than 700,000 jobs. and next week the house will vote to stop the small business tax hike. we'll also vote to start pro-growth tax reform that will help employers keep jobs in america and bring some jobs back to america that have gone overseas. lastly, we'll give the democrats an opportunity to vote for the president's small business tax hikes. and if they do, i think the american people will hold them accountable. in addition to stopping this tax hike, we should also come together to address the threat from these arbitrary defense cuts. and while we're at it, we should get over to the president's desk the more than 30 jobs bills that the house has passed in a bipartisan manner that sit in the united states senate. the president may be checked out to the point that he hasn't been able to meet with his jobs

council, but the american people are continuing to ask the question, where are the jobs, and they expect us to work with us no matter where we are in the campaign or what time of year it is. the house will continue to focus on the issue of most concerns to the american people and that's the economy and jobs. >> mr. speaker, would you allow a house vote on the senate-passed tax bill? >> if our democrat colleagues went off for the president's plan, we're more than happy to give them a vote. >> mr. speaker -- >> you say you will allow a vote on the senate-passed bill? >> we'll see what they'll offer in the rules committee. it is our belief that they will have a vote. >> mr. speaker -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa. raise your hand. >> speaker boehner, with 2/3 of the country now in drought,

probably most of the corn and soybean crop rate is poor, very poor, and food price is expected to rise to at least by 4% next year. do you plan at this point to allow some kind of drought package, particularly for the livestock produced? i know last week you mentioned crop producers. but the programs to livestock producers ran out last year. do you plan to allow some kind of drought package on the floor as part of the farm bill or as part of an extension to the farm bill or -- >> well, i do believe the house will address the livestock disaster program that unfortunately in the last farm bill was only authorized for four years. and we're continuing to work with chairman lucas and the members of the committee on appropriate path forward. >> as part of the farm bill or

extension? >> speaker boehner, the president said last night he thinks most gun owners would agree that ak-47's belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals, and he said he's going to work on a consensus in making sure there are better background checks and what not. you said you were following the president's lead earlier this week. do you agree with him now and would you be willing to be part of that conversation? >> well, ak-47's, all right, are not allowed to be in the hands of criminals. that is the law. and if the president has proposals on other ways we can address criminals owning guns, i'll be happy to look at it. >> mr. speaker, if i could follow up on that? >> whoa, whoa, whoa. >> speaker boehner, given the scale of issues the country faces, sequester and tax issues, have you made any personal effort to contact president obama? >> i have not. listen, he hasn't had time to

meet with his jobs council in the last six months. i'm not surprised he hadn't had time to call me. no. >> follow-up on the gun issue. do you think the nation's gun policies as they stand now are adequate or do you think the house needs to consider any legislation? >> i think what's appropriate at this point is, look at all the laws that we already have on the books. make sure that they're working as they were intended to work. are they being enforced the way they were intended to being enforced? that would be the most logical step forward at this point. >> mr. speaker, there was a letter written asking for a bipartisan working group to begin work before the house goes on recess in early august, are you going to wait on them to present the president's alternative proposal or are you going -- >> regarding to? >> with regard to the sequestration. >> i think it's important for

the office of management and budget to outline to the congress and to the american people how they intend to enforce the sequester and where these reductions in spending are going to come from. it's a fair thing to do. for the american people, and i think congress clearly has a right to know. >> mr. speaker, do you plan on putting a vote on the floor next week or -- >> we have a pretty busy week last week. as i said last week, if the president really thinks this is an important issue that we have to deal with, then maybe he ought to be out there making the case for it. i haven't seen that as of yet. >> and whatever legislation funds the government passed september 30, will the house republicans permit or not permit funding for the regulation requiring all health care plans to cover

sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs? >> i haven't had a conversation of what would be included in the c.r.'s. if we have something to announce we'll let you know. >> along those lines, next week the plan to actually require health care plans to include contraceptives goes into effect. you said last year that you guys were going to introduce legislation to address that. it never came up. what are you guys planning on doing in terms of that? >> we're continuing to work with those groups around the country who believe that their religious liberties are being infringed to try to come to a resolution of this issue. sometimes resolving these issues can sometimes be best be done other than legislative avenues. so we're continuing to work with them on the best way forward. >> mr. speaker, are you

considering a six-month stopgap bill until next year? >> we're considering lots of things when it comes to the c.r. but we don't really have anything -- [inaudible] >> what would you say to voters who already feel that congress is a do-nothing congress? >> we're going to come to an agreement i hope with our colleagues in the senate to try to make sure that the government's funded, that there's no opportunities for games to be played and when we come to -- when we have something to announce we'll be happy to do it. last one. >> [inaudible] strengthen background check laws? >> i don't know. i'm not the expert on this. but if the president has ideas, i'd be happy to look at it. thanks. >> shortly after the leader's

comments, the house gaveled out for the week. they earlier today agreed to a resolution condemning the shooting last week in aurora, colorado, and honoring the victims. they also passed a bill that would curb future federal regulations. the house returns tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work. and among next week's items, extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. they may also take up a package dealing with the debt problem -- the drought problem in the u.s. and you can follow live house coverage when they return here on c-span. >> this weekend on "american history tv" -- >> so let me just begin to open up the discussion by asking this. what is exactly the nature of the clash between mcarthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures in history, truman and mcarthur, johns hopkins professor on the relationship that led a

president to lead a general during the height of the korean war. sunday, more from "the contenders," a series that looks at key political figures that ran and lost but changed political history. this week, illinois governor stevenson. he once said he had a bad case of hereditary politics. his great grandfather was first to suggest abraham lincoln as president and he ran twice against eisenhower. "the contenders" at 7:30 eastern and pacific. "american history tv" this weekend on creep3. -- on c-span3. >> republican candidate mitt romney visits europe and israel. he spoke to reporters following his meeting this morning with british prime minister david cameron at 10 downing street in london. the about five minutes.

>> good afternoon. i have enjoyed a full day of meetings with leaders from great britain. i have spoken with members of the government as well as the policy, economic development the u.k., across europe, and across the world. found the discussions to enlightening and instructive and i have enjoyed the personal opportunity to come to know the members of the leadership here in great britain. feel, as americans do across our nation, a special relationship with the britain and with the people here. obviously, our appreciation for the contribution of british fighting side by side with those of the coalition, those of our nation in

afghanistan and elsewhere over important to us and we recognize as a contribution. i am also excited about the opening of the olympics. i have had occasion to watch our report on the olympic torch being carried across great britain. i saw the response of millions of people across great britain, of the olympics, and the symbolism of the torture which represents hope and opportunity -- of the torch which represents the hope and opportunity, and i hope you a chance to touch the torch. the olympic experience the heart of london, to look into a venue come up been -- to a venue,

knowing athletes will be carrying the competition on their backyard. the prime minister wanted to make sure the olympics was not something far off that the people could not enjoy, but instead the olympics would be london itself. this is a community that will share in the olympic experience, be unified and uplifted by it. i am delighted my wife and i will be able to be here, at least at the very beginning of olympic experience. with that, i can take a couple of questions. >> i am curious -- are you still concerned? but to talk with the prime minister about that? >> we talked about the progress in organizing the olympic games. my experience as an olympic is there are always a things that are not quite right in the first day or so.

when the games begin, the athletes take over. all of the mistakes of the organizing committee -- and i few -- are overwhelmed by the athletes and the spirits of the game. i do not think any of olympic committee runs without any mistakes whatsoever, but they are small. have been a real challenge with immigration and customs officers on duty. that was resolved. people are all pulling together. >> [unintelligible] been perceived that way in the london press, and even the prime minister appeared to with your comments earlier. did you intend to criticize london? >> what i have seen and shows imagination, forethought, and a lot of organization.

i expect the games to be highly successful. you. more. >> sir, you talked about syria >> pardon? you talk about serious today. will the united states intervene in syria? >> we talked about syria, iraq, egypt, tunisia, libya, pakistan, afghanistan, other places in the world, and we spoke about the developments in syria. i don't want to refer to any comments made by leaders representing other nations, nor do i want to describe positions i might have while i am on foreign soil. i think discussions of foriegn the president and the current not by those seeking office. i am not going to add anything own views on syria. states say that i

the insights and the of the opposition here, as well as the syria and the hope for a more future for that country. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mitt romney held meetings later in the day with other current and former british government officials including tony blair. he will attend the olympic games tomorrow before heading on to israel this weekend and poland next week.

the senate agriculture committee today heard arguments for and against the bill that would set uniform standards for the treatment of and laying hens -- egg-laying hens. the provisions include phasing in larger cages for hens over the next 18 years. won a witness opposed to the measure said it would force smaller egg farmers to leave the business. this is just over an hour. >> good morning. we will call the committee to order.

excuse me -- the agriculture commission and forestry committee. i know we have other members planning to join us. i know we have many commitments. we want to move ahead this morning. this is a very important hearing. i appreciate your being here. we appreciate everyone's being here today. there is a tremendous amount of interest, as we can see from the overflow crowd today. as we consider the bipartisan bill led by senator dianne feinstein -- the egg products inspection act amendment of 2012. eggs are as much a part of our mornings as juice or coffee or bacon or our serial. when we talk about this

important, nutritious product, is very much part of america and our nutrition and our food system. eggs are a staple of the american diet. the average person consumes 250 eggs a year. i think i am above that, actually. they are also an important part of the agricultural economy. eggs sales generate $15 billion for our economy. it is incredibly important our producers have certainty to produce our food products. this bill is driven by a coalition of industry producers working together to request these changes. it is designed to give producers certainty from regulation. senator feinstein, the bill's author, is here to testify today, as well as egg producers from across the country.

this bill was proposed by the industry and has the support of the humane society of the united states. we will hear today from those who are in favor of the bill, and we will hear from those who have concerns. i look forward to this testimony from senator feinstein and the company ahead to a taken the time. thank you to each of you for taking the time to be here for this important discussion on an important issue. i will now turn to my friend and ranking member, senator pat roberts, for his opening remarks. >> madam chairwoman, thank you for calling this hearing this morning. giving us an opportunity to hear directly from egg producers regarding a bill that would put a member of the federal government in charge of the

standards of in which eggs are produced in this country. i truly appreciate the opportunity to hear from my friend and colleague senator dianne feinstein. we have spent a lot of years together in the intelligence committee. i want to thank her for standing up for our country on national security. we have no greater obligation than the national security of our country, and i think you for your service. >> thank you, sir. >> let me say that i firmly believe farmers and ranchers are good stewards of animals. one of the fundamental principles of the animal husbandry profession is that your animals get fed, watered, and taken care of, and i support you. there is no excuse for animal

cruelty. in particular, given the multitude of training programs and educational efforts about animal care for those who work with and around animals. producers understand the better they take care of their animals, the more healthy those animals will be. second, i understand senator feinstein and the egg producers of california have a real challenge. california's proposition two has created uncertainty. i'm not sure this agreement between the united egg producers and the humane society of united states -- i guess everything has to be an acronym. i apologize for that. when this committee considers any change in policy, impacting

animal agriculture, there are a wide range of factors that should be taken into consideration like food safety, animal health and welfare, the economics of food production. our international trade obligations. and most importantly, science. what is the best possible science? is this legislation based on that kind of science? when we deviate from science- based decisions, we have a difficult time to solve the issue. will this issue be back before this committee in a year or two? i also hope to learn why egg producers were solidly against any agreement before they were

for it. what changed in the issue to bring about such a reversal in their position? i understand there are concerns involving antitrust issues at the forefront of many challenges egg producers are dealing with right now. is this agreement somehow viewed as payback for these discussions? i wish, madam chairwoman, we had deregulators here with us this morning to explain how they would enforce this to become law. in addition to the implications on an interstate commerce and international trade, i am also concerned of how -- about how this will affect the price that consumers pay for eggs. european consumers saw the supply of eggs drop 10% to 15%

soon after the inaction of a similar law, which led to the increase in price of 50%. of 55% rise in the egg prices would significantly reduce the purchasing power of aid programs. madam chairwoman, i have other synopses of this legislation from the american farm bureau, a group of four international debt bureau organizations, and the organization representing gay but producers i would like to enter into the record. -- representing egg producers i would like to enter into the record. >> i enter that into the record without objection. welcome. we all owe you a debt of

gratitude for the hours you spend literally every day in efforts to protect our country. thank you for that. thank you for being here as the lead author of the eggs product , hs 3239. act >> thank you, madam chairwoman and ranking member roberts. i wanted to just begin by pointing out this is a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by yourself, senators leahy, plumas all, scott brown, -- blumenthal, kerry, saunders, vitter, wyden, and schumer.

unfortunately, senator leahy could not be here this morning. i am delighted to see the ranking member of the judiciary, senator grassley here as well. the united egg producers represent 90% of the eggs sold in the united states. the humane society of the united states is the largest animal welfare organization in the country. i believe they have a 11 million members. these groups came together to forge a compromise agreement that can ensure the future of the egg industry and result in a better product. you are right, senator robert. in 2008, calif. passed proposition 2 that created a requirement that hints be able to stretch their wings and turnaround -- hens be able to stretch their wings and turn

around. similar provisions were put in place in michigan, washington, ohio, and oregon. the result of the state level initiatives is now a patchwork of standards that make it hard for egg producers to know the rules of the road and to conduct interstate commerce. ag farmers nationwide are stymied as they it -- a farmers nationwide are stymied as they attempt to develop their infrastructure. why grow when the rules of the road might change and invalidate your investments? why go to the market if the market will not be open to you in a few years? this legislation addresses this problem. the agreement establishes a single national standard for the treatment of egg-laying hens. you are going to hear a lot in detail about it from the next panel. let me quickly, briefly explain what the bill does.

the eyes of -- size of hen cages is made larger over 10 years. the practice of depriving hens of food and water is outlawed. there are clear requirements for a labeling so consumers know -- for a labeling so consumers know cage-free,gs are caged, or otherwise. this legislation only applies to egg producers and is the result of careful association between animal welfare groups and the only industry that is affected. no other is affected.

secondly, i have heard concerns that the bill will hurt small producers. that is simply incorrect. farmers with 3000 birds or fewer are specifically exempted from the provisions of this legislation. organic, cage-free, free range producers will also be unaffected by the housing provisions, except that they will see increased sales as consumers are able to more clearly tell what is available on store shelves as a result of the labelling provisions. and for those who are affected by our bill, it will be up to 18 years. in this time, most producers will replace it cages in any event, i am told. this legislation is endorsed by the leading scientists and the egg industry, the american

veterinary association, and the two leading veterinary groups. studies show these new cages can result in lower mortality and higher productivity for hens, making them more efficient egg producers. finally, i want to set things straight regarding the cost of the bill. cbo endorses the legislation and find no cost. another study found that there would not be a substantial price effect on consumers. it is also important to note that this bill reflects what is already happening because of consumer demand. burger king, walmart, costco, and other companies are already phasing in new humane handling requirements for the food they sell. third, a research company and

its broad support from consumers. specifically they found consumer support the industry transitioning to larger cages with enrichments like perches by a ratio of 12 to one. i would like to submit for the record 13 pages of endorsements. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> you can tell how important this bill is to the egg industry, because farmers have come from all across united states to attend this hearing and show support. you will meet several on the next panel, including eric benson, from my home state of california. others are in the audience. let me mention a few.

farmers and i a lot have a strong interest in seeing this bill -- in iowa have a strong interest in seeing this bill pass, so they can access the huge consumer market. the ceo of cowmain foods. they will find it more and more difficult to comply with conflicting state standards unless we pass this bill. annie from california. gary from minnesota. they represent smaller operations. roger sager from indiana. they have enacted state level production standards. they have to make decisions about infrastructure and wonder

if they are going to be locked out of neighboring markets. mollie from ohio. she is trying to cope with you regulations imposed for buying -- imposed by her home state. there are many producers who could not even get into the room to dead. they are sitting in overflow rooms around the corner. but they all came to washington to be heard. i would also like to add that the most recent list of supporters is up 13 pages long. it includes 13 -- 14 agriculture and egg producing groups. five consumer groups. and many more. if this compromise represents something of very unique and animal agriculture. this is an animal welfare group

and a major industry working to create an agreement that is practical and has a reasonable timeframe for producers to implement -- 18 years -- new standards for animals and workers and clearer labeling. this is a practical and fair minded resolution that solves our real problem for the egg industry. i encourage the committee to support this bill. i thank you very much for this opportunity. >> thank you for your comprehensive testimony. we look forward to working with you as we move forward in discussing this issue. i believe at this point, unless someone has a question for senator feinstein, we will move forward to our other panel. senator grassley, do you have a

question? >> i would like it to go into the record, and i would like to submit a letter in opposition from the southwest iowa egg farm producers on the legislation. >> without objection. thank you. i look forward to working with you and i appreciate your comprehensive -- we will ask our second panel to come forward at this point.

>> well, good morning. we appreciate all of you taking the time to join us today. let me introduce each of our witnesses and we will ask each of you for five minutes of verbal testimony. we certainly want any other written testimony you like to leave with the committee as well. then we will have around of questions. first, let me introduce our first panelist.

david lathem, an egg farmer from tender grass, georgia -- pendergrass, ga.. our next guest is the president of j.s. west & companies, eric benson. i am particularly pleased to have the next witness from michigan, greg, manages herbruck's poultry ranch along with his son and two brothers. they are a third and fourth generation family farm, very respected in michigan. finally, i am going to turn to senator roberts to welcome our final witness. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. may i introduce amon baer from

lake park, minn. from mendelson egg co. when you look at the number of baer family members in farming, you appreciate that amon became a family farmer out of necessity. he and his wife our family farm operators. they have nine children, all of whom are involved in the farming operation. together with two of their five sons, they own 300,000 laying hens, and the market 6 million net and eggs -- 6 million eggs per year. and believe it or not, this is

not a big operation. to the south, amon and one of his sons are partners in another farm. and not to be outdone, one of his 14 siblings, three of amon's brothers are also forming in the red river valley region. you cannot get any more farm family then -- than amon. mr. baer, if there was any more family in your operations, we may have trouble fitting them in this room. welcome. >> welcome to each of you. good morning. >> my name is david lathem. i am chairman of the united egg

producers. we represent -- >> either the microphone is not on, or move a little bit closer. we want to make sure everyone has a chance to hear you. >> is that better? >> that is better. >> ok. will represent 19% of all eggs -- 90% of all eggs sold in the united states. we manage almost half of the nation's laying hens. we support the bill and we appreciate the committee having this hearing. i believe the long-term viability of my family farm is in jeopardy without the bill. we cannot set up different production systems to meet conflicting standards in every state. we need production standards for everyone that are fair for

everyone. house bill 3239 allows us to take charge of our own destiny. this bill has the overwhelming support of our industry. not unanimous -- because nothing important dissever unanimous -- but overwhelming. we are living in a time when the american public is interested as never before in all food is produced and where it comes from. we could see this as an opportunity rather than a threat. we believe house bill 3239 represents a single future for all of us, but we are not the only ones. we have the scientific support of several professional societies. it has the support of the national consumers league. ag producing groups at the state level have come not in support from the farms and unions.

if this bill has wide support. however, some to oppose it. some simply attack the humane society of united states. they say you can trust hsus. it is no secret that our organization and theirs have been adversaries. we have disagreed on animal welfare issues for years. they realized that we did care about the welfare of our hens, and we realized that they did care about the survival of our farms. so, we began to do work, like everyone says you should do. look for common ground. seek compromise. the main thing some people have against us -- look for common ground -- weekly guilty to that

charge. opponents of house bill 3239 say this represents a slippery slope precedent that will inevitably force other animal industries into similar standards. this is not true. there are two basic reasons why. first, we're all here because we as producers want this agreement. if hsus were for the agreement and we were against it, i do not think we would have this meeting here today. if we do not want a settlement nothsus, -- with hsus, is that going to happen. the slippery slope argument suggests that regulators are incapable of making decisions between commodities. it is completely at odds with what congress has done over the

years. congress has always looked at each commodity separately. you do not legislate the same program for cotton as you do for peanuts. there are price supports. eggs have always been regulated differently from other animal products. the food and drug administration has a separate standard of safety for our farms, but not for beef, pork, or turkey production. -- the slippery slope argument ignores history and replaces it with hypothetical fears. the reality is congress has always made distinctions. i hope he will forcefully reject

this argument. madam chairwoman, i genuinely believe the survival of my farm and other farms are hanging in the balance. we need senate bill 3239 in order to provide a fair operating environment for all farms. thank you for letting me speak today. >> thank you very much. mr. benson, welcome. >> thank you for having us here, senator, and other senators. in here representing j.s. west & companies from modesto, calif.. we are family owned and operated. and third and fourth generation. we believe by providing the highest quality products to our customers -- for example, up watching -- providing high-

quality retirement benefits to all of our employees. you have seen the inconsistent animal welfare statues that began with prop 2 in california. i have always believed the marketplace should make decisions their consumer demands and preference. the dilemma we face today is that consumers will vote with their hearts and buy it with their pocketbooks. we need a set of standards. we are willing to produce competitively as long as the rules are clear and fair. in here and support of the bill that are senator dianne feinstein has sponsored along with 15 of her colleagues.

we're very proud of her work as a champion of our industry. i would like to spend my brief time talking about the system that will become a national standard once the bill stand -- once the bill passes. we would make a multi year transition. @ j.s. west & companies -- at j.s. west we have taken a flock through the laying cycle with two more in production. if you want to know what it looks like, what our -- watch our webcam at jswest.com and see them in realtime. not many of these systems are in place in the united states. what exactly is it? larger than the conventional

inclosure. in our case, each colony contains about 60 hens. each is furnished with a nest box, purchase -- perches, scratch areas. you can see an example where these hens have perches. this photograph was taken out of our hen system blog. results of an encouraging. and mortality is lower. the small proportion that have died is smaller than in other systems. food consumption is a little greater, but we think that is because of the higher activity levels, and the birds definitely use the enrichments. senate bill 3239 provides for a

multi year transition to the new systems. that being said, more than 80% of equipment being used today is capable of conversion to the system. that means senate bill 3239 will not require producers to make a capital investment they were not already willing to make, albeit at a higher level, before. if you really believe that you can maintain the currt conventional cage system forever, there is a cost to enriched cages. in california, we're pretty sure that is not case. if we cannot gain a consensus in favor of this enriched colony system, the future will lie with those egg producers that have the highest density of hens per square foot in a state where no

rules exist and little concern is given for society's standards on hand welfare. i am convinced this colony's system and the standards that support it are the best compromise for the future of our industry. the system has better animal welfare and efficiency than cage free or free range and reflects the best standards for egg production moving forward. i salute hsus for their openness and willingness to compromise on this issue. they recognize that you can improve animal welfare within the context of an economically- sustainable cage system, if designed right. it does make sense. the national welfare system that treats everybody the same and reflects our country's ideas of fairness and humanity -- that

is what is required here and that is what senate bill 3239 provides. thank you, senator. >> thank you but very much. welcome. good to see. >> hello. thank you for the chance to testify today. my name is greg herbuck. our family farm faces the same challenges as others. grain prices have soared across the nation. the situation i will describe to you today is more serious for us. over the years, we have tried to meet the needs of our customers. we have been part of the growing organic egg industry and to partner with 20 other farms to supply a wide range of eggs through different production systems. we also use conventional eggs.

there are good reasons our industry moves in this direction. animal health, protection from creditors, and economic efficiency. -- protection from creditors, and economic efficiency. -- protection from predators. however, we alert consumers and voters do not make decisions based simply on science. muster several generations -- most are several generations removed from the farm. they are accustomed -- they are customers. we got a dramatic wake-up call when california voters passed proposition 2 by a two to one margin. other states move to establish their own standards. madam chairwoman, we are aware

of our state of michigan was one of those. in a few years, and farms in michigan will be required to provide it -- to provide twice as much space. we have a patchwork of state animal welfare laws that are inconsistent and unworkable. these laws will not just affect producers in those particular states. this means if a farmer -- a farmer in iowa will have to comply with california standards because a number of eggs sold in california come from iowa. moves -- banks move across state lines every day. -- eggs move across state lines every day. bair in surplus or in deficits, meaning most farms are incapable of producing what the state consumes. our farms cannot maintain a

separate henhouse standard for every state where we want to sell eggs. and yet that is where we are headed with the patchwork of laws that keep passing. michigan is differ from ohio which is different from washington, which is different from california. it actually gets worse. will serve as major grocery outlets. it would be an impossible task to keep track of which eggs were produced in which state. you can see we're on our road to chaos. i also urge you to examine the house version of the farm bill. there is an amendment that encourages the exact opposite of a national standard. if herbuck's has to adhere to a standard in one state and others to not, this will mean it death for our family farm. unfortunately, the private

sector cannot alone solve this problem. we cannot avoid the threat of future ballot initiatives, and 24 states have them. we are convinced the only solution to this problem is a national production standard come up as contained in senator feinstein's bill 3239. it is essential that this legislation be passed as quickly as possible so we can stay in business. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. baer, thank you. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you for the opportunity for me to be able to testify today. and farmers of america, but the association of over a dozen

operations -- senator roberts did a very good job of introducing me, so i will not introduce myself. thank you. we have five primary reasons we are opposed to this bill. this bill will essentially kill the small family and former. this bill will result in the dramatic increase of cost to consumers. this bill is not necessary. he will be establishing a precedent that could affect all livestock industries. and 3239 is not justified by science. egg production is a cyclical, high-volume, low-margin business. this bill will benefit the mega operations to the detriment of the 1800 other family farms. the experience of my nephew is an example of why this is the

case. he just installed new housing, investing almost $2.5 million. that equipment system has a useful life of over 30 years. if sanibel 3239 becomes law, he will be required to essentially start over. as replacement cost then -- his replacement cost then to maintain production standards would be almost $5 million. there is no way that young man will be able to raise that kind of money in 18 years. cost to the industry -- in 1999, the european union issued a similar directive to require farmers to enrich housing over 12 years. as predicted, many closed operations due to the higher

capital investment required. european consumers saw supplies dipped by 20% and prices soar up to 55% higher. we can expect a similar result in our country. by 2029, at 65% of production will still be in conventional cages at 67 inches. this lot is unnecessary. today, any producer who wants to produce eggs has the freedom and the ability to do so. they do not need a federal law to require this at this level. the law is required to force the small farmer out of business so there is less production. it sets a bad precedent. as a lifelong board member, i am sympathetic to the unfortunate situation faced by the egg

farmers in california. eric benson mentioned a lot of money was spent. my family spent millions of dollars to california farmers, trying to be proposition 2. i agree with the california congressman whose said regarding the farm bill "we have a terrible situation created by the voters of california with this a good situation. now that i am a retiring member, i can say i do not always agree with what the voters do." i certainly agree with that congressman. after the 1999 ue directive -- no study has resulted in an

increase in food safety. in addition, the u.s. department of agriculture studied last july and found no single housing system gets the highest court on animal welfare parameters. the american veterinary medical association issued a statement that "each of the additional features in the colony as the potential to malfunction, causing injury, harboring disease factors." before concluding my remarks, i would like to state for the record, i personally oppose this legislation and i and others have received threats. we are evaluating those threats with lawyers and law enforcement officials. thank you, madam chairwoman for your time. >> thank you very much.

we will move to questions. could you respond a little bit more to the challenge of patchwork state regulations in michigan? -- patrick state regulations? in michigan, i know they have standards. they have a voluntary effort. why cannot we do this -- why can we do this voluntarily -- can't we do this voluntarily? >> as a mention, we started in roughly 30 other states. with this expanding of state standards, we will have to have a chicken house for every state. it is impossible to manage the type of operation. as well as getting aids through a system. what it takes to keep track of

ohio eggs. -- as well as getting eggs through system. if it is a warehouse, they will say, this has to go to ohio or west virginia or michigan. that is a patchwork to make. >> thank you. and you really have been at the forefront of the pro-active reaction to consumer interest. we appreciate that. mr. lathem, could you talk about the prices of eggs? what will the consumer level be, and areg prices there provisions in the bill to ensure that egg prices do not dramatically increase? >> of course, egg prices always fluctuates. the last two years, eggs have

been as cheap as 75 cents a dozen. today, they're probably $1.60. as we know, corn and soy have gone very high. we will always have our crops. we did do a study. the work they did shows that over 18 years, there is only cents per dozen. even when we get through that phase in period, we are talking and 9 cents per dozen when everybody is in enriched cages. we think that is a reasonable number. id is less than a 5% increase. we think that is very reasonable. >> can you speak to the price

increases in the european union and what you have experienced? >> it definitely. we have done a lot of work on this legislation. one of the things we wanted to do was in sure we did not have what happened in europe. so, we have a phased in, tiered approach where we raise the square inches per chicken. europe did not do that. europe had one final day you had to go from existing houses to new, enriched housing. our legislation as much, much better, more thought out, better planned. >> thank you. talking about the differences from the standpoint of a producer, when you look at things like the depreciation schedule and so on for the traditional hand cages, what provisions are in the bill to make the transition compatible

with what you do in the normal course of business as to make decisions? >> we have a couple houses on our ranch. my cousin put them in in 1992 or 1993. the equipment in those houses is in desperate need of replace right now. we do not know what we can put in there, but that is probably the uncertainty issue. they last about 20 years. the legs of the bottom of the cages is starting to rot away. where the eggs rollout from the hens is getting more weighty than it should be. the build feeder -- belt feeder needs to be replaced. and that was good quality equipment that we purchased. from our experience, we've got to do this in 20 years. the equipment is not efficient.

today's equipment is better. is designed stronger. is designed to last a long time. but once again, beyond 20 years, i do not think it is practical. we need to do it anyway. as far as depreciation schedules, a lot of people are like, what does this cost? our operating costs are very similar to what we have today. it will cost a little different. you know. possibly there will be a little higher feed costs. at some point, you're going to have to get the capitol. -- capital. but the rest of it is really not that different. >> thank you very much. senator roberts? >> amon, did anyone from up

contact you -- uep contact you, to let you know they were negotiating this agreement? >> as a board member, i was notified. i has -- i have a brother who has been a member for 40 years, and he was not notified. >> that allowed. [laughter] >> i'm getting old. my hearing is not good anymore. >> that's my problem, too. [laughter] >> were you asked to support this agreement? >> no. >> of the federal government mandates the standards come up

what will happen to your business? -- standards, what will happen to your business? i think keeping much answered that with what happened to your nephew. you are saying it will cost your nephew $5 million. folks may say my right, your left, but they have 18 years to do it. >> my son is also looking at taking over my operation. i would like to sell it to him. my nephew put in equipment to produce eggs at 67 inches. if my son takes over my operation and puts more equipment in, he will have to produce eggs at 90 square inches, 102 square inches, 120 square inches. because he is starting two years later, he will be locked into a

more inefficient egg production system that costs more per doesn't then his cousin, and he will be competing with his cousin at a 4 cent disadvantage for a four-year period. my son will not be able to take over my operation with that kind of cost efficiency. >> you not only are into egg production. you have a very diversified farming operation. do you have concerns a regulation like this will just bring more consolidation in what is a very consolidated industry? >> absolutely. my son as a prime example. he simply will not be able to borrow the money to put these new cages in if he has to be at a competitive disadvantage with 70% of the industry.

>> >> actually, that was another question that i had. how are folks responding? the you get along with the folks on your right? >> i have a lot of respect for them. on this issue, we disagree entirely. >> you raise hogs. you mentioned you were worried about the precedent this legislation will said. will you talk about your concerns? >> yes, proposition two not only covered laying hens, but also hog gestation stalls, and the same issue is being played out. if congress starts the process of regulating on farm production practices, i do not think the animal rights groups or anyone else advocating for that will

stop. they will continue to advocate and end of the federal government set standards for all livestock. >> mr. lathem, uep controls 90%, right? they said welfare standards. >> correct. >> if you control 90% of the market and have a welfare standard that should be available knowledge to all consumers, why the need the federal government to set a new standard? >> what we found out is the public is interested in our industry like never before. we have an excellent program. it has been very well accepted. when we see now is that consumers, through ballot initiatives, customers developing their own plans -- we see people want to be involved in how their food is produced.

what we need is a consistent level playing field, everyone on the same program. it is not right for some producers to stay in business while others go out because they live in the wrong states, or a lot of the drop. we feel -- lot of the drop. we feel they should be produced humanely. the main thing, is this something we can all live with. >> if this bill were enacted and page sizes were increased, what is the benefit -- page sizes were increase, what is the benefit -- cage sizes are increased, what is the benefit to human health from the food safety standpoint? >> well, we serve very safe eggs today, the safest have ever been, and i do not see that

changing. we have eggs and we will continue to have safe eggs. >> the proposed rule calls for 116 square inches. why are we considering a law that calls for 144? who decided on this number? how do you know this is exactly the right number? >> it is actually 124 inches. the other number you called it was for brown hands. -- quoted is for brown hens. this is not a new system for here. we have relied on them, and their number is 116, and we decided on 124, which is close to the 116 number which side

supports. >> he said the cost was $24 per hen for new construction, $20 for renovation, and another dollar per ton for purchase and scratch pads, so that would equal roughly $8 billion. is this argument in favor of the bill that no one will notice such a dramatic cost increase if they are spread out over several years? and as a billion dollars. that is a lot of money -- that is $8 billion. that is a lot of money. >> that is on the high side. i do not come up with that figure. >> what do you think? >> i think it could be as high as $6 billion, but it is important that you realize that we will probably spend $3 billion anyway, so the

incremental cost will be closer to the $3 billion, and when you spread them over the number of eggs, it comes up to 1.5 cents per dozen, and approximately 9 cents when we complete the transition, about 5% of the cost of one dozen eggs. we think it is reasonable when the end -- at the end of the day all farmers are here to appease the public. we have to listen to the public and we hear what they want. [unintelligible] >> i cannot say, senator roberts, that our experiences around those numbers. $20.50 is the bid that i got to replace the equipment, and 24 is right, to build from scratch, but we do not plan to spend it all right away. >> mr. benson, let me see if i

have that right. you indicated that costs are stable, and as a consequence you could figure out what happens in 18 years. you are aware of the drought going on here, north dakota, down to texas, the second year for kansas. we pretty much burned up, and cattle and poultry are effected dramatically. i would expect that the consumer applications, while not immediate, over the next year could be considerable. i said could be. we do not have all of the usda figures. the chairwoman and i are very concerned about. he did not know what is when you have been in regards to your cost of -- you do not know what is going to happen in regards to your cost of production could >>

cost of feed is one of our biggest cost, and that is a concern going forward, but we live in a very competitive marketplace, and the 5% that we are talking about, over 18 years, is a fairly low number compared to the amount of money, or the prices that have gone up and down over the past couple of weeks. these short-term fluctuations are one thing. the long-term trend has been toward better technology, efficiency, and more room for the hands. it is how long the equipment less, 18,-20 years, the we are aware of the longer term trends, and quite frankly, if there is money, people will expand production. >> i think they have talked about the situation in that you, when europe -- in the eu, when europe implemented this.

they waited until the last minute, typical with regulation in the business community, egg prices soared 55% to i hope that does not happen in the united states. >> thank you. before concluding the hearing, i would like to ask each of you with the biggest challenges are for egg producers in the united states and what you see as the future of the industry over the next 20 years. mr. amon baer, would you like to talk about what you think the challenges are? >> i think the short-term challenge will be a feed cost, as senator roberts explained. who knows where they will end up at, and it is 60% to 75% of our total cost. on a long-term basis, there will

be consolidation. this bill would accelerate that. it is much easier for big operators to convert small percentages of their farms over. that works to the detriment of individual family farms, like my nephew and my son, who when they make the conversion, they have to do 100% of the conversion right now, and that is why it does not work for the small family farmer. other concerns, long term, certainly, is the active as an from animal rights advocates and all of the issues that surround that. thank you. of it. -- >> ok. mr. quigley? >> yes. we have family. we hope to have a business we

can share with our children and grandchildren for the future. as i mentioned, in michigan, we are in a tough st. if we do not do something to change the path, we will be significantly on profitable and not competitive because of our peers in neighboring states do not have to do things, and we do have to follow a standard that doubles capacity, our customers love us, but they will move on. the uncertainty -- that is why we need the certainty to make plans for our future. >> thank you. >> i am afraid he took my major point, it is that uncertainty, especially in california. it is not just the various rules that we have for the various states. it is also the way they will be interpreted, and the uncertainty we have and whether we are

planning on doing complies with initiatives from various states. if they are not clear, much less if there is a level playing field, we did not know what we are doing going forward, and that puts our family in a difficult bind. >> thank you. mr. leighton? >> i would say they stole my point, too. that is why we are all here. we are unified. we do need to know that we have the future. we need to have a level playing ground. the number one thing that scares me is what kind of house do why build will not be able to ship eggs will somebody from iowa ship eggs to georgia because they cannot go to california? we as farmers and producers, our jobs are to look at the consumers and do a good job to

produce abundant food that is safe. that is what we want to do, but we deserve and want a level playing ground. that is why we are here today. >> thank you very much. thank you to each of you. this is a challenging issue because of what the states are doing. i know what you are talking about, mr. jerbruck from the michigan standpoint. mr. lathem, you talked about coming together with differing views, and folks normally not on the same side coming together and finding common ground. we are used to doing that in this committee. that is how we got a bipartisan farm bill. we are proud of that and how we were able to pass it in the senate. i am hoping we will be able to come together and find common ground on this very important issue for egg producers around the country could >> it is

important, and we do appreciate that. >> thank you. the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it is the tradition of common law judges not to reply to press criticism. we are covered by the press all the time. i cannot tell you how many wonderful letters i have written to "the washington post" just for my own satisfaction, and then wrapped up and thrown away. >> you do not send them. >> that is the tradition. he did not respond to criticism. >> supreme court justice in tons canea -- justice antonin scalia reflects on law sunday, on "q&a ." >> the first week in august, this is the kentucky city named for louis the 16th. >> welcome to the historical society. we have been collecting since

1884, and we have a nest a flammable collection. everyone has heard -- of a phenomenal connection -- we have amassed a phenomenal connection. everybody has heard of lois and clark, but many do not realize the roots here in kentucky. many historians believe this is the only verified animal are fed from the expedition. we know -- their fight animal from the expedition. >> a week and in louisville, august 4 and fifth as c-span's local content vehicles explore the history of literary culture. >> assistant attorney general for civil rights thomas perez justified today on the justice department's approach to enforcing voting rights laws

with republicans contending they are partisan in which issues to pursue. suits have been filed against normal -- many states and most -- including florida and most recently pennsylvania. the hearing is just over an hour. >> good morning. we welcome you to this civil rights division oversight hearing. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. last year marked the 150th anniversary of the civil war. it was a chance not only to reflect on the horror of institutionalized slavery, but a reminder to all free people never to cast doubt on the humanity of any of our fellow human beings. and, to take solace in the least one reading and

recognition that we fought our bloodiest war to end that tragedy. today, and soldiers risk their lives for human freedom, beyond our borders. as election 2012 nears, the division voting section must ensure that those defending democracy abroad can participate at home. there are approximately 2 million military voters, many in combat zones with limited access. accordingly, in 2009, the empowerment act was passed, which requires states to mail absentee ballots and least 45 days before a federal election. at april 18 hearing before the committee, experts testified that inadequate enforcement of the move act in 2010 disenfranchised thousands of service members.

this year, it is imperative the justice department address them negotiate strong settlements that deter repeat offenses, and work with the defense department to insure recruitment centers and bases offered the opportunity to request ballots as required by law. unfortunately, the justice department seems unconcerned about legislation rates, even though it is aggressively suit states where they think welfare offices have been insufficient registration. similarly, in north carolina, there are 110,000 active-duty military and spouses, but only 1860 requests for absentee ballots have been processed. 110,000 active-duty military spouses, but only 1860 requests

have been processed. in virginia, there have only been 874. height of the military voting rate averages 1%, or there is a systemic problem of the end the almost certainly falls on the civil rights division. the justice department should also insist on express mail where necessary to ensure that the returns in time. the voting section regularly imposes far heavier costs on jurisdictions, for example, demanding bilingual ballots for naturalized citizens even who identified as speaking english well. it must be the first priority to protect service members rights to low -- to vote. indeed, it is seeking headlines opposing voter i.d. laws that an overwhelming majority of americans support.

the civil rights division is so desperate to block these laws it has in. itself in accord. the department of justice case against the texas -- in. itself in court. the department of justice's has a case against the texas -- the state of texas, that the trial, shock was expressed in counting military ideas -- id. there is no excuse for failing to except the government-issued military i.d., and the public deserves an answer for this today. further partisan bias is clear in the national voters registration act enforcement, aggressively suing states for now -- for not aggressively enough registering voters at welfare offices, but not a

single case to fight fraud. when ford tried to comply voluntarily by removing non- citizens from its boulder roles, and the department of justice rushed to course -- rushed to court, and lost. over objections, the department of justice forced dayton, ohio, to lower the passing score on the police recruitment exam to increase diversity even though federal law prohibits altering the results of employment-based tests on the basis of race. it appears the division is breaking the law. further, the civil rights division requires taxpayers to pay for costly bilingual ballots, even though it really exempts motors educated in pr from once prevalent -- voters educated in puerto rico from once prevalent literacy tests.

i could go on. with that, i will now yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. today, the subcommittee continues oversight of the civil rights committee of the department of justice. with the authority to enforce civil rights laws, the division is the guardian of fundamental values -- freedom of religion, the right to be feeding trivet, the right to a job, a home, and education, and the right to live one's life free from the threat of violent hate crimes. it is auspicious and we are meeting on the enactment of the disabilities act anniversary. that notes the work of the disability rights section. as our subcommittee has documented, they were equally troubled during the bush years. career civil rights attorneys were routinely overruled by

political appointees. hiring was illegally politicized, and in some areas grossly neglected, and morel was as bad since anytime in the division was established. president obama signaled a new era by appointed assistant attorney general tom pariahs. he is a career civil rights lawyer and has worked -- attorney general tom per -- thomas perez. he has been rebuilding a decimated and demoralized office, and has done so while dealing with fundamental test such as redistricting. the division as an important story to tell. whatever the policy, the justice department has worked hard to meet the civil-rights challenges today. some of the same people undermining the division while they are there have now made a career of making false allegations, all of the same

subtext, that they are favoring minorities to the detriment of whites. the division is making an effort to enforce laws they really do not like it is a willie horton campaign, re and simple. -- pure and simple. we see the enactment of various devices having the purpose and effect of preventing people to exercise their right to vote under the pretext of protecting the integrity of elections. this is not without precedent. in the past, literacy tests have been used to keep people out of the polls citizens whose voices those in power did not want to hear. in our day, -- the requirement of particular voter idea that we know some segments of the population are less likely to possess and other devices being implemented around the country. the pretext, and there is no word for it, has never stood up

to scrutiny. even when now where a voter i.d. law is challenged in pennsylvania, the state has admitted there had been no investigations or prosecutions. the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of such investigations. the parties are not aware of the in-person voter fraud in pennsylvania and not have personal knowledge of voter fraud elsewhere. pennsylvania will not offer evidence that it has happened in pennsylvania or other. the commonwealth will not author -- offer evidence that it is likely to happen in 2012 in the absence of the voter i.d. law. i like to enter that into the record >> without objection. >> thank you. >> why have the voter i.d. law at all? the answer comes from the recent

commenting that voter i.d. will allow governor mark -- governor romney to win pennsylvania. boater idea, which will allow governor romney -- voter i.d., which will allow governor romney to win pennsylvania. could we go to the video? >> we are focused meeting obligations. pro-life legislation, don. voter i.d., which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> so, i do not think it goes too far to demand the civil rights division gives close and careful scrutiny to any voting changes likely to disenfranchise voters. there is a strategy to disenfranchise voters for partisan, political purposes, and it is the most widespread campaign since the jim crow era.

if civil-rights laws mean anything, and i know not all members voted to extend the voting rights act, we have an obligation. to many americans have given their lives for us to allow it to be taken away. the police must use all the tools available to make communities safe. i can report that new york's finest does an outstanding job, but they must obey the law and the constitution and respect the rights of the communities they are sworn to serve. policies seem to crossed the line. the vast majority of individuals are stopped when done nothing wrong are sent on their way. these are disproportionate for communities of color, who fear they are under siege radin being protected. the settlement was announced the new orleans police the park. it is to the division's credit we have seeing this through to this resolution. i hope to hear from the

assistant attorney general thomas perez about efforts to ensure that those charged with enforcing the law, around the country are themselves complying with it. i join you, mr. chairman, in welcoming assistant attorney general thomas perez. >> thank you. without objection, of the members of opening statements will be made part of the record. assistant attorney general thomas perez is here today to testify. thank you for being with us. >> it is an honor to be. >> mr. thomas perez became the assistant attorney general on october 8, 2009, prior to becoming -- 2009. he served as secretary of the department of labor legislation. he served as a career prosecutor in the civil rights division. he went on to serve as director of the office for civil rights department of health and human services. his extensive -- in addition to

his extensive service, he asserts the special counsel to the late senator edward kennedy. he is a graduate of the harvard law school and holds a bachelor's degree from brown university and a master's in public policy from the kennedy school of government. he resides in maryland with his wife and three children. assistant attorney general, we look forward to hearing your testimony. again, i welcome you to the hearing. mr. thomas perez's which instead will be entered into the record in his entire the, and i would ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude testimony. when it is red, you're five minutes have expired. before i recognize the witness -- [inaudible] >> before i recognize the

witness, it is tradition that he be sworn. if you would stand. >> sure. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. i recognize mr. thomas perez. did not forget the microphone but did >> thank you, chairman franks, ranking number nadler. in the years since i last. before the committee, the civil rights committee has continued vigorous informant -- enforcement of civil rights laws. it is fitting on the 22nd anniversary of the ada, a land mark bloc. 20 -- law. 22 years ago i was working in the civil-rights division as a career attorney. i want to thank you to the former chairman of this distinguished committee of

wisconsin for his and his wife's on wavering commitment to disability rights, and i commend him for leadership in the reauthorization of the voting rights act. civil rights as a bipartisan history in this committee, in this congress and across america. thanks to the talented career attorneys and support staff to work in the division, we continue to achieve great successes in protecting the civil rights of all individuals. the me give you a few examples. two days ago, in new orleans, doj announced no sweeping police reform case in the department's history, which serves as a country as a blueprint for sustainable reform, and we are handling more cases of this nature than any time in our history. the last fiscal year, the division filed hate crime charges the result in the been the conviction of 39 defendants, the largest number in more than one decade. we brought more human trafficking cases than any other four-here. in the department of history.

-- four-year period. we can build 27 new voting cases in the last fiscal year. we have never handled more cases until this fiscal year, which is not yet done, in which we have handled 36 new cases. in the last three years we participated in over 40 disability matters in over 25 states to assist people with disabilities to live in community-based settings, working with republican and democratic governors in georgia, virginia and delaware to dramatically expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities to thrive in committee? the settings. we achieved the largest recovery in the sexual harassment act. we resolve the the lending settlement was cut to ally financial, a one of the $75 million -- a $175 million

settlement with wells fargo. we reached an agreement with colorado to provide interpreter services in court proceedings with -- for individual a limited english proficiency. we're working with other states on this issue as well. we are protected the rights of the diligence to worship and assembled in accordance with their religious beliefs. last week, we obtained a court order under the institutionalized persons act and the directing rutherford county, tenn., allowing moscow to open. a few weeks earlier, a grand jury indicted an individual from making a threat against that mosque. we aggressively enforce the rights to protect service members, filing 39 cases, which exceeds the 32 cases filed under the previous administration. we have obtained records released for service members who have been victims of unlawful

foreclosures. we protected the voting rights of service members to the enforcement of the move act. we filed more cases in the 2010 election cycle than any other time in the enforcement. 14 matters, either lawsuits or settlements. this year, we have filed four more -- alabama, california, wisconsin in georgia for noncompliance with the move at, and legislative proposal we have offered to strengthen those. i'm proud of these accomplishments, which represent only a small fraction of our work. these cases are about real people in communities who have been denied access to real -- equal opportunities. it is about the students in school district in minnesota, where a south philadelphia high school who were victims of pervasive bullying. when the basic rights of every parent and student is that their student should be safe in school and have a safe learning environment. as a result of our a landmark agreement, the students can now feel safe and focused energies on learning.

is about helping the worker who was fired after telling her employer that was wrong to deny jobs to u.s. citizens and workers with permanent work authorization and give those jobs instead to temporary workers -- two people with temporary work visas. in some cases the weeks and opportunity for a few people. and others might be hundreds of thousands or more. this job is a sacred trust and i am proud of the work of the dedicated career professionals in the division. we have made great strides in expanded opportunity and a number of critical ways, but civil rights remains the unfinished business of america. we will continue to use all the tools in our arsenal so that all individuals enjoy the rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the united states. thank you for this opportunity to be here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. thomas perez, and i appreciate your testimony.

i will begin questioning by recognizing myself for five minutes. >> protecting the rights of those who protect us to vote seems to be something the american people strongly support. some states consistently failed to give balance to military members in the elections, systemically disenfranchising military voters, breaking federal law, and disenfranchising again those who protect us. in 2010, 14 states and counties that failed to get ballots out to their states deployed military. new york alone failed to meet the deadline for 43,000 military voters. the settlement doj reached the state's only perpetuated the problem, since they did not provide sufficient time for the balance to be received before the election and mailed back in time. worst, mr. perez, you have opined that ballots filled out

after the election, which is when many military members received your ballot are invalid. this the administration has continued to disenfranchise voters. is that perhaps because the military tends to vote heavily republican? i would think you suggest not what is your staff doing to ensure all states is meeting deadlines for getting deployed military voters their ballots in time to come? >> thank you for your question. i categorically disagree of your characterization of the work we have done. when the move act passed in 2009 we immediately went to work off, and when you look at the work done in the play 10 cycle that was the most aggressive enforcement of laws protecting military and overseas voters in the history of our division. there were 14 matters we brought either through lawsuits or through out of court settlements. in some cases, there were dozens of people who were deprived, in

your, as you correctly point out. there were tens of thousands. it did not matter. every military and overseas boater has the right to receive their ballots in a timely fashion, and we were able to get that released. we continued the work because this year we have already filed four additional lawsuits, and we'll continue to aggressively enforce those laws. after the 2010 cycle, we had a productive. in another committee of the house in which we debated lessons learned from 2010. >> what commitment to you give the subcommittee that you will take proactive action against jurisdictions who fail to meet deadlines for getting baluster deployed service members who requested them and are at the mercy of the state to receive them? >> we have been working proactively on the issue and we will continue to do so. we will also work in partnership with the voter assistance

program and the department of defense, who plays an important role in ensuring that military and overseas boaters can exercise their right to vote. i completely agree with what you said, mr. chairman. this debate in this country, what we should be doing in this country is continuing to have this debate about the future of our nation, and then when we should be doing is making sure that every eligible person has the right to vote. that is why we put so much time into the move act enforcement, and when somebody says somebody is a republican or democrat, that is offensive, irrelevant, and it will not play into the work that we do. >> but there is a systemic issue. let me move on, if i can't i will read an opening paragraph from october, 21st, 2011 -- "top justice officials invited lives on this -- invited his longest

-- islamist advocates who lobbied them for a legal definition of racial discrimination. the civil rights lawyers on top of the line. i say this with potter honesty. i know they could come up with a way. to redefine criticism as discrimination says a female egyptian american lawyer, you then responded "we must continue to have the open, honest and critical dialogue you saw in a robust debate." perez responded, i have concrete thoughts in the aftermath of this." what were the concrete thoughts after the meeting with among others the leader of an unindicted co-conspirator

organization, after sharing a blatantly unconstitutional proposal to destroy first amendment free right speech of americans by outlawing criticism may be religion? according to the article, and no one at justice including you objected to this call to abrogate free speech. americans would be shocked to learn that you discussed ways to take away americans freedom of speech. will you tell us today, and i apologize for having to hurry, that this administration's department of justice will never again entertain or advance the proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? >> i am not familiar with the context you described. >> you are not familiar with the meeting? >> i would need to read the article to understand the context. when i can tell you is the department of justice

aggressively his forces all of the civil rights laws, including laws that protect religious freedom. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> my time has expired could >> the gentleman state his point. >> we have not seen that article, either, and we think it behooves us before accusations are made, or at least the same time yet physicians are made we see the article, the context, and we know the -- we are talking off. >> fair enough. i would place in the record without objection. the "daily caller" article. i will place that in the record without objection. with that my time has expired. i would recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. mr. assistant attorney general, the new york civil liberties union conducts an annual analysis of the new york's police apartment stop and frisk procedures. last year, the nypd stop and

interrogated over 685,000 times, a more than 60% increase since 2002, when there were only 97,000 stocks. nine out of 10 people were innocent, and neither arrested or ticketed, and 85% were black or latino. they were the target of a hugely disproportionate numbers of stocks. past month, advocates and elected officials advocated for review of these policies. do we expect federal review of stop and frisk practices and of their alleged, and i was a definite and systematic violations of the civil rights of people in new york city? could we expect federal review? >> ranking member never, we are aware of those allegations. -- nadler, we are aware of those allegations. i was in new york and we have received requests to investigate this matter not -- and are in

the process to review these requests. we have been at the police practice program. we more civil police practice investigations that are currently under way than at any time in our division's history, and i mentioned new orleans >> i noted you mentioned new orleans -- new orleans. >> i know the you mentioned new orleans. last december, we urge the investigation. do at the time frame as to when we may hear about that? >> it remains under active review. i cannot give you a specific response date. obviously, there are a lot of components in the department. >> thank you. a number of years ago, four or five years ago, we held many, many hours of public hearings on the question of the renewal of the voting rights act, specifically section 5 of the voting rights act.

some people said and the congress decided to the contrary that section 5 was not necessary because states and localities did not discriminate, and it was unfair in that it only covered certain local jurisdictions they stem their record is commission prior to the voting rights act and did not cover others. this was all ancient history with no current relevance. i note that there are a number of people saying the same thing again. of course, after those many hours of hearings we came up with a voluminous evidence of current discrimination and congress in both houses passed the reno and president bush signed it. could you -- a renewal, and president bush signed it. could you comment on the current necessity of section 5, and on the fairness of singling out

some but not all jurisdictions? >> sure. thank you for your question. at the outset of my testimony, i acknowledged of this testimony -- on this anniversary of the ada important contributions of the former chair of this committee, and i have read his testimony in connection with the reauthorization of section 5, and if my memory serves me he said something like it was one of the most luminous records ever developed in his 25-plus year history of serving in the united states congress, and that record that the congress for early developed is a record the continues to be borne out. in short, section 5 continues to be necessary. i look at the time since last september, where we have interposed 14 objections, whether in the context of an administrative review process, or in the context of cases that were filed before a three-judge

panel. some cases involved state-wide, and in some cases may involve local jurisdictions. it continues to be necessary. the other thing, congressman nadler, that is important to underscore, is that not only is it necessary, but if there is a jurisdiction that believes there is no longer a bailout -- i believe there have been 36 since 1984, and 18 have been in the last three years. >> i one more question. it is the 22nd anniversary of the enactment of the ada and i tremendous -- i applaud the tremendous work for making it a reality. in the past several congresses there have been proposals that would require notification of public accommodations before bringing a lawsuit under title 3 of the ada is the justice

apartment point of position -- ada. what is the justice's -- the justice department's position? >> as you correctly point out, we are very committed to protecting the rights of people with disabilities, however in those particular cases that are giving rise to that legislation, we believe that it would burden people with disabilities seeking fu access to the courts. title 3 of the ada is the public accommodation provision, and as currently written we think it strikes the right balance, so this particular proposal is not necessary. >> thank you. i yield back. >> and now yield to mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would be happy to yield to the chairman. >> thank you, sir. i apologize in trying to beat the clock.

let me recap on that one. will you tell us here today simply that this is administration, the department of justice will never attain or advanced a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? >> as i said before, you referenced as context -- >> let me ask a new question. will you tell us that this is ministrations department of justice will never entertained or advanced a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? >> again sir -- >> that is not a hard question. >> actually it is when you make threats against someone. >> i am asking you, will you tell us this department of justice will never entertain or advance a proposal to penalize speech against a religion?

>> again, sir. if you have a proposal you are considering, we will actively review the proposal could >> ok, i'm asking that you -- proposal. >> ok, i am proposing that you answer this question. will you tell us the department of justice will never entertained or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion? >> again, sir, if you give us the context. >> i will not yield. >> you are not interested in an answer then. >> i if i rephrase the question coming you might get a answer. >> i appreciate that, but i will ask my questions, and you will ask your. >> i'm trying to get an answer to a fairly basic answer here.

if the department of justice cannot answer the question of whether they will entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion, then it is pretty late in the day. i will change questions here. mr. perez, this house passed the federal hit crime legislation in october, 2009. how many hate crime prosecutions has your division brought since the passage of the act? >> since the passage of the act, 11 cases have been brought, involving 38 defendants. 16 have been convicted. 22 are awaiting trial. >> all right. that seems to contradict information we got from cra. >> i'm happy to work with you to provide -- >> could you give us a report

including ongoing cases including short summaries of each? >> i would be happy to do so as soon as possible. >> any estimation? >> again, we will do it as soon as possible. >> all right. i will tell you that our staff did staffcrs to get this information in advance of this hearing, and the doj representative said there were approximately 300 cases brought, but they refused to give the .nformation to crs this must be correct or incorrect information, but it is public record, and they urged us to ask congress to conduct oversight. that seems outrageous to me. do you think this was an

approach response to that request? >> our staff would be happy to work with your staff to the hate crimes prevention act is critically important -- staff. the hate crime prevention act is critically important. we have had many investigations. we are proud of those cases. we would be happy to work with your staff to get you the necessary information, so that you can make assessments based on the facts. >> thank you for coming, mr. perez. i yield to the ranking member of the full committee, mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pleased you are here, mr. assistant attorney general. i will yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, jerry nadler.

>> thank you. i want to rephrase the question the chairman asked differently. first of all, hate speech and hate crimes are different topics. i assume the department would make a commitment, that you are not going to offer a proposal to criminalize protected speech, criticism of the religion, or of anybody else, other than in the context of a direct threat. >> we will do this working the way that we have always in a way that is consistent with the constitution. >> which means you can not criminalize hate speech, other than with a direct threat of violence or something like that? >> as a matter of fact, the hate crime laws whether by force or threat of force in candidates or intends to intimidate someone on the basis of color, class. >> so, short of intimidation and

threat of violence, you are not endorsing the concept that says you cannot criticize someone's religion or anything else? >> we strongly support the first amendment, and at the same time we strongly support the prosecution of people who used threats of violence to on their mind and tear to communities apart on racial lines, sexual orientation lines, religious lines. >> thank you, and i yield back. i think the gentleman. >> you are welcome. this is an important discussion. we started off on this rapid- fire back-and-forth, and sometimes more -- some of the finer and more substantive parts of what we are talking about get lost. i would like to talk to you about two areas in the few minutes that we have, for me,

mr. assistant attorney general, this is an ongoing discussion that we are heading. and in not racing to get all of my questions in to you -- i am not racing to get all of my questions into you. your office and the whole department have been available to me, and i assume other members of the committee, for whatever purposes that we want. this is not a race against the clock to see how many questions and answers we can get in in a five-minute period of time, when we are talking about constitutional rights. my subject issues, the boater issues, and the attempt on state levels about making voting more

difficult. i would like to give your impression -- get your impression of what is going on in this climate leading up to the important november vote of 2012. could we discuss that a bit, and give me an idea of how you're part of the department and the whole department of justice is approaching this subject? >> sure. again, our philosophy and our approach here has been very straightforward. we want to enforce the laws, we are enforcing the laws and we are doing so in a fair and independent way. as i said to the chair before, there is a robust debate in this country, and we welcome that debate. that is the essence of

democracy. we continue to have that debate and we make sure we do our level best to make sure every eligible voter on the first tuesday in november could cast his or her ballot and have access to the ballot, and that is why we have done more work than ever on behalf of overseas brokers. that is why when the facts call for them we will interpose objections on the voter i.d. laws in texas and south carolina because in our judgment the facts supported them. i agree wholeheartedly with the views of the former attorney general who talk about voter identification laws and said earlier this year the supreme court referring to indiana adopted the department's views that voter ideologues are not unconstitutional -- id laws are not unconstitutional, and held many say flaws. the same time, the court

acknowledged the undeniable fact that they could burden some citizens' right to vote. it is important for some states to implement and administer such laws in a way that minimizes the possibility, and it is important for the department to do its part to guard against this possibility. we will not hesitate to use the tools available to us including the voting rights act if they are used to improperly denied the right to vote out. i completely and utterly to agree with him and evan bayh is our approach. >> i will contain -- and that in bodies of our approach. >> i will continue that discussion. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. scott, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. perez, when southern states hospitals were segregated, and were integrated because president johnson conditioned the receipt of medicare and medicaid on a policy of nondiscrimination -- is a policy of nondiscrimination without exception as a condition to receiving federal money still a good idea? >> i am very familiar with title 6 with prohibits nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. we have a section that aggressively enforces title 6. >> what about religious discrimination? >> as we have discussed>> the as to be committed to ensure that we partner with organizations in ways consistent with the law and our values, and we will continue to look valuate issues that

arise on a case by case basis. >> until 2001, there could be no religious discrimination when receiving or spending federal money. was that a good idea or a bad idea? >> we respect the judgments of congress and reinforce the judgments and the law and place. >> congress said it is a good idea to discriminate. do you agree? >> in the context -- and we have had conversation a few times -- we will continue to have this conversation? we will continue to make sure we enforce the law in a manner consistent with both the constitution and our values, and we will continue to if i wait these questions and they are important and challenging questions, and we will continue to evaluate how the facts apply to the law in particular context.

>> if a faith-based organization would run a government program, could they have a policy that we do not hire catholics and jews with federal money? >> we have had many conversations with you about any discrimination laws, and we have in force cases based -- and force cases based on the employment context. we had a case in arizona -- >> i am confused. can an organization have as an articulate a policy we do not hire catholics and jews with federal money? >> we're having this conversation with you about how to treat the issues of insuring we partner with faith that such based organizations and ways consistent with all their loss and the values -- laws and vaules -- >> did allows you are enforcing

about discrimination with federal money -- could an organization had a policy we do not hire catholics and jews with federal money? >> every situation is fact specific. we have prosecuted brought several suits involving discrimination based on religion, and we will continue to evaluate specific facts of particular cases -- >> if the organization is running a program with federal money and has a policy they do not hire catholics and jews -- the amount we will die with the full context of every case and when the facts demonstrate that there is in fact discrimination occurring, we will not hesitate to take appropriate action. if you look at -- >> is it not true that a fake- based organization could have a policy we do not hire catholics

and jews and still receive federal money? >> when we look at particular situations and a fight the facts and make the corporate judgment. >> are you ashamed of saying yes they can in fact discriminate legally with the law you are enforcing? >> every case is fact specific. when the chairman asked me about threats cases -- >> what is the barrier to discrimination by a faith-based organization? what law prevents them from discrimination? what what can you apply that prevents them from discriminating, from having a policy we do not hire catholics and jews? >> we would have to look at the particular cases to determine whether there is a rank from the

department so an agent from that particular office might be able to look at that or whether there is a lot of more general application. >>-- a law of more general application. >> thank you. i recognize the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the testimony. i cannot help but reflect back on some dialogue that took place between a former member of new york when he asked along the lines of the gentleman from virginia, is there a particular way to ladel soup? it i would like to take this to the opening video that you view that was skewed by another gentleman from new york, and a statement that if there is voter

i.d., then romney wins the presidency. making this point that what this really says is you have an election that is legitimate or you have a higher assurance that the people on to the polls are american citizens and the to the voters, the republican side of this winds and the democrat side loses. that is how i heard and saw that video. that is my statement. i will not ask you to comment. i will ask you to comment on something else we have seen the, and that is the video of the young gentleman going in to the polls in virginia and asking for the attorney general's bout. did you see that video? >> know i have not. >> does it trouble you? >> i believe it is in the district of columbia.

i think the attorney general lives in the district of corrlumbia. >> as a trouble you that the young man could be offered a ballot of the attorney general of united states? >> the individual did not vote, and the question presented is what is the extent of voter fraud in the united states. in the context of the litigation, i cannot comment too much -- >> i know why the individual because he did, not want to break the law. they did not understand it does vote -- break the law. maybe they cannot even read that in english, understand it in whatever language. it is offered to them, and we

are seeing better registration fraud and we are seeing photophore lot. we know acorn admitted to 440,000 falsified voter registrations. i cannot imagine that none of those went and voted and we have evidence to the contrary. have you -- to do you know donna brazile? >> i do not know her personally. >> she was managing the gore campaign in 2000. >> i cannot recall that. >> that is my recollection, and i recall this statement when it was pointed out the heard that her campaign was 4.5 points down in the polls, and this is from memory, her answer to that was, i am not being -- worried about being down. i can pick up six points on the street. i happened to think of that when

i saw the video. he sees the world from an entirely different view at least on this subject. we are interested in legitimate voters, and i would make the point to you that there is a bed rock underneath our constitution, and that is america's confidence in legitimate elections. it is not whether or not we have legitimate elections. if they believe they are, they will have confidence in them and accept the decisions with the constitutional republic we have. we have secretaries of state around the country working to clean up the voter registration rolls. they have had great difficulty getting access to this say the act -- save act, that is to be provided to them, and they are looking to justice for recommendation, particularly iowa. are you prepared to make that list available to the secretary of state who has been working to

have the to the minerals in iowa? >> dhs is working -- >> i am asking you for recommendation. >> it is a dhs decision, and dhs make that decision -- >> dhs has announced they are looking for guidance from doj. >> i would love to see that reference that they are looking for guidance from doj. in arizona, we have pre-cleared an arrangement, six years ago, so paris and that is making use of the saved database and their verification process. in the course of making use of that saved database, they do so in a manner that impacts or implicates the voter rights law --

>> could you missed any reason and i will wear it does not have a district in at that wants to use the sabre list in order to clean up their rolls to provide legitimate elections? can you imagine any reason why doj would recommend not to provide that list? >> as i understand that process, the key thing is you have to have the requisite underlying data, including alien registration numbers come out of the individual. if you are not collecting the data, then the same database will not be helpful. >> could you cite the statute that prohibits that? >> again, the department of homeland security is the department that administratoers the save act. as i understand it, if you do

not collect the requisite data come the database is useless. >> gentleman can finish the question. you are finished? >> in which case, i point out that this has been passed back and forth for too long and it is a time to get a resolution. i yield back. >> without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit to the chair additional questions for the witnesses, the witness in this case, which will be forwarded, and we will ask the witness to respond as promptly so the answer will be made a part of the record. all members will have five additional days in which to submit any additional materials. thank you, and those of you who have attended today, thank you for coming to the hearing, and this hearing is now adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> yesterday the commission on presidential debates release the locations and dates of the debates. four were announced, including one with vice-presidential candidates. the first will take place october 3. the second will be a town hall format on october 16 at hofstra university. the final debate will take place on october 22 at lynn university in florida. the debate map takes candidates to a number of states. >> this weekend -- >> let me open up the discussion by asking this -- what is the nature of the clash between macarthur and truman? is this over policy? is it a problem of personalities?

>> truman and macarthur, a johns hopkins professor of the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of the korean war. sunday, a series that looks at key political figures who ran for president and lost, but changed history. this weekend, adlai stevenson. his great-grandfather was the first to suggest abraham lincoln as president, and he ran twice against eisenhower. 7:30 eastern and pacific, sunday, on c-span3. >> it is the tradition of the common law judge not to reply to suppress criticism. we get clobbered all the time. i cannot tell you how many wonderful letters i have written to "the washington post," for my

own satisfaction and then ripped up and thrown them away. you do not respond to criticism. >> and and and scalia reflects on over 25 years on the bench and interpreting documents. .unday 8:00 >> timothy geithner error on testimony on capitol hill today. he says that their action yesterday demonstrated lawmakers are prepared to do the fiscally irresponsible thing by allowing tax cuts for the top 2% to expire. he appeared before the senate banking committee this morning to outline that oversight council's annual report and talked about continued threats to the u.s. financial system. this is about two hours, 50

minutes.

>> good morning. i call this hearing took order. today we welcome treasury secretary geithner barrett to deliver the financial stability oversight annual report to congress as required by the wall street reform act. i recently marked the two-year anniversary of the wall street before. we have made important progress to enhance stability. critics are quick to point out that the unfinished rules and the improved regulatory structure is not going to disappear overnight. we have an mechanism in place to unwind proposed rules for our

most complex financial institutions. we have improved consumer and investing protections. the financial's ability oversight council is a key part of these efforts to enhance financial stability and eliminate regulatory gaps. it manages the process that designates financial firms as systemically important, coordinates rule making, and provides a forum for all of the financial regulations, federal and state, to identify areas that need to be addressed to strengthen our nation's financial stability. i look forward to hearing from secretary geithner about f.

soc's progress. the fsoc arm has yet to receive a confirmed director, despite the president nominating a well- qualified candidate. it has struggled to put the systems in place to raise red flags when our nation's financial institutions and economy are in trouble. i urge my colleagues to confirm him in this role as quickly as possible. fsoc has also had many successes. the annual report we are reviewing to date is solid and provides important insights into

the workings of the council and identifies many important issues of concern and provides recommendations for the regulators to address these concerns. from the banking committee's oversight perspective, this report provides a tangible way to measure the fsoc's progress. fsoc recently designated eight financial markets utilities as systemically important. this is a major step forward and is another example how wall street reform is helping to provide financial stability. the fsoc as finalized the criteria and is in the process of designating non-banking financial companies as systemically important, another critical step. fsoc also has its finger on the

pulse of the economy's most important issues. as we can see from the public minutes and the end-year report, fsoc has been focusing on the situation in europe, and issue that this committee also has been monitoring. as i have previously stated, i asked secretary brightener to come prepared to speak about libor. as the president of the new york fed in 2008, he raised early warning signs about the integrity of the libor submission process and called on the bank of england to specifically eliminate incentive to misreport. shortly afterward, -- shortly, it began its investigation meeting into an international

effort resulted in the recent enforcement actions of the cftc, doj, and fsa. as judicial investigations continue, i hope we can have a conversation today about what happened during the crisis and how going forward weekend have more reliable benchmark rate that accurately reflect the cost is borrowing in cris p periods. while this committee will continue to exercise oversight activities, we will not lose sight of the fact that the libor issue is about fraud. are some who seek to put the entire blame on the cops. it would be a mistake to shift the focus away from the

continued effort to hold the companies and individuals who committed fraud accountable. our economy continues to face many challenges, and it is unlikely we will be able to stop every future crisis. i do believe because of the work of the fsoc and wall street reform, we are prepared i will now turn to senator shelby for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary geithner are kunzel for the banking committee today to report on the work of the financial stability oversight council. the council was established by dodd-franc and is required to report annually on the state of the u.s. economy threats to financial stability, and the council's activities. in this year if's were poor, the council describes a stagnating u.s. economy with a mere 1.9%

growth rate in the first quarter, and the federal deficit exceeding 7% of gdp. it also reports that u.s. households have seen only modest income growth, that access to mortgage credit is constrained, an investment is constrained by continued subdued confidence and elevated uncertainty, there were desperate house -- their words. nearly four years into this administration, not even a council headed by its own treasury secretary i believe can highlight the president's failure to revive the economy. troubling is the council's view of god-franc -- dodd-frank. it fails to mention the enormous

cost the economy. the report does not reveal that americans will be spending millions of dollars of year to comply with it. if the council wanted to understand why unemployment is high, and mortgage lending is constrained, an examination of dodd-frank would have been a good place to start. the council's report overlooks structural flaws in our regulatory system, which dodd- frank made worse. dodd-frank has strengthened the advantage that large financial institutions possess in our financial system. dodd-frank mps is -- imposes a

competitive advantage on large financial institutions that can more easily bear burdens. the banking system has and will become more concentrated in the largest firms. second, dodd-frank fail to address preferential treatment that large banks receive from regulators. regulators have viewed themselves not as supervisors as large banks. they have developed relationships with their banks and sought bank-supported regulatory changes, such as lower capital requirements. those close relationships caused regulators to ignore red flags. regulators also adopted a mindset that none of their large banks should ever fail on their watch.

regulators have orchestrated a series of bailouts, to benefit our largest banks, including the 1995 bailout of mexico, the rescue of long term-capital management, and most recently tarp. dodd-frank codify the preferential treatment for large financial institutions. it solidified the close relationships between regulators and big banks by maintaining the pre-existing -- contrast, the regulator for the smallest banks -- it protected the big banks from bankruptcy by creating a new resolution mechanism to ensure that large institutions do not fail. all the while dodd-fran did nothing to make regulators more accountable. it made it more difficult to

remove regulators that become captured by their banks. the structure of the cftc bureau makes it impossible to remove its director. nothing focuses the mind like the specter of being fired. not one regulator was held accountable in the wake of the financial crisis. the very same regulators that missed the warning signs were then closely consulted on how to draft dodd-frank. staff from the same agencies that failed us helped write the bill. this is the type of thing that outrages the american people, but it is business as usual in washington. secretary geithner there is no stranger to bank regulations. he has played a key role in regulation for the past 20 years. recent news reports about his handling of the libor

manipulation suggest he may have tempered his response to what can be characterized as a significant problem within the banking industry. accordingly, the hearing today gives the secretary opportunity to explain when he first learned of the allegations of libor manipulation did what he could to protect the taxpayer from potential harm. secretary geithner are will also have an opportunity to explain to the american people how the president's policies are improving the economy. it should not take too long. thank you. >> thank you, senator shelby. in order to get to the questions of our witness as soon as possible, opening statements will be limited to the chair and ranking member. i want to remind my colleagues that the record will be open for the next seven days for opening statements and any other

materials you would like to submit. welcome back to the committee, mr. secretary. you may begin your statement. >> thank you. thank you for the chance to talk about the annual report. as the report outlines, we have made significant progress performing our financial system since the crisis. we have forced banks to raise more than $400 billion in capital to reduce leverage and to find themselves more conservatively. the size of the shadow banking system has fallen by trillions of dollars. the government has closed most of the emergency programs during the crisis and recovered most of the tax payers' investments made in the financial system. the tarp bank estimates generated an overall profit of $20 billion.

credit is expanding and the cost of credit has fallen significantly for businesses and individuals since the crisis. these improvements have made the system safer, less vulnerable to future stress, or likely to help rather than hurt future growth, and better able to absorb the impact of potential future failures of large financial institutions. we still face a number of significant challenges. the ongoing european crisis presents the biggest risk to our economy, the growing recession in europe is hurting economic growth around europe, and distress caused by the crisis is causing a tightening of financial conditions. in the united states the economy is still expanding, but the pace of growth is slowing during the past quarters.

u.s. growth has been hurt by the earlier rise in oil prices, the ongoing reduction in government spending at all levels, and slow rates of growth in household income. the slowdown in u.s. growth could be exacerbated by concerns about the approaching tax increases and spending cuts and by uncertainty about the shape of reforms and political will of this town to put in place reforms for both tax policy and spending that are necessary to restore sustainability. these threats underscore the need for continuing progress in preparing the damage from the financial damage and an acting financial reforms to make the system stronger. the regulators' response designing and implementing regulations necessary to employment financial reform, roughly 90% of the roles that have deadlines have been proposed or finalized, and the key elements of a large will

largely be in place by the end of this year. we have negotiated much tougher new capital of requirements on the largest -- on the banking system, including higher levels of capital on the largest banks. we have the ability to put the largest financial institutions under enhanced supervision, tougher standards, whether they are banks or non-banks, and we have the ability to to suggest key elements of the and thresher to tougher and carefully designed safeguards against risk. the sec is putting a framework hat provides new tools 4for combating market abuse. the sec has designed an innovative way to put large financial institutions through an equivalent of bankruptcy while protecting the taxpayers from the risk of any loss at protecting the broader economy

from the fallout of those failures, and the cftc has worked to improve disclosure of mortgage and credit-card loans said consumers can make better choices about how to borrow responsibly. these reforms are complicated. it is a complicated process. it is challenges because our system is complex. it is challenging because we need to target damaging behavior without damaging access to capital and credit. it is challenging because we want the reforms to endure as the market evolves and because we need to make sure we are coordinating the work of multiple agencies across the major financial centers. beyond the reforms enacted in dodd-frank, the council has put forward recommendations for other changes to help strengthen the system. further reforms are needed to reduce vulnerabilities in wholesale funded markets,

including to mitigate the risks of runs. regulators need to establish and enforce strong protections for customer funds that are deposited for trading. regulators need to continue to improve risk-management practices with stronger capital coffers, better stress testing disciplines and controls for complex trading and hedging strategies. the council recommends further improvements in the ability and quality of financial dated. we hope the senate will act on the nomination to head that office. the council continues to push for progress toward comprehensive housing perform so we can bring private capital back into the housing market. these recommendations will help

build on the considerable progress made by the council in making the system safer and stronger, more resilient and less vulnerable to crisis with better protections for consumers have a lot of work ahead of us and we need your support to these rules strong and we need your support to make sure the enforcement agencies have resources they need to prevent fraud and manipulation and peace. i want to convey my compliments and thanks to the members of the council and their staff, and i want to emphasize that we look forward to working with this committee and with congress to build on this progress and a dresser many challenges we face in the financial system. thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary geithner are, thank you for your statement. we will now begin questions of our when the spirit will the court -- questions of our

witnesses. will the clerk put five minutes on the clock. last week by ast chairman bernanke what did he do about libor. secretary geiger, you stated you were aware of weaknesses and vulnerabilities with libor and you make recommendations on this matter in 2008. were you aware of any actions in the members of the president's working group took after they were brief at that time, and in light of the enforcement action, is there more that should be done? >> in early 2008, as the crisis intensified, as concerned about the strength banks in europe in particular, and as those banks found it harder to borrow

dollars, you saw the libor rates increase. libor is a reference to the london interbank offered rate which is a rate set in london by the british bankers' association, which is an average of estimates of what a group of banks like to pay to borrow in 10 currencies at 15 different maturities. at that time, as the rate went up, there was concern in the market about the design of the rate and the potential that created for misreporting. and the incentives that banks faced with higher borrowing costs. we took a careful look at those concerns in the market. many made it into the press. it was written about in april, 2008. we thought the concerns were justified. we were concerned about them, and on that basis, we took the following steps --

we briefed the president's working group on financial markets, a group composed of the secretary of the treasury, the chairman of the fed, the chairman of the sec, and others, and my staff briefed is following that meeting. because this was a rate set in london, i raised this directly with that government of the bank of england and wrote a memorandum to the governor, out landing -- outlining a series of reforms to reduce the board allowed in the rate. the bank of england was very receptive to those recommendations and indicated they supported them and would act on them. it turns out roughly about the same time the cftc initiated a confidential investigation that resulted in the initial

sentiment and not quick settlement announced this month, and that investigation is still ongoing and has come to involve a range of other regulatory authorities. if you think about what is ahead, i want to take a minute and outline what we think is important going forward. in addition to this enforcement investigation, which is important to the integrity of the system, because it is simple and necessary test, do we have the capacity to hold people accountable when they do these kinds of things? the investigations are still important, but i'd want to highlight the additional work at a bus trip the council and the relevant agencies are taking a careful look at the potential implications for the functioning of financial systems of these remaining challenges. -- we are carefully examining -- this is the members of the council -- carefully examining

other survey-based measures of financial prices or interest rates to assess whether there is any potential out there for the kind of problems we have seen in libor. these entities are carefully examining potential performs to libor. -- an effort is underway, led by a group that includes all the world's major central banks and market regulators, examining reforms to the system. in addition to these challenges ahead, we need to take a careful look as a council of how we deal with the circumstances in which a confidential investigation enforcement action reveals evidence of behavior practices that could have implications for the

financial system as a whole. this is a challenge because we have to have careful safeguards to protect confidentiality of those investigations, and we have to find a way to make that information available to key members of the council. we're taking a careful look at that. we have to take a careful look at other parts of the financial system, where the markets rely on private organizations composed of private firms like the british bankers' association that have some cause i- regulatory or self-regulatory and roll. we will be careful to make sure the system is not relying on associations of private firms that leave us vulnerable to the kinds of things we have seen. it is very important to the integrity of our system that the enforcement authorities have

resources they need to do their jobs. if there is a small town in america and its population grows by tenfold or 100-fold in 85- year period, you need to increase the size of the police department. it is absolutely important to do that. the members of the council i am very confident will be fully responsive to the oversight conducted by this committee and other bodies in congress to examine this particular set of challenges and how we are dealing with them going forward, and we will continue to keep the committee informed going for. >> there has been continued criticism about wrong doors on wall street's not being held at accountable by enforcement officials. we know investigations have been on going on this matter since 2008, and so far there has

been one major settlement. i want you to admit to me and the american people, while the administration makes sure -- will the eds mission make sure that those in the libor for rot will be held accountable? >> absolutely. it is important for us to do that, and i'm department thatdoj will make sure they meet that objective. >> there have been additional developments this week in europe that have been troubling. do you think recently announced policy changes out of the e.u. are going far enough toward solving the european financial crisis, or are there additional steps that the u.s. should take? >> europe is working through a

mix of very challenging reforms to make their economies more competitive, but also reforms that put better disciplines in place on how much countries can borrow and better oversight of their financial systems. they will take some time. in the interim, the european authorities will be to do more to restore confidence in the financial system to do more to make -- to improve their prospects for an economic growth, and will do more to make sure countries doing these reforms are able to borrow at sustainable interest rates. there is absolutely more that they need to do to underscore their stated committment. very challenging crisis for them. the submissions have to be designed in europe because they

have to be going to live within the constraints and make sure they work and pay the financial costs. they will have to be designed to work in europe if they are going to work. what we can do is make sure we are working, encouraging them to do as much as they can to protect the rest of us from long and damaging european recession,nd there are areas where we can help them in ways that are in our interest, the federal reserve is doing this with isswap lines. that reduces risk and banks are around the world. a lot of challenges ahead. they have a lot more to do. >> senator shelby? >> thank you. you have referenced libor. tell us why it libor in the setting of libor rates is so

important, to the world financially? what it does and approximately how many billions of loans are involved and billions of dollars involved? >> libor is set in 10 currencies. 15 different maturities. it has implications around the world because there are a variety of financial contracts. around the world they reference that rate. it is important for that reason, but also important because we have seen a devastating loss of trust in the basic press trust and confidence in the integrity of the financial system. when you see a system vulnerable, that can have more damaging to the basic confidence people have about the system working. that is why it is consequential.

>> historically, a lot of banking has been based on trust, as a not -- integrity. when people realize that some people are perhaps manipulating the libor rate war manipulating this and that or fraud here and there, it hurts the whole financial system, it hurts us all, does it not? >> i agree with that completely. >> going back to when you first learned about possible manipulation of libor, was that in 2008, early 2008? >> that is my judgment, looking back at that time, which is, again, these reports in the market and press started to come when the rate started to go up as the crisis intensified. >> who did you notify the sides

the chairman of the bank of england about your concerns and others' concerns about the manipulation of the rate? >> i briefed the president's krupicka working -- president's working group of the financial markets, and my staff briefed the treasury after that. that was important because although it was clear the reforms to this problem would have to come in london, it had implications for us. >> wheat act banks that fit into that right? >> -- we had banks that fit into that, right? >> 3 were american banks. >> did you follow up after notifying the working group notify, in the attorney general

of the united states? >> my former colleagues at the new york fed are carefully looking through the records of what -- who the new york fed staff informed at that point. >> do you, as president of the bank, did you personally inform anyone on your staff to let the justice department know about the implications of manipulation of the rate? >> what i did was informed the president's working group and those regulatory advisers, because those are the bodies that have a range of different authorities that relate to market manipulation and be straight that was a very important and necessary thing to do. >> did you think, when you first learned of possible manipulation of the rate, this was a big deal?

>> i absolutely thought this was a problem, which is why i took the initiative to do the things we did. the problem was you had a great in london overseen by the british bankers' association where banks were asked to provide an estimate of what they might pay to borrow, and then an estimate that was averaged over time. that itself created this vulnerability to misreporting. it was for that reason why we took the actions we took a encourage the british to fix it. >> going back to the justice department cannot do you have knowledge yourself of when the justice department got involved in this? as of late, recently, or was it after the british hearings and

regulators were involved? >> that is something you have to ask them. my recollection is that the cftc investigation ultimately came to include the sec and justice as well as a mix of regulators in london and elsewhere. >> does the federal reserve bank of new york have the authority to oversee misconduct by banks that would be under your jurisdiction? >> congress has given the federal reserve a range of the enforcement powers. those are given to the federal reserve as a whole, and reserve banks like in new york play an active role in enforcement cases working with the board of governors when they implicate our direct authorities. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator reed? >> when you reported to the working group, did they direct you to do anything? did they indicate they would do anything? was their reaction? >> no, but the cftc did it roughly the same time. it took a bit of time. these are complicated things. you had the cftc and a variety of other authorities undertaking a very far-reaching investigation that is resulting in a tough enforcement actions. >> one of the things i think this illustrates again is that rather ambiguous position of the

president of the federal reserve bank of new york. this was brought to your attention. did you communicate with mervin king on your own volition? were you directed to do so? >> i did that on my own. >> why would you do that if you were not responsible for the policies of the united states with respect to libor or anything else? you were simply the chosen person by the banking committee of your to regulate that bank. >> i thought it was the responsible thing to do, because it had implications for the and that it states. i thought that was the purpose it and necessary thing. >> one of the things we try to do in dodd-frank was try to clarify the president's position of the federal reserve bank.

ironically, it was rejected. on a bipartisan basis, and all of my colleagues were here. i thank you been better served had you had much clearer authority and then on a level with the secretary of the treasury and the chairman of the federal reserve and had clear enforcement responsibilities. what is your view? >> i think i would say it this way. we had the financial system before the crisis, aren't you had a huge amount of risk and activity that had important implications for the average american, the american economy, that group up outside the basic preconditions and authorities we put in place after the depression to deal with these

kinds of problems. that was a terribly damaging problem for us. and neither the federal reserve bank of new york or the chairman of the federal reserve board or even the chairman of the fec at a party to deal with that huge crowd of three credit risk and activity, and you saw a lot of manipulation and abuse and fraud can out of the safeguards of the traditional banking system. the crisis was so severe in part because of that problem, also because within the banking system the constraints on leverage and capital were not sufficiently prudent or carefully conservative. >> you now feel, given dodd-frank, you have a better capacity to deal with these issues?

>> i do. we have negotiated much tougher restraints on capitol globally, so large banks have to hold much more capital against risk than do small banks. we have given the authorities the ability to make sure where there is risk outside that in derivatives or in the financial markets and fisher, or large, oraig, that presents rest, that we can put a constraint on leverage and then, too. i believe dodd-frank has put us in a much shorter position before the crisis, recognizing that you have to get these rules right and there is a lot of work still to do. >> let me raise a final point. because of the ubiquity of the libor, this presents a huge potential liabilities to the banking system.

back then and right now. on one side, you might have a moral war -- a borrower that might be benefiting from the depressed rates. obviously, was that a consideration in your discussions with the working group that there could be huge potential liabilities for manipulation of this rate by bondholders, and then moving to today, is that a potential going forward now when you have active consideration of suits against multiple institutions by numerous bondholders? >> absolutely, that was a concern then and going forward. as i said in my initial remarks, one of the issues that the fed and the sec is working on now is to make sure they are examining not just the remaining implications for the integrity of the system, but reforms to

make sure we address those remaining problems. that will be a critical focus for the remaining work ahead. again, that basic vulnerability is what motivated the actions i initiated in 2008. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to switch to the housing issues. in your testimony you state that as we move forward we must take care not to undermine the housing market which is showing signs of recovery, but still weak in many areas. i hear concern about how dodd- frank will reduce credit availability in the market that increases liability and a qualified residential mortgage that requires a 20% down payment. the director of the cfpb said if the qualified mortgage is drawn to narrowly, that could upset

the mortgage market. that could be an example of a rule restricting access to credit. do you believe there needs to be a broad q.m. definition? >> right now mortgage credit is tighter than it should be, and is tighter than the basic requirements put in place by fannie and freddie. the main reason for that is because banks and servicers, given all the mistakes they made, our feeling much more affordable to what people now call put back, putting back to this originators loans that and not meet those initial tests. >> that is why we're working on the q.m. >> that concern is the biggest remaining cause of the fact that credit is tighter than it needs