mr. levin, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative day in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2660. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i rise in support of of h.r. 2667 a bill that delays the employer mandate. while it's encouraging to see easing a administration the burden on employers, we must be a nation of laws not blog post which is how the administration announced the delay. while it provides employers some temporary relief from the health care bill, it provides no real relief. even with this delay, families will not get what they were promised, affordable health care. inexplicably, the administration feels only businesses should be exempt. how is that fair? families are already struggling in this ob

mr. chairman, ranking member levin, that concludes my statement. i would be happy to answer your questions. >> well, thank you very much, mr. werfel. for the purposes of preparing your report, did you speak to former commissioner doug shulman? >> i did not. >> with did you speak to former acting commissioner steve miller? >> can i did not. >> and did you talk with joseph grant, the former deputy commissioner for tege? >> no, i did not. >> did you talk with chief counsel william wilkens? >> yes. >> what were the basic summaries of those conversations? >> i, as a first matter, there were three things i set out to do which are in the report. first, understand where the wrongdoing was so i can hold people accountable. second, understand where the management failures and process mistakes are in the exempt organizations unit so we can fix them. and, third, a broader understanding of irs risks and operations. and i spoke to many people within the irs. in fact, my whole senior leadership team engaged in an ongoing series of discussions, and bill well kins i

mr. levin, will each control 20 minutes. mr. roskam: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. roskam: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. roskam: mr. speaker, h.r. 2769 offers the house an opportunity to go back to our constituents who are asking this question when we're out and about at home -- what in the world is the house of representatives doing about the i.r.s. scandals? of there's a series scandals that we heard about, heard testimony from on the ways and means committee which the ranking member and i serve and also the government oversight committee and my suspicion maybe some other committees of the house, but when our constituents say what in the world are you doing, this bill that w

thank you very your responses, mr. levin is recognized. >> thank you. let me just say, mr. chairman, on currency, i think the administration needs to face up very directly to the question of inclusion of currency issues in both tpp and the discussions with you. i don't think there's been the satisfaction here with progress today. and so we just have to confront the formal introduction of this issue in tpp as well as with erp. let me just say as to tpp in japan, there's immense pressure on japan and they really haven't been very unequivocal about addressing rice and other agricultural issues. as a number of us said before, i'll spell out more of this in the coming days, i don't think what has been put forth so far on autos is likely to change decades of the same situation. mr. cam joined us in addressing this issue in korea. the agreement was changed and strengthen. japan is an even sterner case. nothing today has ever worked. where today in term of our access to japan's auto motive the part as well as assembly vehicles essentially where we were 30, 40 years ago. so we need

mr. levin is recognized. >> thank you. let me just say, mr.chairman, on currency i think the administration needs to face up the very directly to the question of inclusion of currency issues in both tpp and the discussions with europe. and i don't think there's been satisfaction here with progress today. and so we just have to confront the formal introduction of this issue in tpp as well as with europe. and let me just say as to tpp and japan, there's immense pressure on japan, and they really haven't been very unequivocal about addressing rice and other agricultural issues. and as a number of us said before and i'll spell out more of this in the coming days, i don't think what has been put forth so far on autos is likely to change decades of the same situation. many camp join -- mr. camp joined us in addressing this issue in korea, and the agreement was changed and strengthened. japan is an even sterner case. and nothing to date has ever worked. we're today in terms of our access to japan's automotive, its parts as well as assembled vehicles,

i agree with mr. levin. do you agree with mr. levin? >> i believe that if there's -- >> if they targeted? >> if there's management neglect or inappropriate conduct, then -- and it depends on the nature to the extent of the -- >> if they targeted groups -- >> intentionally, yes, i would agree. >> okay. you have testified several times today that there was no intentional wrongdoing. was there wrongdoing? >> i said there's no ed yet of intentional -- evidence yet of intentional wrongdoing but, yes, i would -- >> okay. like i said, i've got a lot of questions. i don't mean to -- >> please, keep going. >> you testified there was neglect of duty. you said that earlier. >> yes. >> do you believe there was neglect of duty? >> i do. >> so there was wrongdoing, and there was neglect of duty, but there was no intentional wrong doing. would you agree with that? >> there's no evidence yet of intentional wrongdoing, but i'm not going to reach a definitive conclusion until all the evidence is obtained. >> okay. do you believe targeting of individuals

been -- it defies logic and it defies belief that you would sew limit your statements and right to mr. levin, mr. conley, but no one ,as looking at any of the area i do not think there should be any exemption with politically activity, but you know there is political life of the above sides, right? why would you not look at those side? that would be the fair thing to do, the common-sense thing to do. that would be inappropriate audit. it is like saying look for wrongdoing in the bank but only overdraft fees. everyone knows there are a whole swath of areas you could look at. limiting it, i am mystified that as a distinguished professional you would put forward an audit that looks only at a thin sliver of the training documents when playing common sense dictates an entire array. >> i know that there was not a question there, but i think there is an answer? >> we have received allegations from members of the congress and from media reports about the particular activity that occurred. it was not just the two-party, it was the patriots and 9/12, so through therge process to look at how tax- exemp

language of put in is really a step back from the maintenance agreements that chairman ringel and mr. levin made at the white house in terms of trade agreement. the proposal you did out did away with the word guarantees and i think that's what poor countries really want our guarantees of access to medicine within five years of their introduction of the united states. you've got a lot of negative feedback at the time that first came out. and since that time usage are in a period of reflection. can you tell us where you are on your decision about that? >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. this is an important issue and we are committed to finding the right balance to strike between protecting innovation but also achieving access to medicine. we are in the process of engaging with our tpp partners to educate them as to what's in u.s. law. we took the feedback on our original proposal very seriously. we received a wide range of feedback and we are in a process of figuring out how we want to take it forward consistent with some of the principles that you la

mr. levin: mr.ident, president harry truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history that you don't know. and so it is today with those who think this efforto amend the rules by breaking them, the nuclear option s something new under the sun. this is not the first time that it has been tried. sadly, there have been a few original efforts to amend the rules by fiat but, and this is the cruci point, the senate has never done it. whenever an effort was made to change the rule by fiat, it has been rejected by this body. there are procedures for amending the senate's rules and the senate is always insisted that they be followed. previous cases, the majority of stphrorz stood up for that principle, often over the wishes of their own party's leader. it's my hope there will be a majority ofuch senators today. i entered some of that history in the congressional r0rd last week and i'll not repeat it all now. one incident stands out and bears repeating. after tk-g so i'll add a second chap

. >> my point is that in his letter to mr. levin, he said that we reviewed all cases but the irs identified as potential cases and did not limited to the tea party. this would suggest that in fact he did. >> or they might find nothing. >> i understand. we went through every employee of the irs or the one of our challenges quite frankly is the inspector general works for and with the irs and the irs gave us the same terms when we were looking for things. so to the extent, the odd thing is the irs suggested these terms is the right terms and so the inspector general was here yesterday, it would've been his employees that suggested this. >> but the presumption of of these theories has been that the president is trying to take down his political enemies. >> only on your side of dow. >> no comment happen. as mitch mcconnell put out. >> is not honest committee. >> there have been references made by any number of members. but i think that the point is that we don't want to see the irs targeting any group. is that correct? >> we saw the tar

like the language you put in is a step back from the may 10th agreements that chairman wrangle and mr. levin made with the white house in terms of grade agreements. the proposal you put out did away with the word guaranties. that is what poor countries really want, our guaranties of our access to medicine within five years of their introduction into the united states. you have got a lot of negative feedback at the time that first came out and since that time you've said you're in a period of rereflection. can you tell us where you are on your decision about that? >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. this is a critically important issue and we are committed to finding the right balance to strike between protecting innovation but also achieving access to medicines. we're in the process of engaging with our tpp partners to educate them as to what's in u.s. law. we took the feedback on our original proposal very seriously. we received a wide range of feedback and we are in the process of figuring out how we want to take it forward consistent with some of th

mr. president, i'm so glad that -- to see the presiding officer. for those who may perhaps aren't aware, senator levin is a longtime member of the united states senate. he's decided not to run again, which is very sad, for the state of michigan, the senate and the country. but that's a decision that he made. i had the good fortune -- and he's heard me say this before but i'll say it again because i'll never forget this. i came to congress in 1982 with his brother, his older brother, sander levin. the first time i met senator carl levin, i was contemplating whether i should run for the senate after having served in the house. at the very beginning of our visit in his office with me and him, harry reid and carl levin, i said to him, i know your brother. he and i came to congress together a few years ago. and carl looked at me so intently and so seriously and said, "yes." he said, "he's my brother but he's also my best friend." having three brothers of my own, mr. president, that is something that's always stuck with me. and for you to be presiding here , doesn't happen very often. we appreciate that. se

mr. chairman. >> thank you. dr. colburn and senator carl levin -- working at the fusion centers to find out which ones work and which don't and see if we can make sure they work effectively. thank you for that line of questioning. someone that shares the relevant subcommittee focused directly on the emergency preparedness is now recognized. >> thank you very much. i want to follow up on the fusion center. you can answer this or whoever would like to answer this. but in this situation, the -- how did you feel -- if you could read the fusion center activity in the response or participation >> in response, the fusion center worked really well. we had the means to communicate through secure rooms and in the information center the intelligence center. and that fusion center was able to talk to the command post and they were processing information. we had to have some contact with some of the part of an individual's and we have had that information immediately to the investigators. in the aftermath everybody pulled together. subsequent to that in prepa