mr. o'neill's answer? the -- so that you understand, we have been trying to get transparency from the ascap, bmi for years. we cannot get that transparency. they refuse to give information to us. it is my view that until that information is made public, all the details made public, you cannot attain a competitive market and it -- despite -- if you notice, mr. o'neill's answer was ascap, socan and bmi. that's not the users. we don't get to participate in that. we offered to invest in a series of trying to get more cue sheet information which is what we have for television. they refuse to allow us to participate in that whole project. so to the extent that there's a transparency issue, i think it is as much the collectives as it is anybody else. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the distinguished lady from california, miss bass, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member. i would like to address the justice department's announcement that it will review the consent decrees that govern th

mr. o'neil, what would be the most important element? >> i would agree with the fair market concept. i believe that the fair market aspect of an omnibus bill would be beneficial to all parties. >> if i pressed you a little further and indicate that had there's this vast market of broadcast media that is not the internet, youtube, how would they play into an omnibus approach so we wouldn't have to go back down a journey of no return, as we've done in times passed? >> i think they'd be opposed to it. i think you're tied to some legacy industries that don't want to change the value of copy right going forward. they all know the value of their own copyright. i think it comes down to the question of what are the scales, what are the balance of payments for those copy rights. >> and you don't think a deliberative approach would draw in those different element sns i'm going to call them different lmts as opposed to labelings, could bring in to the table because if you construct a bill that just develops a fight, you haven't advanced yourselves. and do you think there is something that would

mr. o'neil. i'm a supervisor. >> reporter: but mr. ius oliver, he's an ex-con who says he's the supervisor for what authorities call an unlicensed employment agency and owners are unknown. >> the training is $997 and that's for your security license. you're paid 21.37 an hour. that's full time. your training is $997 which we need to be paid in full. >> reporter: we give him the money and show our video to julie menin, new york city's top cop for consumer affairs investigating him. >> we are very familiar with mr. oliver and other bad actors in the industry like him. >> reporter: i mean he is promising an hourly wage down to the cents. >> right, he's promising that there will be a job out there and that is not what employment agencies are allowed to do and also requiring the training. >> reporter: so "gma" investigates caught up with oliver. >> mr. oliver. hey there. gio with "good morning america." how are you? >> what happened? >> what kind of business are you running here? >> what kind of what? >> what kind of business are you runnin

mr. o'neill and mr. reagan did the big dig in boston. these are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences. now, let me say this as well. and i intend in the motion to recommit to speak to it. remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? remember when there was a healthy give and take where we actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the ways and means room? still the most desired committee to sit on in the congress. mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. neal: we start out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. this is not the way to do tax reform. we need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the american people will come to seen as competitive and highlight the role optimism has played in american public life. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentl

mr. o'neill and mr. reagan did the big dig in boston. these are worthwhile undertakings that need to be done and not to shy away from the principle of economic growth under the guise of a remedy that has dubious economic consequences. now, let me say this as well. and i intend in the motion to recommit to speak to it. remember the days when tax policy here was done between the two parties? remember when there was a healthy give and take where we actually talked about our differences in the quiet of the ways and means room? still the most desired committee to sit on in the congress. mr. levin: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. neal: we start out with a bona fide effort to do tax reform. this is not the way to do tax reform. we need to go back to the drawing table and draft a proposal that the american people will come to seen as competitive and highlight the role optimism has played in american public life. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentl

mr. o'neill. >> thank you. chairman mccaskill, ranking member heller and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify. my name is rodney o'neill and i'm the chief he cantive officer and president of delphi automotive. first and form most, on behalf of delphi, want to express our profound sympathies to the victims and their families. people were hurt. and lives were lost. we must work together to avoid tragedies of this nice tour going forward, and this -- that's it in tour going forward and this subcommittee is part of that effort. i appreciate the opportunity to address important issues we're considering. we fully support your efforts. i would like to discuss today three main points. first, delphi's efforts to provide replacement parts and support general motors in connection with the re-call. second, our cooperation with the subcommittee and other governmental bodies as well as gm, and, third, the review and reinforcement of delphi's key product engineering safety policies and

mr. o'neill, documents show that in 2001 delphi engineers drew up two designs for the gm ignition switch, two designs. the main difference between the two designs was that the one that failed dramatically, the 2006 switch has a spring that was shorter and less stiff than the other one. and it was that spring that caused the switch to fail to meet gm's specifications and caused the key to so easily turn the engine off. why was the weaker spring used in the actual vehicle rather than the stronger one, which was clearly available simultaneously in 2001? >> well, senator, our -- >> excuse me. >> our investigation into that portion of the everybody lieu of that swigs that mr. valukas mentioned. it was the target and as the switch evolved from a developmental standpoint, mr. ray degiorgio also wanted a switch that had a certain tactile feel. and by that i mean it would feel a certain way, a smoothness as you moved it in one position to another. and i believe the description of that desired feel was to be more european-like. and in order to achieve that feel, that is where the softer spring come

bill o'neill at ubs wealth management explains how china will transition to a more consumer-driven economy. all of that and more coming up in "the pulse" with manus cranny. now, mr ecclestone, the ceo of formula one has taken the stand in munich with an unusual defense. i bribed someone but not for the reasons you think. hans nichols joins us from berlin. what was the bride? -- the bribe? >> according to mr. ecclestone, he offered $50 million because he didn't want information about a family trust to be revealed to u.k. authorities for tax purposes. essentially, his argument is, yes, i bribed him but not to influence the sale of formula one. this all has to do with the individual. what mr. ecclestone said. him, would $50d million be enough, hoping this would be enough to keep him quiet. quiet about a potential tax shelter in the u.k. ecclestone previously admitted to paying $44 million of it. he went to the stand and offered his reasons for paying it. it was to hide a tax shelter. he is 83 years old. this is his defense. we will see if the jury buys it. it is remarkable. manyw you don't make excuses, but when you do they are always for something that are more ou

o'neill wasn't on stage, but on a work crew. >> you came here to work construction, which i think to some people might sound a little crazy. i mean, you knew your dad was >> mr to take over the government. >> the elder douglas who was a hollywood legend didn't think much of his son's acting ambitions. he wanted him to go to law school. he wanted you to be a lawyer? >> yes. the first time he saw me he said michael, you're terrible. i don't know what to tell you. >> that must have been crushing. >> if he said something different, i would know he's lying. >> so you came here has a rite. >> its an opportunity to have summer jobs to come here and help build this place -- this is the first year the o'neill was starting, and in return for my free labor, i might get a small part in a production. it was 40 or 50 feet in the air. a little crow's nest. >> he helped dig out the enormous pit that came the o'neill amphitheater. >> that's something to having actually built this and having your handleds on t. >> i remember a lot of wheel barrows full of dirt to create these levels. >> and in return, he got a small part in the 1966 production of bedford forest. that's him wi

chairman of this committee, when tip o'neil was here, great calm rmaraderie and don't think they'd ever let it get to this point. chairman yields back his time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd be happy -- not all of the old congress framnkly, we don't very often see this -- while i have a predisposition, i haven't made a final judgment in this case and i find myself going back and forth, quite frankly and you've made your point since serially so i appreciate what all of you have brought to the table in that regard. and i have to say, as a sort of upfront assumption as a conservative, i hate going to court. i consider it the equivalent of going to war. it's unpredictable and it's expensive. so i don't like doing it and have never taken anybody to court in my life and have never taken anybody to court in my life. i take this not as a partisan exercise but something that is pretty serious thing for us to consider here. and it's interesting to me here that four people of your distinguished background are on different sides of the issue effectively. so it tells me there's a real question here. it doesn't tell me we should go to court but it does tell me there's a

chairman of this committee, when tip o'neil was here, great calm rmaraderie and don't think they'd ever let it get to this point. chairman yields back his time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd be happy -- not all of the old congress framnkly, we don't very often see this -- while i have a predisposition, i haven't made a final judgment in this case and i find myself going back and forth, quite frankly and you've made your point since serially so i appreciate what all of you have brought to the table in that regard. and i have to say, as a sort of upfront assumption as a conservative, i hate going to court. i consider it the equivalent of going to war. it's unpredictable and it's expensive. so i don't like doing it and have never taken anybody to court in my life and have never taken anybody to court in my life. i take this not as a partisan exercise but something that is pretty serious thing for us to consider here. and it's interesting to me here that four people of your distinguished background are on different sides of the issue effectively. so it tells me there's a real question here. it doesn't tell me we should go to court but it does tell me there's a

chairman of this committee, when tip o'neil was here, great calm rmaraderie and don't think they'd ever let it get to this point. chairman yields back his time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd be happy -- not all of the old congress framnkly, we don't very often see this -- while i have a predisposition, i haven't made a final judgment in this case and i find myself going back and forth, quite frankly and you've made your point since serially so i appreciate what all of you have brought to the table in that regard. and i have to say, as a sort of upfront assumption as a conservative, i hate going to court. i consider it the equivalent of going to war. it's unpredictable and it's expensive. so i don't like doing it and have never taken anybody to court in my life and have never taken anybody to court in my life. i take this not as a partisan exercise but something that is pretty serious thing for us to consider here. and it's interesting to me here that four people of your distinguished background are on different sides of the issue effectively. so it tells me there's a real question here. it doesn't tell me we should go to court but it does tell me there's a