Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  February 26, 2016 8:15am-10:01am EST

8:15 am
with members on all different policy areas. we set up task forces on everything from task reform to health care policy to restoring base kel article i powers eroded over decades. it is members coming to the meetings. i was in one of the meetings yesterday, we had dozens of members with really good ideas how to restore balance of power in washington so that government works for people again which it doesn't right now. paul really laid out foundation how the house can function properly where all members are involved. not top down where a few people in leadership are making decisions. members are empowered. which means members have to come up with the good ideas. i always use the jack kemp example. if you go back to 1980, ronald reagan ran on tax reform. he actually had a bold adenda on tax reform but it wasn't his idea. when he was fighting through the primaries he wanted to lower tax rates, meantime four years, jack kemp who wasn't even on the
8:16 am
ways and means committee put together a plan to lower tax rates. they were at 70%. ultimately have a few years of working building a coalition he came up with the kemp-roth plan lowered rates from 70, down to 50. when ronald reagan got nomination in 1980. he said i want to lower rates, i like the plan by that guy jack kemp. he endorse ad house member's to many bp his own and literally became law a year later. if you have a passion, way to get country moving again, start building coalition now. our nominees are not talking about a lot of detailed policy ideas. if you watch debate last night, talking about who built trump tower or who is lying. it is not a detailed policy discussion. we need detailed policy to get the country moving again. i think if the house lays out those ideas now, that is really what speaker ryan made as his objective, let's lay out a bold agenda now so when we do have a
8:17 am
nominee they can look at a lot of good ideas the house is vetting, building coalition also around, saying that is the way i want to save medicare. that is the way i want to get budget balanced and i want to get economy moving again. >> you understand when a member congress talks about task forces within congress, when there's a committee system, and begin to wonder if there is a little too much going on there that doesn't need to be done, there are committees. why isn't this being handled, this sort of thing through the committee system? i thought the ryan mantra was regular order? >> so that's why paul when he set up task forces put committee chairman of jurisdiction in charge of those task forces because i do think you can go back historically at congress where task forces were set up to go around committee chairman, that is the worst way to handle it. ultimately you erode a lot of trust and frankly undermine a lot of expertise in congress.
8:18 am
having committee chairman of jurisdiction, for example, if you look at task force we set up to put together replacement for obamacare, i think everybody knows we're for repealing obama care. need over 60 votes to do it, i will continue to fight to repeal obamacare i think it is important to show what replacement would look like to lower costs to put patients in charge of their health care. fred upton, energy and commerce, kevin brady, ways and means, john klein, education and workforce those chairman are heading up the task force because their committees will do work to produce bills to come together. so that is what he has done. he twas heal gotten chairman to lead efforts. if you have a great idea on tax reform, whether a fair tax, flat tax, lower rates overall which we want, if you're not on the ways and means committee you can go to the task force chaired by chairman of ways and means bring your ideas, ultimately that will result for better legislation for us. >> by the way, i had dinner same
8:19 am
place i did last night, talking to a congressman, republican, moderate, fiscal conservative, and he's saying i don't understand this. why don't we just pass those bills that we think we need to pass? who cares if the senate doesn't take them up? who cares if obama vetoes them? let our agenda be bills we pass and run on those? why don't we, why doesn't the hoist a replacement bill? why doesn't the house pass a poverty bill? why doesn't the house pass a, you know, welfare reform bill? why do it in a bold, quote, bold agenda manifesto like contract with america? why not do bills, and let's run on those bills, what he was asking? >> you will in fact see us bring a lot of those bills to the floor.
8:20 am
>> this year? >> this year. can't tell you how many ultimately we're going to come up with, but that is what members are deciding right now. our members represent 750,000 people each on average. they're getting a lot of good ideas, bringing those good ideas together but at end of the day policy really does matter. you can't just throw a bill on the floor, put a couple bullet points in press release in form of a bill and lay it out there. we really need to work through details of the policy to make sure we get that right because at the end of the day i want these bills to be bills ultimately get signed into law. if barack obama won't sign our welfare reform and our tax reform bill into law,'s at least put a bill together well-written enough so the next president can sign that into law. so that the presidential candidates can debate that bill in its strong enough, put together in a way where it can stand on its own merits. let's have both sides debate the issue and let the country engage in this.
8:21 am
>> you're in second year of republican controlled congress. why hasn't that groundwork been done already? do the, do the, disunity over the previous speaker and his handling of matters slow the process down? is this a year that, that everything is going to be punted to 2017 because details haven't been ironed out on those bills? how come none of this stuff has actually been taken flight yet? >> we've brought some of these ideas to the floor already last year. if you look in 2015 on national security, we've had a number of pieces of legislation brought to the floor to deal with specific problems. the visa waiver program by the way, the problems and flaws with the visa waiver program, we have people, let's say france that were traveling to syria and training with isis. they literally without even a visa can come into the united states. we changed that because we put a task force together, to figure
8:22 am
out the best way to solve that problem. most people recognize that there was major flaws with that program. but you can't just say okay, let's fix it. you have to figure out how to fix it the right way. we put a task force led together by chairman of jurisdiction and came up with a bill by candace miller. now it is signed into law. visa waiver program was directly addressed. we did that last year. we brought other bills to solve these problems. in our budget we laid out a plan to save medicare pro bankruptcy. the left like to criticize us for it because they don't have a plan at all. we played the plan out. we'll do that more this year. there are a lot of problems our country is facing. details really do matter and we're working with details with all of our members to work on those issues. >> what if the product you come up doesn't mesh with the party's presidential stance on these issues or his agenda? >> i think you will see a lot of these things come forward before we have nominee before we go to
8:23 am
cleveland to ultimately bring our nominee in, as official republican candidate for president. so it is a good opportunity for to us lay out really good ideas, while you're not hearing a lot of those details coming out of the presidential election, there will be, there will be solutions to a lot of problems our country is facing that we will have put on the table in the house so that our nominees can either embryce them, maybe take pieces of those and then go and run on those bold ideas in the general election in november. >> well the lack after budget or -- lack of a budget or many appropriations bills being passed you think undercut speaker's positioning trying to negotiate with the party's nominee on a unified agenda? mr. trump obviously has, if he is the nominee has some differences with the speaker and some house conservatives. what happens if there's two different directions being put out there?
8:24 am
>> if you look historically the nominee ultimately will be the person that shapes the agenda for the election in november. that is always been the case. there is no nominee i know of that had unanimous support within house republicans or house democrats on either side determining which policies they want to embrace but at the end of the die that's what the process is going through right now and the primaries. we in the house at least have an obligation to go lay out our vision and you're seeing that play out. i think it's a healthy conversation. i think the fact that we're including members from every committee, not just the members of committee of jurisdiction. clearly they have the most expertise but we've got members. you got privacy policies that are being debated across the country. let every member that has really good idea bring that to the table. that's happening right now. >> not to be gloomy, what happens if somehow a republican isn't elected president?
8:25 am
where do you guys go from there. >> after the passing of justice antonin scalia one of the great conservative thought leaders in the history of the court -- >> what, specifically what do house republicans do if they find themselves having to work with another democratic president. >> i think -- >> is there -- >> we have to lay out the case for just what is at stake in this election. i think it becomes more clear what is at stake. if you want a balanced federal budget, electing a republican president is only way to do it because on the democrat side bernie sanders is talking about everything being free for everybody. well that was obamacare. that didn't work out real well. hillary clinton is not disagreeing with any of that. you know what you will get there. we're laying out very different approach in the house. if you want to save medicare from bankruptcy, we've got a plan for it. by way only way you get your budget balanced. they have a plan, they don't have a plan for it. if you want to know direction of the supreme court go look no further than the people running for president to see what that direction would be.
8:26 am
so the country is going to decide this people of america will decide this. but we're going to continue to show what is at stake. there is everything on the line, literally everything on the line from the direction of the legislative branch, executive branch and judicial branch. >> you could lose the senate too by the way? >> right. why the legislative branch is on the line as well. >> less's shift gears a bit for other topicses. puerto rico, why is this congress taking so long to address what port reek sew case is urgent -- puerto rico says is urgent need to assess their situation, their fiscal calamity? >> first thing there are hearings going on right now in natural resources committee which was primary jurisdiction as well as other committees, to see if involvement, a role for congress to play but it will have to start with puerto rico coming up solutions for their
8:27 am
problems. they have real serious financial problems. they're not alone. as territory they have problems but a lot of states have similar problems. we don't want to do something that might set a precedent where others come behind, hey, we want that too. it has to be very well thought through. got to be something we get agreement on. there is not unifiedance to addressing this question at the federal level. still ultimately puerto rico will have to solve their problems to come up with the best way to get their finances in order. a lot of states have similar problems. those states are working through those problems. we don't want washington to be the place where people come for bailout. this is not, we'll not give somebody a bailout. we've got our own problems we have to address. states and territories have to address their problems. if they want to put better solutions on the table this is time to do it. >> financial control board or some sort of oversight board, why would that be taking so long to approve? >> again, the committee, the
8:28 am
committees of jurisdiction are working on this right now. they're having hearings. they're meeting right now, not only with the members but with people from puerto rico, with people from other places that have similar interests that puerto rico has. let's figure out if there is a way we can do something that we can get agreement on that solves the problem, right now we're, we don't have a final solution. >> another topic, has leadership pulled plug on long term faa bill? >> no the bill just came out of committee. obviously there were a lot of disagreements within committee that chairman shuster worked through. it is a complicated bill. it is a bill that ultimately, when they passed it there were a lost amendments even on the last day. i think chairman shuster continues to have conversations with people that, that really do understand that the faa needs reforms. the faa does have its authorization expiring. so there is a timeline. he is working through all of
8:29 am
those different -- >> no decision, no definite decision has been made? >> no definite decision. still again, chairman shuster is still meeting with a lot of people to work through all the different issues involved and there are many. >> we'll open up for questions in a few minutes but really more general, you've been number three-man for mr. boehner. now you're the number three-man for mr. ryan. which is the better boss? >> that's not -- >> you probably lean one way because, you know the current king is the king, right. >> look, just to put it in perspective four years ago, i wanted paul ryan to run for speaker. i've been a huge fan for paul ryan since i came to congress. i joined the republican study committee i came in after special election and paul watts putting together path to prosperity. i was really excited a member that was laying those kind of
8:30 am
bold ideas out on the table. ultimately that became the foundation resulted in the house budget we passed when we got the majority. so not only do i think he is our best ideas guy, but i think he is closest person i've seen since ronald reagan to articulate a conservative vision to people who don't typically vote republican because we haven't done a good job laying out our case why conservative policy is better to build the middle class that is eroding, why it is better to get people out of the poverty. our ideas are proven. we don't do enough of a good job explaining. paul is best at it. i put him at top of the field today if he were running for president. he is not. i've been a big fan of his. four years ago i asked him if he run for president. he didn't want to. he ultimately became vice-presidential nominee i think added a lot to the ticket. i think he is in special category. somebody who has the reaganesque and kempesque quality. he worked for jack kemp, to
8:31 am
really inspire people who don't necessarily consider themselves republican to actually see why conservative policy is the best answer to the problems our country's facing. >> so you would like to see a brokered convention? >> no. i just think he's really one of the best conservative minds in the country. >> and have you talked to mr. boehner since he has left office? >> yes. seen him a couple of times up in washington and he seems to be very happy. the speaker is a tough job. you know, you could say the whip's job is tough job, i think it's a great job, you keep the pulse of the membership, you really know what is happening in the house. the speaker's job is probably toughest job especially when you consider palm palm president and might go down as one of the most divisive presidents in our country's history. he has not worked hard to bring congress together to solve problems. it has created a very divisive atmosphere in the country and being speaker during that time
8:32 am
is not easy at all. >> let's do questions. beautiful. we have somebody -- >> hello. i'm jake with the hindu-american foundation. several conservatives who are strong on foreign policy, chairman corker, rand paul, ed royce, ted poe, john mccain, have really disapproved of the president's notification to sell eight f-16s along with other equipment to pakistan with subsidized sale. is this something you can really conservatives and reach across the aisle to halt in order to save american taxpayers over $800 million? >> well, if you looked, armed services committee deals with these issues. i haven't seen them come out with the best approach. i don't want, i don't want the full house to be trying to make the decisions that generals and people, experts in the field ought to be making but that's why you have a house armed
8:33 am
services committee that has our members with the best expertise on the direction of the department of defense. my main concern we have strong national defense which has been depleted over the last few years and it has got to be strengthened. our military readiness has been degraded. we've got to strengthen that. we have major threats around the world. and i want the best mind in our military to be determining what that best approach is to keep america safe. and so the house armed services committee is working through that right now. you know, i will be looking forward to see their plan they come out of committee with. >> gentleman right here. >> thank you. adam with the american library association. you mentioned the "p" word, mr. scalise, privacy. 194 republicans, pardon me, almost 80% of the caucus, 115 democrats, are the 310 cosponsors of the most cosponsored bill in congress hr
8:34 am
699, email privacy act. it shocked me, i had to check it three times to learn, that a warrant, merely a subpoena, a warrant is not needed after six months to get the actual content of people's emails. all of your dropbox files, basically everything in the cloud, no speeches. when this bill comes out the committee, happily it is finally poised to do in judiciary, what is the best path to the floor as the clock ticks down on this particular congress? >> i'd like to see us take it up. look, i'm a strong supporter of privacy. i'm a strong supporter of free and open internet. i have do have concerns where the fcc trying to get more involved writing technology policy. that should be the role of congress. i do, i do think when you look at this debate going on nationally on privacy, it is an important one that congress is being drug into. i think in some ways we've got to, we've got to address some of the problems where you have threats to privacy. in the balance is always, how do
8:35 am
you make sure to protect national security and privacy at the same time? that is probably the biggest debate we have in congress. i do think there are always ways to strike the fair balance. there are cases that pop up from time to time, like we see right now with apple, that challenge that, force everybody to really revisit, you know, our laws adequate. what is the proper role of the government. i don't want federal government to tell a company how to develop a operating system, how to develop hardware. you have to balance privacy with national security and find the proper balance. >> to be clear -- >> this is much broader debate, it is much broader debate this legislation you're talking about really deals with the private of individual's email which i raised serious questions about in the past. i still serve on the technology subcommittee of energy and commerce and i have raised these concerns to some of the companies who allow emails to be
8:36 am
viewed in a broad sense where maybe people writing those emails don't realize they're being viewed. i have some real problems with that. >> go there. >> good morning. pete judge. you talked about task force, the task forces already a little bit. can you elaborate just logistics of, you know, will the recommendations, will there be publication of recommendations while stakeholders at all be able to post ideas or is this just an internal roundtable talking? >> yeah, the task forces are very real, detailed policy conversations amongst members of congress to figure out which bills we want to bring to the floor, how do we come up, if we want a better tax plan which we all agree we need to have.
8:37 am
our country is not competitive. major companies are leaving the united states of america to go to other countries. not because they want to. they don't want to leave. the tax code is forcing them to leave because we're not competitive as nation. how do we best do it? details matter. members are meeting to work through to see if we come through with an agreement on legislation. ideally i would want us to bring actual bills to committee. we don't have predisposed outcome in leadership. we're pretty clear. we didn't start this to say we want this bill and that bill to be on the house floor the we want committees to work on these ideas and there are really good ideas being discussed in these task forces. like i said yesterday i sat in on the task force to re-establish our article i powers to re-establish the powers. people think there are zero based budgeting if you you have shutdown, everything shuts down. that 1964 budget act, congress
8:38 am
gave most the power of the purse to the president. it is bad policy. i want to us change that policy our members are now meeting to come up with the best way to re-establish that balance of power and if that will result in specific bills, might be one bill, might be four bills, ultimately those conversations are going on right now amongst our members. that will go to committees. committees hopefully produce final pieces of legislation we can vote on the house floor. >> kind of to that point though, let me, can you tell us the agenda that is being crafted for, will it be put together in contract with america booklet form? how will it be dispensed to the public? how will joe voter know what exactly the bold and conservative agenda you guys have is? >> there is nomy conceptions that the house is going to drive the agenda for the presidential election. i do think the house can actually help lay out some of these issues so our presidential candidates can comment on them. they should be asked to comment.
8:39 am
if we come up with alternative to obama care in form of actual piece of legislation. when i was rc chairman i led a task force to write alternative. american health reform act, less than 200 pages, half of legislative text, half of our conference signed on cosponsors. you can look a piece of legislation, if you like it, endorse it. if you have i would change this part. change tax deductions to tax credits. let's have our candidates for president be commenting on and taking positions on those pieces of legislation so that, you know, in off year, congress can have a contract with america type document where we lay out the vision. let's make no mistake. our presidential nominee will be laying out that vision. that is going to be the job of our presidential nominee. we just want to put a lot of those good ideas on the table now, while they're fighting amongst themselves offer who might be better person or who has the worst idea on this or that, let's lay out really good ideas we can coalesce around.
8:40 am
hopefully our nominee will be able to turn and say i want a really good idea to get the economy back on track and how to stop all the radical federal agencies from being able to write rules and in essence laws without any public input. we'll have really good ideas we've already brought to the house floor to address those real problems and hopefully our presidential nominee says that, i will embrace the idea or tweak it a little bit. this is what i will do as president of the united states. let have hillary clinton have her own approach. maybe she won't have idea but at least we have debate really good ideas between our presidential nominee and theirs over how to get the country moving again. >> long time civil servant with both executive and legislative brand. today i'm jane voter in terms of this question. since 1977 congress has only passed appropriations four times without continuing resolutions. so the situation seems neither
8:41 am
new nor unexpected. just sort of increasingly more worse, increasingly more severe. i wonder in terms of really there is interest in sort of saving money or how government functions? has there been any thinking or studies impact on running on continue all resolutions, omnibuses no budgets, threat of shutdown was? planning, wasting, if you told a company they were not guaranteed with their budget, no idea how much money they get until third quarter of year and all of sudden had to spend it, not mention all the time wasted in government employee time replanning rerouting you would come up with some pretty significant figures. seems it can't be laid at this president or this party. i think since 1990, really no part put forward a budget balanced. >> actually republicans have. last time a republican house has balance ad federal budget was in 2002. last time a house democrat pass
8:42 am
ad balanced budget was 1969 when man walked on the moon. to get to your question, really important point because these showdowns, these crises hurts our country, hurts our country. not just making washington look dysfunctional, hurts ability for federal government to be more efficient with tax dollars. look at department of wednesday defense, if you have continuing resolution instead of actual dod appropriations bill signed into law, they can actually do planning. companies plan years in advance. government agencies should lay out plans as well how to best use taxpayers dollars f they don't know what their budget will look like until literally day before it is about to take effect it is hard to do planning. they suspend contracts and have to start the contract back up again even though they ultimately something will get worked out they can't do long-term planning and it cost even more money to do the same thing.
8:43 am
it does lead to less efficient government to not have functioning appropriations process. why we want passionately for this to move forward. president should be leading charge, let's come together to move appropriations bills. last year when passing bills out the house to do this, months in advance of the deadline, the president was sitting on sideline. he never once said harry reid, who is his senate leader on democratic side, when harry is blocking every bill, never once said harry reid, take the bill up and debate differences. that is the what congress is supposed to do. he sat on the sidelines and almost encouraged it. dysfunction got worse. it should happen every year. when we pass ad balanced budget every year we got agreement with senate on it was first time since 2000 two congress came to that kind of agreement. shouldn't take 13 years for congress to pass federal budget. >> obama has not been president since 1977.
8:44 am
time for introspection of congress look what their role is. >> right. our role should be to do that job, ultimately takes two sides to diet. when the senate refuses to take up even one bill, passed six bills, they made it clear we're not taking up any of them that is irresponsible. somebody should have called out people voting not even to take up a bill. senate supposed to be the most deliberative body in the history of the word. that is the way it was created. they have turned 60 vote requirement in a way to be the least deliberative bod i in the world. that abuse their responsibility. nice to see the president chime in on this. hopefully both out presidential candidates, republican or democrat will have opinion on this i would like to see both our republican nominee and democrat nominee have have a plan how to get the process working again. what is their approach? i would love to hear it. >> have one? >> sure. my approach look what we've done. we pass a budget.
8:45 am
we passed appropriations bills. we need to keep doing that. we need to keep moving the process forward properly. it does take both house and senate to make that function. >> hi, kathleen, with the american college of cardiology. thank you guys for very much for saking care of sgr we're in midst of major health care transformation for physicians, hospitals, patients. inoperability of electronic health records is a key. currently a mess. we have many different systems out there. we have data blocking, we have all kinds of things going on. what can you do, and what can congress do to basically enable us to get to a system where our records can be effectively shared? i know everybody in this room had a problem with getting their records from one place to another. >> yeah. you know this is something that is still evolving. it has been, talk to private hospital, they spend millions and millions of dollars to
8:46 am
develop systems so that medical records can be shared with the doctor, from the doctor's office to the hospital and ideally between hospitals. truly inneroperable. one of the things we've been pushing is to get, start with these federal agencies. the va, for goodness sakes, there are some problems within the va, shouldn't they have a functioning inneroperable system? so they can share medical records of veterans with maybe hospital that the veteran goes to in normal times. maybe sometimes a veteran goes to v. ato get treatment and goes to local hospital. shouldn't that information be inneroperable? the va has not done act adequate job making their records inneroperable. starts with government agencies being leaders around doing what a lot of people doing in the in the private sector and at the end of the day you will have to see better ability for hospitals that have their own systems of medical records to be able to share them electronically with other hospitals and physicians.
8:47 am
>> right here. get you next. >> thank you for being with us this morning. and on a friday too. >> great to be here. >> member of congress here on a friday. mark pearl with the homeland security and defense business council. there are contentious political, conservative, progressive issues that differentiate but in the issue of homeland security, homeland defense, it should rise above, it should rise above politics so the broader question is, not going to either what mr. mccaul is doing or mr. goodlatte on certain of these issues but to your role, are you under the mandate that the hastert rule still exists? that on every issue you need majority of republicans? how often are you discussing when i saw on the hill many years ago, too many years ago, discussing with mr. hoyer the
8:48 am
whipping of united states congress to get a majority on certain issues that may not be bright line conservative progressive particularly in the area of homeland security that we see it being pushed to the extremes of politics? how often in general do you talk to your counterpart on the democratic side in order to get 218, 219, roaredless where those numbers come from? >> steny and i talk on occasion because normally i'm meeting with house republicans so that we can coalesce around things that are moving forward. clearly talk on those issues where it takes bipartisan votes to get things passed on trade promotion authority. probably most complicated bill that worked on, as majority whip. you know. this is free trade always been a conservative ideal and always taken coalition of republicans
8:49 am
and democrats. mostly republicans but democrats to put that together. in that case the minority whip was against the bill so we were working with other democrats but ultimately built a coalition. on national security, frankly you've seen strong bipartisan majorities to address the problems that we've been facing. if you look at isis alone we've been calling on president to come up with a plan. in fact the president signed into law a requirement that he lay out a detailed plan to combat terrorism around the world. he has failed to meet that deadline. he puts out this plan this week on closing guantanamo bay and sending those terrorists into the united states, which by the way, people of both parties do not want adamantly. strong, strong bipartisan opposition to bringing gitmo detainees into the united states. president instead of meeting a deadline to lay out a plan to combat isis, is spending time trying to figure out how to bring terrorists into the united states against the will of people in both parties. so i would like to see the president work with us on those
8:50 am
areas of strong bipartisan support. look, iran deal, there was strong bipartisan support against the iran deal. you want to talk about a national security issue, that will be a threat to the united states for generations to come. republicans, democrats, cale together to oppose that plan. unfortunately the president went a very different direction. so when we have come together on a lot of national security issues, unfortunate thely, on many of those we found the president on the wrong side. but there is strong, strong republicans and democrat support in congress to do what it takes to keep our country safe. that is, that has been very bipartisan for a long time, including in this congress. >> on that, is there still a hastert rule in the house? the most recent speaker ignored it a couple times. maybe that was to his detriment. has speaker ryan said anything about the hastert rule? >> there always, our objective
8:51 am
have bills 218 republicans would support at a minimum. currently we have 246 republicans. there is special election coming up shortly to to fill vacant seat in ohio, where we've been in congress on most complicated issues we've been able not just to get a majority of house republicans but over 218 republicans to come to agreement. clearly not on every issue. clearly like to have that happen on every issue. we don't live in perfect world. we strive to get to that point. >> there was never actually a formal rule. >> never a formal hastert rule but you like to have 218 or more republicans come together on every complicated issue. clearly not been the case. i'm sure it won't be the case all the time but most of the time it will. >> right up here. >> good morning.
8:52 am
thanks for your remarks. peter with the four as. you mentioned briefly tax inversions earlier. i wonder where do you see corporate tax reform falling? is that something that gets tackled this year, next year? further do you see it comprehensive approach or peel off a specific challenge like inversions? >> i know chairman kevin brady just came in chairman of ways and means committee when paul ryan became speaker and had a lot on his plate from day one, but he had a passion to bring tax reform out of the ways and means committee, pass a bill not just addresses serious problem of our uncompetitive corporate tax rate but also personal rate. because, if you're at 35% and want to bring the overall rates down to at least 25, 20, somewhere in there, you don't want to have a case where the corporate rate is lower than the personal rate because there are a lot of people that have companies that are pass-throughs that they're filing on personal returns. you want to make sure both
8:53 am
corporate and personal rates are much lower than they are today, so that our country can be competitive again. we stop forcing companies to move out of the united states to be able to stay in business. so that if a company is making $100 billion in foreign countries and want to bring that money back into the united states to create more jobs here, they're not punished by the united states and irs if they want to do that. which they are right now. psychotic policy. it needs to be reversed. kevin brady wants to bring a bill out of the ways and means committee that finally tackles this in comprehensive way. >> this year? >> this year. >> good morning. thank you for your remarks. i am melanie brunson from the blinded veterans association and there is a wide variety of legislation in the house right
8:54 am
now on a number of issues related to interests of veterans and their families. i would like to know if you have any thoughts about what the priorities might be for the congress to actually pass? i know there were some bills just passed recently and there's talk of an omnibus bill later before the end of the session. do you have any thoughts about what might be the priority issues for the congress to act on before the end of the session? >> yes. if you look, we've, we've identified very serious problems within the va where the va is not meeting the mission to take care of our veterans who went and fought in other countries, got injured, came back home and promise made to them, that they would be taken care of by the va and the va failed in that mission. i've been very angry about what
8:55 am
has happened. you have seen us pass legislation last year where you had the secret waiting lists. v. a.d. need they existed. we exposed that through our house oversight functions. we passed legislation to allow the president to hold people accountable and fire people responsible for it. the president hasn't done on that with adequate level. i would first call the president to exercise his abilitied under the law, did such disservice to our veterans to provide proper care. we passed legislation to open up the va system, if veteran is being denied care, waiting too long to get the care they deserve, they would be able to go to private hospital in their community. that law is on the books right now. from everything we've been hearing by veterans back home the va is not doing adequate job of letting veterans know about that. they don't want veterans to know there is real competition if they're doing a horrible job. va is failing in their mission at a number of facilities across
8:56 am
the country. it is not isolated. it has been widespread. we identified problems. we passed specific legislation to allow our veterans to have more opportunities. i'm really frustrated that the va is trying to hide the fact from our veterans because they want to keep them forced into va system that is currently not working as best as it should be. by the way we increased funding to the va over the last few years. so they have had more money and failed to meet their mission. it's a serious problem congress will continue to stay on until they get this right. >> we only have, have to do a little rapid fire here now. do these two right there. quick question before that, are we going to see a benghazi committee report anytime soon? is it going to be closer to the election? >> i'm not sure what the end result of the committee is. i think one of the things that has been so good what chairman gowdy has done made it clear they're going to go to continue
8:57 am
to get the facts. unfortunately they have had a hard time getting ought the facts. all parties involved at department of state should work harder to get all the information that has been requested but they continue to uncover more things. they will keep doing their work until they get all of the facts out there for the public to see about what happened in that tragic, that tragic incident in benghazi where we lost four americans. i'm sorry. >> good morning. amy duvall with the american chemistry council. the toxic substances control act hasn't been reformed since first passed in 1976 and the senate passed a bill unanimously in december and house passed a bill last june, 398-1. hopefully going to be a success story but i'm wondering if you can comment on anytiming or efforts of house leadership right now to try to resolve those two bills and get something to the president's desk? >> it is really important we get toxic bill done.
8:58 am
i know john shimkus on committee of jurisdiction, has been in negotiations with the senate for some time ultimately to see if they resolve the differences of the it's a big priority. we want to see it get done. i think chairman shimkus on the house side has been doing very able job at leading that effort, working with his senate counterparts ultimately get agreement we can get signed into law. >> great, thank you. >> hi. darren wyatt, national industries for the blind. i have to ask a elections questions. this batch of presidential hopefuls in my lifetime is definitely the worse. that is 30 years. my dad is 63, said in his lifetime worst ever seen. you have bernie sanders who, i think he means well but the handshaking across lines from democrat to republican, wouldn't
8:59 am
happen. the relationship building wouldn't happen in terms of his policies. hillary clinton, a lot of people don't really trust her. ted cruz, in my opinion is just way too creepy. and marco rubio, marco rubio is cookie cutter and it appears he just got his backbone 12 hours ago. donald trump, who is going to be the republican nominee, he is going to do that, he has come up with two policy ideas in nine months he has been around. he will build a big beautiful wall with door in the middle and he is going to bomb isis oil fields. and thin have his buddies from exxon come over build them back up as soon as possible. that is what he is going to do. so as a conservative, and this is coming from a guy still is, doesn't know who he is going to vote for, and it is kind of frightening at this point, as a conservative how can you
9:00 am
possibly defend trump when you introduce him at your events? when he is going to be republican nominee? this is guy firebranding fear-mongerrer. and he, he is frightening. and the fact that the united states of america is at the point where he is literally going to be the republican nominee is at least from my generation, so scary. i'm just wondering -- >> i wouldn't agree with all the as assessments you made. . .
9:01 am
the closest you can find in generations between two presidential races. you had a lot of malaise in the country, an economy that was sluggish, major foreign policy challenge from the world at an incumbent democratic president and a very contested republican primary. just look at some of the things george h. w. bush said about ronald reagan. they were not calling each of the good guys. at the end of the day you ended up with a nominee and ronald reagan who picked george h. w. bush to be his running mate. when reagan ran he ran on a positive and inspiring vision
9:02 am
and brought large numbers of people out and one with an overwhelming majority and did great things to get the economy moving again, to get the country back on track. i think the same thing happened again. i can't tell you the nominee will be. i don't think we can assume that one person wants the table tuesday night. i think you will continue to see competitive race but look don't expect each to point out how nice the other guy is. however, much longer it goes they will continue to say how bad the other guy is. at the end of the day they will come together, old republican side and democrats like it at that point who's going to do the best job of going to the american people and laying out of their vision produced by the people. people are hungry for those ideas. the candidate that can do that is the one that will win. i would encourage our republican nominee to go and be a reaganesque inspiring figure. go and it excite people.
9:03 am
the american dream is real. how are you going to best rebuild the american dream so that people can just work hard, play by the rules. you can be part of the middle-class and even more if you want in your life. that still exist but it's fading away a we can get it back. i want to see the candidate who can best inspire people to can be our next president but i still think that's achievable. >> i enjoyed it and very much appreciate talking to her i enjoyed all the question. there were some great questions out there. let's call it closed here. appreciate it. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
9:04 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:05 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:06 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:07 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:08 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
9:09 am
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we will take you live to capitol hill for hearing on 3-d printing and commerce, manufacturing a trade subcommittee members will look at the new printing techniques and talk about its impact on
9:10 am
jobs and economic growth. at the same time she spent we will be live with the house homeland security subcommittee hearing on food security. they will hear from agriculture and homeland security experts about the risk to agriculture and food delivery from a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. tonight, democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton is campaigning in south carolina. we will have live coverage of her get out the vote rally at south carolina state university this afternoon. >> c-span's campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house. saturday is the south going to democratic primary. live coverage begins at 7:30 p.m. eastern with results and speeches from the candidates. we will get your reaction to your phone calls and tweets.
9:11 am
join us saturday for live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors and weekend on c-span2. here are some of programs to watch for this weekend. >> metadata is literally the outside of the envelope for electronic communication. as you said, american law enforcement traditionally has been able to look at the outside and into law. the supreme court decided that the fact of your phone calls,
9:12 am
who you called, when, for how long, also was essentially the outside of the envelope. >> watch booktv all weekend every weekend on c-span2, television for serious readers. >> nalco house ways and means committee ranking member representative sander levin, top democrat on the keeping that deals with u.s. tax policy over the next hour he discusses his concerns about the trans-pacific partnership agreement ranging from workers rights to currency manipulation. this was part of the "christian science monitor" breakfast series. [inaudible conversations] here we go, folks. thanks for coming.
9:13 am
i'm david took from the monitor our guest this morning is represented sander levin of michigan, ranking them on the house ways and means committee. its last visit here was in may 2013. we are glad he came back. he earned his bachelor's degree at the university of chicago, a masters in international relations from colombia to law degree from harvard he was elected to the michigan state senate in 1964 and served as the senate minority leader from 69-70. during the carter administration he was assistant administrator. he was elected the u.s. house in 1982, four years after his brother was elected to the senate. and march 2010 he wondered how much of the ways and means committee and a served in opposing the republicans took back the house majority. dust into the biographical portion of the program. now onto the ever so residing recitation of ground rules.
9:14 am
as always we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. and shorten the filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to actually listen to what our guest is. there's no embargo when the session and. to help you curb relentless self the urge we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all reporters sns of the breakfast inns. as regular attendees know if you'd like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send a subtle nonthreatening signal and then i will happily call on one and all. we will start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments and then moved to questions from around the table. thanks again for doing this. the floor is yours. >> thank you, and thank you for all of you joining us today. beating the traffic. some of us have talked before about trade issues. a battle over trade intensified
9:15 am
in the years i've been you. i was thinking back to the uruguay round where we brought up the results, and there was some controversy but not a great deal, and we put it together to really easily. but since been about as a said. and in some respects you can draw the lines this way, between those who felt essentially that the old model worked, that comparative advantage still ruled the day, and that as country could become each country would come out best, and the really wouldn't be any losers. others of us thought that the
9:16 am
old model did not work well, conditions had changed, and that you essentially need to shape trade policy. and so what happened today reflects i think going back some years. in 2007 i led the effort with a democratic majority in the house to essentially draw a new course for trade policy. week, for the first time, put into trade policy international standards in terms of environment and worker rights. we addressed for the first time what became controversial the isds issue in terms of dispute
9:17 am
settlement. and also we put into me 10, provisions on medicines. well, as ttp unfolded, clearly an important agreement, an agreement that involves 40% of the gdp of the world. i laid out a year ago, some of you know, what i felt were important guidelines for the trans-pacific partnership. so i worked hard, worked with others, listen to others. we have held forums as you know. and i have now concluded that the tpp as negotiated the short
9:18 am
of acceptable outcome, and i do not support it. there are four key issues under want to go over those with you today. there are others, medicines, the environment, state-owned enterprises you may want to talk about but i want to focus in today on four areas which i think fall short of an acceptable outcome and why i cannot support it. they are worker rights, rules of origin, currency manipulation, and investment. let me start with worker rights. and i'll start with malaysia and vietnam. they have deplorable human rights conditions, and conditions relating to worker rights.
9:19 am
i focus in on worker rights because essentially what we have been trying to do is international trade agreements unfold, to raise standards instead of a race to the bottom. in vietnam today there is a consistency agreement that the ustr has worked out, and there are some important provisions in it. however, if you look at conditions today, the main consistency is to vietnam, inconsistency as to worker rights. when i was there about a year ago as part of the delegation, led by nancy pelosi, i met a woman had been in prison or four
9:20 am
years and four months for trying to organize the workers into independent unions. recently as she was trying again, she had been released from jail, she was beaten, and beaten terribly, simply for trying to exercise the right of workers to organize. in malaysia the situation remains deplorable, and i think there's deep concern with this present leadership in malaysia that what's in the consistency plan will become a reality. and let me just say a word about what we did me 10th. when we negotiated a real, we insisted -- peru, we insisted
9:21 am
changes be made into workers rights, but implement before we vote on it, and that was done. right now with vietnam and malaysia, and the implementation doesn't have to, doesn't occur until the agreement becomes effective. so by the time congress no longer has an essay. we are out of the picture. so i find that very unsatisfactory. let me just say a word about mexico. i was there rather recently. what's happening in mexico is more and more of the automotive structure in this country is moving to mexico. in the last four years or so,
9:22 am
there has been an investment by automakers, both the big three and the other automakers, $25 billion in mexico. it is now becoming one of the largest auto producers in the world. and the vast majority of the trucks and cars that are built in mexico come to the united states. and what's happening now in terms of the movement of the auto industry to mexico is being duplicated, as you perhaps read, in other industries, carrier now is closing plants in indiana and moving them to mexico. one of the reasons of this movement to mexico, it isn't the only one, is a huge gap in wages and benefits between the workers
9:23 am
in mexico and the workers and the united states. the average, as of a couple years ago, the average wage in the auto industry in mexico was $8. and for some working in the auto parts industry, it was $40 a week. one of the reasons for this gap is the absolute inability of workers in most of mexico to be able to form a union and to bargain collectively. they have a system in mexico so-called protection agreements that often are signed before there are any workers. and in any case, the workers have no say in what are the terms of the agreement.
9:24 am
there is no consistency plan at all for mexico as there is for vietnam and malaysia. but discussions have been between the two governments outside of the tpp, and at this point we have no idea as to what will come of it. essentially in the auto industry and manufacturing in general, you have this circumstance. mexico is competing with the united states. it's competing under circumstances that put workers in this country at a frightful disadvantage. and there is no plan that we know of that will change the circumstances today prevail in mexico.
9:25 am
and i want to try to do it briefly so we have plenty of time for back and forth. >> good. you are reading my mind. >> it says 9:15. the rules of origin to essentially say what the content must be in order for the trade preferences to apply. and the problem is that from what we can determine, the rules of origin and tpp are weaker than they were in nafta. so essentially you have this possibility where you have a rule of origin that looks like it's considerably below 50%. the opportunity for our automakers in mexico to meet the requirement for the preference and have more and more parts
9:26 am
come from places outside of mexico, like china and vietnam. so when workers in this country are deeply disturbed about the on level playing field, you can understand the reaction to a situation where more and more manufacturing in this country is moving south, and under conditions into mexico where workers are receiving may be a fifth or a sixth of the wage as true in the united states. and there is no plan in place to change that. so let me just go on and say a word about currency manipulation. as i look about, i think you guys have heard me talk about currency manipulation. it seems like forever, but we lost between two and 5 million
9:27 am
jobs in this country because of japan's currency manipulation, and then china's. two to 5 million jobs. we have insisted that there be a change and a meaningful change in what exists today that has been negotiated with the finance ministers is simply unsatisfactory. and i just want to give you one example of the impact. i was going last night over the korea free trade agreement. i participated in, it wasn't called renegotiation because koreans didn't like the term, in the region of the korean free trade agreement. we do that when we took over. i kind of stuck my neck out. i said let's try to make an agreement with korea work. the huge deficit is primarily
9:28 am
not -- is in automotive and let's try to find a way to break through the korean barriers to our manufacturing products. so we restructured it check it was controversial. most of the benefit, if not all the benefit, was wiped away by korea's currency manipulation. and so today korea's automotive market remains almost as closed as it was when we negotiated the agreement. let me just say a word about investment, isds. i said in this letter of a year ago to ustr that there had to be substantial changes.
9:29 am
you know what's involved. whether an investor come instead of going through the legal system, can essentially go through arbitration. and as of some years ago that wasn't happening very much in the united states. we said so that there's increasing use by investors going outside structures that are well in place i could united states or australia or canada. we needed but changes in place to make sure there wasn't an abuse. the decisions continued to come out indicating it was a problem. there was some progress made by ustr, but in my judgment not enough. the recent filing in the pipeline case i think shows the dangers to environmental and health provisions in the united
9:30 am
states, because essentially what the pipeline company is doing is filing a $15 billion suit and not going through the legal system of the united states but going through arbitration. so let me close by talking about the international trade commission report. i forgot this. there was no itc report on nafta. igc is supposed to look at all of the economic aspects of free trade agreement and figure out how they will come out in terms of working families in the united states. they are now undertaking this, and i put together testimony, and a sense that all of you, indicating why they needed to do something differently than has been true of models that have been used.
9:31 am
a recent model came out of the peterson institute sponsored it, and essentially what it said was, using the old model, that in terms of growth of gdp for the united states, it would be four-tenths of 1% in 15 years, or over 15 years. that's all. much more for vietnam and for malaysia. but even that four-tenths of 1% over 15 years i think it's very much in question. because that model assumes that there will be full employment, which hasn't occurred. that model assumes that wages will keep up with productivity. that isn't true, hasn't been
9:32 am
true. that model doesn't look at issues like income inequality, a major issue today. and that model also doesn't look at specific sectors. so i have urged the itc a to use a very different model to look at these issues, and they are going to a report by the middle of me. i hope that that will spark intensive discussion about the essence of tpp, and whether it really will benefit the working families of the united states. so let me just close. i want to read just the last paragraph, if i might. all of you have a copy. some will say that tpp is an improvement over the status quo.
9:33 am
you'll hear that a lot. others would say that we should not, that the perfect be the enemy of the good. by the way, you've probably heard people say that hundreds of times. regardless of whether those often rhetorical measuring sticks are relevant in the past when trade agreement simply equal to trade reductions, they vitally missed the mark today. trade touches all aspects of our lives, and we are setting through tpp and economic framework for generations. we cannot afford to lock in week standards, uncompetitive practices, and a system that does not spread the benefits of trade, spread the benefit of trade that has been the hallmark of what i have been fighting for
9:34 am
instead of the old model of comparative advantage. affecting the paychecks of american families. did not get it right is to get it wrong, and this tpp negotiated is not right for america. and that essentially sums up why i cannot support tpp negotiated, because it falls short of acceptable outcomes. >> at me do just a quick over arch kind of crush and then we'll go to doug -- >> i'm going to take my hot tea that is now very cold. >> sorry about that. a major player in trade comes out against tpp. is a pretty tpp is dead certainly at least for this year, and continuing into 2017?
9:35 am
are what did you see happening next as a result of your rejection? >> let me just get some tape or here so i can take notes. >> no fair you taking notes. own house. we are -- >> you can pull out a piece of paper. >> i will pull out a piece of paper for you. >> look, let me say two things. some of us know long enough i don't like to focus on timetable. i think the focus should be on the substance of this vital trade agreement. and that's basically what i'm speaking out today. next week you are going to be more and more people coming to washington, urging support. many of them will be in the
9:36 am
agriculture sector, and i acknowledge the gains in agriculture, but let me just say a word about it because those are exports. and there's been a failure, and that was shown in the report of the council of economic advisers, to look at the impact of imports as well as the advantages from exports. so i think next week there's going to be an intense, and intensified effort to convince people, and that's why after looking at all of this, having the forms i helped put together, i'm speaking out today. i'm not sure what the course is going to be between now and the end of the year. paul ryan has indicated his
9:37 am
concern, and let me just say, in several cases i don't share them at all. tobacco was one of the pluses negotiated in tpp as part of the isds, the investor state dispute section. maybe it shouldn't have been there but it's there. that should stick. the tobacco issue of essentially says a country, for reasons of health, should be able to do anything they want to perfect the health of their citizens. and i think it should stay as it is. medicines, paul ryan has also indicated unhappiness about that. when we put together may 10, we spent a lot of time, this was in
9:38 am
2007, on the medicines issue, a lot of time. it was very controversial. and what we did was to strike a balance between protection of intellectual property and access to medicines and came out with a five you provision. a lot of the pharmaceutical industry wants essentially a 12 year provision in terms of data exclusivity. i won't go into the exact meaning of the. i think that they are wrong. what was done in tpp at the last minute, and i was at every one of the meetings, was to reach a compromise that is a little hard to understand. it talks about five years, which is what is in may 10, but it
9:39 am
could go under similar circumstances to eight, and the pharmaceutical industry wants 12. i think the may 10 provision that we worked so hard on is the correct provision, and it should relate to biologics. as we intended. in answer to the question, i'm not sure of the timetable. i think within our ranks there is a lot of opposition to it for the reasons that i've outlined today. we will see. i don't know. >> we are going to go to doug of politico. >> hi, doug. >> how are you doing? well, you answered my main question already. i guess counties they don't want to talk about the timetable but
9:40 am
suppose that this doesn't get done this year and we have a new president, and it's president clinton, just for example. do you think that she could negotiate a better agreement that would touch on all of these issues that you've enumerated? and if you think that they knew would be a majority of democrats that would vote for that agreement? i guess company, is there really support in the democratic caucus for a tpp agreement along the lines that you've outlined? >> look, it's been a controversial issue, to put it mildly. my position has never been no tpp. my position has been you had to address these very major issues that i outlined a year ago.
9:41 am
i think that those objectives have to be met. hillary clinton has expressed her serious concerns about tpp. i went back and looked at her comments when she voted against cafta years ago, and she didn't outlined issues that related to cafta that are very much alive today. i think if she were elected president i would have confidence and how she would address trade issues, but it's hard to predict what's going to happen in the election. >> do you see any danger to the economy with the u.s. being seen as anti-trade? did you see risks?
9:42 am
>> i'm not anti-trade. i don't think most democrats are anti-trade. just look at my career still i didn't mean to insult you. i just meant -- >> immigrants, look, we put together, we are the authors of may 10. charlie and i wrote it. it was accepted by the administration. we put may 10 into peru. and majority as i remember of democrats voted for peru which incorporated the may 10 provisions on worker rights and on medicines. they changed their laws before we voted. and charlie rangel and i went down to peru to essentially marked the success of the
9:43 am
peruvian free trade agreement. let me just say there have been serious problems in its implementation which does lead to more unrest within the ranks of those who favor trade that has to be done in the right way. we put into peru the most innovative environmental provisions over in a trade agreement. because the amazon affects climate, i know republicans don't believe this, but because its effect on climate change and the problem has been with those provisions on deforestation, they haven't been effectively implemented. so in terms of anti-trade, i think you need to look at the record of people like myself as we've tried to shape trade
9:44 am
agreements. there's a basic issue. for most republicans it remains a more trade the better, regardless of its content basically. but for us the battle has been they need to a new trade policy and to shape its terms, and that's what nafta was all about, and worker rights and environmental conditions so that you had neither race to the bottom but essentially raising the standards upon which all trade agreements were negotiat negotiated. >> going forward, do you see a role you're going to play to maintain, similar to what many republicans have said they don't support the deal being that they're going to try to convince the administration to address some of their concerns, or conversely will you be joining forces with some of the local
9:45 am
democratic advocates to the deal like congresswoman delauro for example, in trying to attract public oppositions and but regardless of what comes up for a vote or not? >> i am opposed to tpp as negotiated. i'm opposed to it. i can't support it. whether this will spark the administration to move ahead, for example, on currency, to move ahead with mexico. right now there's no plan whatsoever. workers continued to be suppressed. whether it will essentially change the dynamic today in vietnam. look, i can't vote for it. i can't vote for tpp when the person i met who was in jail for
9:46 am
four years tries to organize in vietnam, and they send pictures of her having been beaten for doing what, and consistency agreement, vietnam says can happen. >> i have a two-part question. first, i want to talk a little bit about the politics of having one president negotiate a trade deal and then had a complete utter another president that is not entirely uncommon. i'm wondering why you think that has become practice and what that says about what people evolve into thinking about trade. i wonder if you could eat more about your concerns about how this would impact, you mentioned the rules of origin and the difference between tpp and nafta. i wonder if you think this is
9:47 am
litigating some the problems democrats have long had with nafta? >> look, we made progress when there was a change of presidents ambush to president obama -- bush. under president bush we did put together the may 10 agreement. it wasn't exactly an agreement. it was put together by democrats, by house democrats, and it was accepted by the bush administration. assuming that that might lead to acceptance of panama, colombia, korea. that didn't happen.
9:48 am
i sat down and began to renegotiate the panama, the panamanian embassy, taking may 10 and then the panamanian parliament, the speaker became someone who had killed a marine and we stopped, a u.s. marine. so there was progress when we changed from president bush to president obama in terms of renegotiating those agreements. so sometimes it works for the better. if a republican became president, i think much of what we have done, they would try to wash away. that our effort in new trade policy they would try to reverse. so we will see. in terms of rules of origin, let
9:49 am
me just say the word because i've had recent discussions with ustr. our staff has been drawing to find out from the administration what they think is the meaning of the rules of origin. i just want to make this real. essentially they decide how much content has to come from where. that's what the rules of origin are. they are very technical but they really matter. and what happened was nafta had a 62.5% rule of origin for the three countries. the rules of origin in tpp have
9:50 am
lower figures. i don't understand why that was the result, and there may be a claim that it will work out for the best, but we've been totally unable to obtain from ustr any collaboration as to why this change will not lead to what i said. because when i was in mexico, the parts companies gave me a chart and said that if the rules of origin for changed from 60 to 40, half of the parts companies in mexico would disappear. by the way a lot of those arts companies came from the u.s. to mexico as automotive production shifted from the u.s. to mexico.
9:51 am
we are talking about what, $23 billion of investment in mexican plans -- plans in the next hundred and -- in the last few years. there's a real danger i said it and i said so rather colorfully to try to make this thing really work. and i will quote myself. >> always the safe thing to do, sir. spirit it isn't always safe. and it says, in other words, u.s. consumers could find themselves driving tpp cars are that means product from the three countries, or trucks with over half of the parts by value made in china or elsewhere, and the vehicle itself assembled in
9:52 am
mexico. this model comes with job loss as standard equipment. >> we've got about 18 minutes left. >> i'll try to be brief. i won't quote myself. >> i'm just letting them know. [inaudible] >> so what if tpp does go through, tell me what will happen to detroit and the u.s. auto parts makers. do you find it at all ironic that this president who essentially saved the auto industry could be killing it? >> no, they say that the auto industry. the problem -- ke key saved in e outer indicia. the problem i have come is to
9:53 am
mexico, it is no plan. as long as workers make one-fifth or one-sixth or less, there is a strong inclination to move production to the lower cost. i'm not saying it's the only factor. labor costs are less proportionally than they were some years ago, but they remain a major factor. i've been told that if they plant moves from michigan, major plant, to mexico, that the savings could approximate $300 million. so our government needs to face up to the fact that mexico is essentially suppressing its workers.
9:54 am
and as i said, in the last years while productivity went up, wages in mexico went down. we need to effectively address of that equation, and this tpp as negotiated to date fails to do that. >> what's the end line impact on auto and auto parts of? >> jobs. the labor cost issue must be addressed and addressed effectively. and so far it hasn't. >> going quick question on tax policy. next week there will be a hearing on international tax reform or understand you are doing and earnings stripping bill. could you talk about the measure, we plan to introduce it and what you see happening on in versions on international tax reform this year.
9:55 am
>> that can be quicker time introducing a bill next week at the republicans fail to move on inversion, and as long as they failed there will be more and more in versions like the ones announced a week or two ago. so i think we will have a hearing. we need action your. >> would you characterize what you see happening with the automotive rule of origin negotiations, and could you identify countries that are winners and losers in this? >> look, i was there at these meetings, each of them, and i don't know why the rule of origin came out the way they. my understanding is that in the end it was in negotiation between four countries, canada,
9:56 am
mexico, u.s. and japan. as i understand it, japan was strongly opposed to the kind of rule that was in nafta. i think the rule of origin as a matter of concern in canada, i don't want to speak for the canadian government, but as i understand it the canadian government is now, the new government is reviewing tpp. at i think one of the issues is the rule of origin. >> thank you so much. >> nice to see you again. >> good to see you, congressman levin. many of us have seen the tpp negotiating sessions, and know that you dive deeper into the substance of the agreement in order to, to your final verdict
9:57 am
on the trans-pacific partnersh partnership, as negotiated. however, there is a backup in washington where many, many people are opposing it. presidential candidates from trump and ted cruz to bernie sanders and clinton. we also have leading republicans who supported fast-track trade promotion authority, not embracing the deal. you've been around washington a while. would it be political suicide for summer to come out supporting the agreement now in a mainstream district or state? if so, would that change, or is this agreement scarred by an inability to please vote both sides of the aisle of? >> we've worked on this. we held these forums were had
9:58 am
this clash of different points of view. some people were impatient, why am i doing this. i thought it was important for democrats and the country to have these forums where we have differences of opinion put forward. i base my decision on what i've been working on all this time. and as this issue, as people come here to washington to lobby and as the administration lobbies, as this picks up, i wanted to state a conclusion as to why him after all of this work. i've heard candidates. i've heard donald trump talk about mexico and china. and let me just say, i don't give any credibility to anything
9:59 am
that donald trump says. >> just to follow. is it salvageable? realistically, you caution that the deal isn't, you don't support it as negotiated. do you see in the near-term political environment in the next 12 months or 18 months away to salvage a trans-pacific partnership? >> i think what's going to happen now is the debate will intensify. i think points of view like mine need to be heard. we are going to have the itc report. my hope is that the itc report will dig into these issues that i have mentioned. i very much reject the model that was used for the report that came out through peterson.
10:00 am
-- >> we believe us now to take it like a house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing on 3-d printing. the committee will hear from industry leaders and defense contractor about the technology and economic impact 3-d printing will have on consumers, manufacturers and jobs. >> the 3-d printing industry is expected to grow from about 6 billion is debate over $20 billion in a mere five years time. ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on