tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 11, 2014 3:00am-5:01am EDT
ion had uated tax exempt change. she said it hasn't but it has. it was not out of the ordinary in may, that also was refuted. in fact, the 48-year-old veteran of the i.r.s. said he never once had seen such application go to the chief counsel's office. steve miller told us that the i.r.s. was under "tremendous pressure from senator carl levin to implement new regulations." why would the committee seize the efforts to get to the truth? why should it? our job to get the american people answers. without ms. lerner use full cooperation and without immunity, neither this committee nor the american public will
have the answers it needs from this government. we ask the department of justice to take her to court for targeting these groups and disclosing taxpayer obligations, which is a felony. after going over these steps and the facts, i would like to ask my colleagues across the aisle to tell me how it is that you can argue that we conclude this investigation? is it because the president says so? is it because ranking member cummings says so? how about attorney generic holder? is it because there is a piece f evidence absolves her? if this is this strule a waste of time, prove it to us and we can move on. until then, i recommend to my friends across the aisle quite crying foul. when get to the bottom of this, i hope there will be no one on days. er side of the
i do not find pleasure of holding eric holder in contempt. i do not enjoy holding any federal official in contempt. the situation a lose-lugse lose situation for all citizen, regardless of political beliefs. it is our job to proceed. actions have consequences. i'm simply a believer in the rule of law and specifically this oversight committee to ensure that the federal government operate ns a manner that the public sees fit. our government and in this case, the i.r.s. and the justice department are in a sad state of affairs. institutions granted authority by the people to serve and protect people. not abuse them. i support the chairman in his pursuit of justice and "able government. i support the resolution holding
ms. lerner in contempt. i yield back. >> we have been advised the next round of votes will be together to vote. therefore i will continue the hearing as long as possible. recess in order to let people make both votes and return immediately following the second vote if they call two votes. with that, the gentleman from assachusetts, mr. tierney is called. >> somehow, we turned a very unsympathetic figure to somebody who has become the focal point as to whether or not her constitutional rights have been violated. everybody on this committee wanted to hear her testimony and get to the bottom of the facts in this matter. now at best we're going to get delayed and maybe prevented from getting that information at all.
that is an injustice done to the e -- committee and people who run this committee. like my colleague, i suspect if the chairman is not a lawyer, he cannot be held responsible for knowing how these legal matters are set up. the time was not after the fact when the house counsel was put in the position of defending who is going to be their client down the road. when it looked like these things were going to become an issue if, that is the case, we would have known whether numerous impartial experts the tell us she did not waive her fifth amendment rights. beyond that, it is clear that after chairman issa failed to follow the minimal procedure safeguards, we're now this situation. the experts are clear. at no point was the witness directed to answer and accordingly no prosecution -- so that is a sad situation.
worse than that is having botched the process. early on also botched an opportunity to get a proffer what she would have said if she were granted immunity. i know that was raised last may. after doing that, the ranking members said wait a minute, let's talk to proffer and see whether or not granting immunity would make sense before we deprive this committee of all of its responsibilities here and all of its evidences on that and then that was botched. now we're into this indefinite delay and problem that we have. if this committee is once again of noto the public light agenting the wait should professionally and responsibly on that basis. l the -- that has become a public perception. that is unfortunate. we are on this committee because we believe the work can be done
and we get to the bottom of the facts regardless of who is in the white house. it is our job as congress to ake sure that every agency and department carries out the law. we should be protecting congress. the people's house and making sure those things are done. let me just tell you what the public perception is out there as an example of some of the publications. without putting too fine a point on the promise -- on the premise , it echoes joe mccarthy's insurance that he had maybes to prove to congress and president eisenhower's state department. if there is a white house link let's see it before insisting it is there. that is the chicago tribune. there is a lot quotings that i'm even on the record. the transcripts would give the public an idea of what is going
on. . issa's investigation resembles joseph mccarthy's -- to stop people he thinks are destroying temperature spifment he has accuse people of not having conclusive facts. only his views are voiced in the committee. another quote to to a campaign of innuendo and half truths. he has smeared one of the world's most efficient tax agencies. he has conducted a series of hearings, a witch hunt of i.r.s. employees which has not been seen since mccarthy in the 1950's. did not release the portions that rebut that flawed theory. the g.o.p's chief congressional investigator into internal ref knew abuses cherry picked
evidence and overstated his case. do you hear's echo? his or joe mccarthy with list of 205 names. issa should note the difference between investigation and witch-hunt. too often the former has turned into the latter. he now that is whip in his hand and the investigative power, as we have so many times in american history seen it can be grossly abused. i have more. >> if you had more time, i'm sure you would use it. we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have consistently listened to the representations of my colleagues on the other side invoking mccarthy. i want to be clear. mccarthy was acting in a manner in which he was challenging the beliefs of other people. here, we are not challenging the
belief s of other people. we are challenging the actions, the alleged actions of lois lerner in which she used the forces of her governmental agency to impact the civil rights and beliefs of american citizens and that is a distinction. the issue here is really quite simple. apart from all the politics. e are making fundamental legal analysis. the question isn't whether it has been invoked many times whether she is being denied her right to the fifth amendment. the question is whether she waved that right. and i -- waived that right. i submit, the answer is unambiguous. this is not an unto fist indicated woman. she testified she herself is an attorney who came before this committee with very learned counsel.
she chose to make an opening statement which among other things, she proclaims she had done nothing wrong. she had broken no laws. not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations. not provided false testimony before any other congressional committee. she waived her fifth amendment privilege by providing voluntary opening statements in which she testified to matters before this committee. it is that simple. and that is the question we are asking. she submitted to a lengthy interview at the department of justice without immunity. but will not testify before this committee because as my colleague, mr. meadows pointed out, her attorney asserts she is fearful of being vilified. s that is not a standard which allows one to refuse to come before this committee. third, there is a line of
questions being raised by my learned friends on the other side suggesting the case stands for the principle that she has been denied a right before this committee. the simple principle to have quinn case is clear. it relates to whether a witness has been clearly apprised that this committee was demanding answers, not withstanding the witness' objections. whether she has to -- and make a choice about what the committee is requesting of her. that is the quinn -- the trilogy that follow it. in this case, there is no ambiguity. learner wasn't forced to guess what the committee's ruling was. she was left to -- left us to guess at nothing. her own attorney acknowledged that she understood the committee voted that she had waived her rights.
the quinn case is entirely unrelated to this issue. therefore, simple conclusions can be braun drawn. there is no constitutional pediment to this committee resolution this recommends the full house hold ms. lerner in contempt. i conclude by stating the simple facts br before us. mrs. lerner refused to comply with a congressional speen. -- subpoena. shird, she offered a voluntary statement in appearances before this committee. fourth, this committee determined that she waived her fifth amendment priver. fifth, ms. lerner was clearly informed of this decision and still ms. lerner continues to
refuse to testify before this committee. i submit to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. all constitutional impediments have been removed. it is a clear, simple question before us. ms. lerner should be held in contempt. i recommend that my colleagues on both sides of the committee will vote accordingly. >> i thank gentleman. we go to the gentlelady from new mexico. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i'm going to yield my time to the ranking member. >> thank you for yielding. mr. chairman, i would like to letters.the record two over the last week, i received two letters from the chairman making allegations against me that were unsubstantiated.
one was i was insisting on immunity for ms. lerner when in fact i was trying obtain a proffer. and that i conspired with the i.r.s. and the documents showed that we were requesting public information. i ask unanimous consent to place into the record my true responses of those letters regarding to the vote and the one i sent this morning. >> without objection both the letters to you and both the letters from you will be placed in the record. >> i yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady yield to the gentleman from nevada? >> i do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this resolution by chairman issa. you know what? i have tried to listen every day. we have had a hearing on this to
my colleague the other side. i have listened to the witnesses who came forward to offer testimony with an empathetic ear because they feel that they were affected by the targeting to have i.r.s., but my colleagues on the other side, i think you may have misplaced the blame here. the only reason we haven't been able to get the truth from lois lerner is because of one person. and that is our chairman. the chairman has refused for more than nine months to hold any hearings with any legal experts to discuss these issues. demonstrating that he simply does not want to hear from anyone who disagrees with his position. the chairman has refused to hear from any democratic members of this committee and even cut off the mic of the ranking member and abruptly ended the hearing.
the chairman refused to let ms. lerner's attorney speak as a proffer for her. the chairman failed to grant seven additional days to her attorney, which he requested to prepare his client. instead the chairman scuttled that offer from ms. lerner and now we're dealing with the situation where she invoked her fifth amendment. like many of you, i want to hear from lois lerner. i want to get the facts. but because of the manner in which the investigation has been handled by our chairman, we can't get those facts. so if my colleagues want to hold someone in contempt, maybe they should look to the person holding the gavel. since it is poor handling of this investigation that has resulted in why we can't get the truth that the people deserve.
this resolution does nothing to get the truth for those who feel that they were targeted or the public who deserves an oversight committee to act in a fair and impartial and professional manner. unfortunately this has not been the case since day one of this investigation and i regrets it because the american people deserve better. the committee has interviewed 39 witnesses, reviewed more than 50,000 pagesor documents and the i.r.s. has spent at least $14 million so far and there is absolutely zero evidence to support the chairman's accusations that ms. lerner orchestrated any i.r.s. targeting and some of the questions that my colleagues and i would like her to answer can't be answered because of the manner in which the chairman ran this investigation. i don't like the fact that ms.
lerner invoked her fifth amendment rights. but we as a committee must respect the constitutional rights of all citizens, including those of ms. lerner. so i would hope that my colleagues would understand that there are those of us who want to get to the truth. we just expect the leadership of this committee, the chairman, to allow us to do that in a, impartial, professional manner and that didn't happen in this case. >> we now go to the gentleman from tennessee. before you begin, there are 8:55 left on the vote. i will intend to do one more if there is anyone on the minority side before recessing. we will come back immediately following the second vote. gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. folks, this investigation is about much more than punishing
those who have done wrong at the i.r.s. and frankly, it is much more about constituteny that those conservative groups received from a government agency. this investigation is about preserving our democracy. the integrity of our democratic election system and the first amendment of the united states constitution. imagine just for a moment that a president and an administration in this nation that utilizes systematic power through an agency or department to suppress its political opposition. imagine that such actions altered an election. such an occurrence should be extremely unsettling no matter what party is in power. lerner's ms. testimony, this committee and this investigation cannot uncover the whole truth which at
this point resembles these aforementioned acts. the focal point of this investigation is to prohibit, given the i.r.s. political suppression from ever occurring again. just for a moment, i would like to reread the mission statement that chairman issa does at the beginning of every hearing. we exist to secure to fundamental principles. first americans have to right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their dwovet government. we will work tirelessly to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. without lois lerner's testimony,
this committee and this investigation are at a standstill. the american people are unable to ascertain their right to know what they have got frontline their government. and many -- gotten from their government. many questions still remain. ms. lerner claims she has done no wrong and she claims if she testifies she will not incriminate herself. there is the question weather whether she waived her fifth amount rights when she first appeared before the committee. i believe lick my colleague, mr. duncan can, her action is set. if every dependent claimed innocence and then proceeded to plead the fifth, investigations and testimony would never be able to proceed. every defendant would follow such action and our judicial process would come to a standstill. i hope that this committee and every single member will do everything in its power to seek the truth. ms. lerner's test ceremony
essential to this end and believable the this committee has given her and her counsel ample opportunity to come faurd and avoid contempt -- forward and avoid contempt charges. if not, we have no choice but to hold her in contempt so this investigation can give american people what they want, the truth, and for the sake of this republic, i hope we give them just that. yield back. >> i thank gentleman. since we have no further individuals asking for recognition at this time, but i'm -- i understand there will lummis, turning, ms. do you wish to be heard at this time? >> i wish to be awarded my time and choose to yield it to another member. >> so we will -- then we will recess until approximately five minutes after the second vote. not after it ends.
after it begins. e stand in recess. >> the committee will come to order. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont. is it a different state? does gentleman seek recognition? >> i don't, but i'll take it. >> it is always good to be here. >> if you want to move the previous question. you're welcome. would the gentleman like to reserve? >> i will yield. >> the gentleman yields to a ranking member. >> thank you. i appreciate the effort, mr. chairman.
>> i thank gentleman for yielding. you know, we have heard a lot of iscussion today. i was - ms. lerner and listening to mr. duncan, who i have a tremendous amount of respect for. and as he talked about the whole coming in and making a statement and then asserting their rights under the fifth amendment. and you know, i don't think the founding fathers were about the business of a gotcha type of situation. rights are very special things. they are, as the chairman said
when he began this hearing, i have a respect for him saying it. that this situation should not be taken lightly. and i think that, you know, every time i sit in hearings like this, i have to try and the sure that i get past politics and try to figure out, number one, what is right and i also think about how we will >> there has been a lot of discussion about all of the wrong that ms. lerner did. i want to be clear. i would love to hear her testimony. i would love to hear even some of the answers to the things that my good friend presented.
it is bigger than ms. lerner. it is about generations yet unborn. i think somebody who asked the question, people laughed. it was a series question. people come before this committee in the future, will we have to read them their rights? will we have to give them a miranda warning? will we have to tell them that any syllable that is said may be used against them? think we really have to be careful in the precedent we are setting. there will be disagreements with regard to the law. i have been practicing over 20 years. i had disagreements with lawyers. i remember in law school we would argue cases in the court
read one person will look at the same fax and have one opinion. no matter how you look at the facts, the things that muster. the things that must prevail are the rights of the american people. that is what this is about. the rights. as mr. duncan spoke, i thought of the criminals i have come across. rough people. they still have rights. they will still americans. that is the wonderful thing about this. , we're remind all of us are on the earth today. it is so important that we pass on a democracy our children and our children's children, that is just as strong as the one that existed the day we were born. with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman.
we go to the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you. when mr. cummings talks about rights, i listen. good attorney. i will listen because i familiar with his personal narrative. while he was talking, i scribbled down court rights. you have a right to confront your witness. that is the same document. you have a right to cross-examine witnesses. i think it is important for us to spend a minute on why our framers thought it was so important you be able to confront and cross-examine witnesses. it is the single best way to elicit the truth. you have a right to remain silent. you have a right to a jury trial. it is waived every day across this country. isn you plead guilty, that
your waiver of your right to a jury trial. people make the mistake of representing themselves. when we talk about rights, let's talk about all the rights, including the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine witnesses. it is important industry and why we were given those rights. ms. lerner is an attorney. like the folks mr. cummings represented, or the folks i have prosecuted. she is an attorney. she had attorney city behind her. colleagues on the other side, they say we need another hearing where we can bring in experts. let me take out all of the drama. we would pick three that said she waived, they would pick one that said she didn't. do a spoiler, but that is how that hearing would go.
we would be back where we are now. toen't make the decision, or the language of the supreme court, which is the ultimate expert, i would argue. it is well-established a witness in a single proceeding may not testify on terror really about a subject and then invoke the privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about details. the supreme court continued in such a case. waived to ge is -- you do have a is right to remain silent. , not au talk presentation of words which you should have done.
but when you wave by testifying, you subject yourself to cross examination. that is true for every client mr. cummings had. it is true for every sexual assault victim that i had to call as a witness. they couldn't give their version of what happened and then not stand for cross-examination. that is not the way the system is set up. it is not set up that way because the purpose is to elicit the truth. mr. chairman, i asked this. this is what she said when she came before our committee. 17 separate factual assertions. , canis is not testimony someone on the other side please tell me what it is. does it have to be 20 factual assertions? 25? what constitutes testimony? if what she said, and the
pervasiveness of fish testimony, 17 separate assertions, if that is not testimony, tell me what is. if that is not waived him a then tell me what is. chairman, there've been a lot of conversations about rights. most the conversations have been about ms. lerner's rise. that same document gives you the right to free speech, and the right to partition your government for redress. lerner may have waived her right, our fellow citizens did not. the only way we're going to find if shet happened is answers her questions. not just that i did nothing wrong, but answer the question that all of you agree are legitimate questions. if this isn't waivered amuck tell me what is. if that wasn't testimony, explain to me what would
constitute it in your mind. >> the gentleman yields back. who seeks a technician? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i just want to remind the , andrs of this committee the members of this committee, of a few occurrences that occurred in and around this issue we are covering today. chairman issa would not and did not accept a one-week extension .rom american citizen lerner also, chairman issa chose to go on national television and began to misrepresent facts about what occurred in the irs. , 298hing i do agree on applications were not handled
raab early. overly scrutinize. yet, 96 of those applications were considered applications that were of tea party guilt or to the right, or what have you. chose to holdissa a hearing that only wanted to look at or consider those applications that were either mishandled or overanalyzed, or delayed beyond reason. he only wanted to have hearings about one out of three applications. of 298.cations out with that in mind, american citizen lerner had much reason to be concerned that coming to this hearing, this committee of the united states congress was not a hearing that was going to
be fair, or a hearing interested in the truth. a hearing that was interested in playing up politics on national television and in this formal committee. lois lerner is an american who is being treated in a way that no american should ever be treated by any authority. much less the united states congress. to stay for the record i am proud to be a united states congressman, elected by the people of my district, and to do the business of movie the country forward. i believe this committee, on this day, is going in the wrong direction. this is a sad day. it is a sad day for the united states of america when an american citizens rights are being trampled. iu back. >> the gentleman yields back.
>> we go to the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings. the four i began, upon completion of those who feel they must speak on this, we're going to encourage a previous question. do not feel you have a need to speak more unless you have something you believe you want to say. everyone will be given that opportunity. >> thank you. let me broaden this argument. our country was founded on the principle that citizens would not be persecuted by the government for their beliefs or political affiliations. irs waswhy in 2012 the targeting conservative groups applying for tax exempt status, several members of the house of representatives asked questions and investigated those allegations.
she would answer questions that would give us, members of question -- members of congress the information of the wrongdoing at the irs. congress is exercising oversight authority as the earliest days of our nation dating back to as early as 1792. robust congressional oversight has exposed waste in government and abuses in power by administration officials and presidents. i am disappointed this administration appear so willing the trusto jeopardize and the government that they have not been more forth with
information. committee off the natural resources i have overseen numerous investigations into this administration. i can tell you firsthand that it has failed to live up to its promise of being the most open and transparent administration in history. in the course of our ministration, the ministration has numerous requests. there are often copies released under the freedom of information act, or they are heavily redacted. this lack of cooperation undermines congress's constitution. this it ministration seems to be saying trust us. there is nothing to see here. trust, but verify. this is what we're trying to do
with oversight. to our responsibilities, the natural resources committee has found troubling examples of this administration's decisions being based on politics rather than law. the mismanagement of the process to rewrite cold regulation. i understand that issuing a subpoena is never a preferred option. it is unfortunate i have had to do so in my committee on several occasions. that to holdstand lois lerner and content is not one to be taken lightly. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back.
mr. chairman? recognition. seeks you recognize for five minutes. >> i yield my five minutes. >> i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i have a unanimous consent request. >> preserving the right. >> thank you. i have a request that hope every member of this committee can support. i will just take a moment to describe it. can we please have the staff bring in the documents i want to discuss? support thedo not
resolution. based on the assessment from more than 30 experts, we believe they federal court will dismiss this case is legally insufficient. we do not -- we do support transparency. we want the american people to have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. these are the full transcripts from all of the interviews, our committee has conducted during this investigation. we have witnesses called by the majority. we have interviewed irs employees in cincinnati, and treasury department employees. 9, -- ar, on june this month you stated on national television, these transcripts will be made public. more than nine months.
it is time to make these transcripts public. it would give witnesses a roadmap to our investigation. you have already crossed that bridge many times. quotes from the transcripts and reports, press releases, memos, and letters on more than a dozen occasions. reporters to come into the committee offices to read full copies of select transcripts that you chose to make available. the full transcripts in their entirety, it is how the employees [indiscernible] lernery show how lois failed to discover the events for more than a year. certainly shows mismanagement
of the irs, but no white house involvement in a political motivation, contrary to the claims of the republicans. it is time to put the whole story out there so the public can see everything, not cherry picked pieces. i ask unanimous consent of the committee release publicly all copies of all of these interview transcripts no later than may 1. i want to emphasize this. along with any specific issa,ions, mr. chairman before i yield back today, it is important day. and story day. i know other members want to be rid of them. >> if the gentleman would yield. >> yes. >> i cannot support releasing the documents in their entirety. the gentleman has the right to inect documents and use it
reports and appropriate material. i encourage you to do so. as i have said previously, it is ill advised. i would ask you to restrain themselves from releasing these documents in their entirety. it does provide a roadmap as to questions and answers. however, it is my intention to release redacted versions of these interviews once we have completed all interviews, and after the discovery process has been delivered to us. i might note that just a few days ago, the commissioner told us it might take two years to get us documents. it should give us less time to get all of lois lerner's e-mails. once we have substantially received those documents, which i expect to be in a matter of weeks, i am certain to work with the ranking member to put together properly redacted
entire transcripts. i want these records to be public. , asink you would agree someone who has done transcribed interviews, that if everyone is able to see what we're asking everybody else, it it has an adverse affect. i would hope that you would take in good faith that i am making a commitment here that releasing the entire tea, i welcome you to go in and find selected information you believe is appropriate to make any case you want to make, either in the preceding here today, or and others. the refrain from putting these in their entirety until the concluded interviews, which i hope to be sin. and discovery of such information as simple request. i want to yield back. understand everything you said. as a matter of fact, i have often talked about the release
of documents harming prosecutions and other proceedings. myt is why i made part of unanimous consent request that to chairman be allowed reject whatever you wanted to reject. the reason why i make the request is because i think the public needs to have the information. think the members need to have it beyond us. , i guess we could go on and on. but, can we have some kind of timeline for that? >> i think the gentleman. i certainly, once we have concluded our transcribed interviews, we have received the key documents, i am prepared to
work with you on this release. i would say that if your --nimous consent would that i surly could support that at this time so that every member of congress would have full access to see all of these documents, including an in camera review, including bringing staff in to help explain it. >> mr. chairman. i object. >> the gentleman objects. we go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. documents and testimony received by the committee show that mrs. liner appears to have a bias against conservative antiparty groups. we have a slide. according to one witness interview by the committee, mrs. -- sherder the irs to
thought the term tea party was too pejorative. what is pejorative? only her personal negative opinion about the tea party movement. slide two. according to one e-mail, she called the tea party cases very dangerous. what is dangerous about tax-exempt applications? what is dangerous about tea party groups? nothing? other than they do not correspond to mrs. learners believes. -- ms. lerner's believes. she of the fcc will save the day from anonymous donors giving to republican senate candidates. why would the fcc save the day from lawful donors giving to candidates for office? to holdt the resolution mrs. lerner in contempt of congress for her refusal to
testify before this committee. as an institution, and as the representative of the american people, we must hold her to account and continue to insist that she provide all information about the irs targeting. figurener was a central in the irs targeting, as we have heard. she directed the tea party applications to be put through a multi-tier review she specifically asked by name for the tax-exempt application filed , a prominent gps applicant. the ways and means committee released extensive documents showing how ms. lerner subjected conservative groups to extraordinary scrutiny. beyond these facts, we will hear from this learner -- from ms. lerner. she viewed tea party groups as fundamentally different from arer nonprofit, saying they
itching for a constitutional exemptge, not part of organizations. the apparent bias likely played a large role in the irs scrutiny and delay of conservative leaning tax-exempt applicants. the committee needs testimony to understand fully how and why the irs targeted conservative groups. a vote no is to abandon what i thought were liberal values to protect the progressive cause. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution. winky. >> will be gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. as a prosecutor, anytime i was prosecuting a case, i would wonder if he was going to testify are not. when they take the stand, i know i'm going to get my crack a cross-examination.
never in my life have i seen a defendant did you take the stand, make 17 different factual assertions proclaiming their innocence, and then go sit down without being able to ask questions. that is essentially out of a criminal context, that would be the run that would have the most protection. what lois lerner was trying to do, they are trying to have it both ways. when you take the fifth, it is not going to be used against you. there is reputational cost that is associated with that. if you're neighbor learns you took the fifth amendment, most people would say why don't you just testify what you did. that is just the reality. here is lois lerner. a high government official. she has a six-figure salary. ae thought she may have had good job security breach you wanted to come in here, address the harm that would come to her in terms of professional reputation, and personal making factual
assertions, and then taking the fifth amendment so she couldn't be held accountable on her actions in this position. thereby protecting her six-figure salary, her position with the government. you can't have it both ways preachy clearly waived her fifth amendment right. this idea that somehow she is a victim, she's a sophisticated party. -- i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. tennessee is from recognized. thank you. >> i would like to yield two minutes to my friend, mr. lynch. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would like to speak in support of the ranking member requests.
the investigation has been characterized by politicized statements, and some colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and cherry picked transcript excerpts to support the partisan agenda. issane 2, chairman released excerpts of these and your views with irs employees. in response to the partial release of these excerpts, the chairman issa, why don't you put the whole thing out, because our problem really is here, your critics say that republicans and your particular cherry picked information that goes to your foregone conclusions. what worries us, to put this stuff out. can you not put the whole body of transcripts out.
during the interview, chairman issa promised these transcripts will be made public. despite the chairman's promise and the subsequent nine months, he has not released the transcripts. instead, time and time again, he has continued to take portions of transcripts and flooded documents out of context and link them to support his inaccurate narrative. at least a dozen times in the past year the chairman has released cherry picked portions of these transcripts. denyingon top of the the ranking member from speaking. that includes shutting off the microphone of any other point of view that varies with his own. it is time to live up to the promises we have made to deliver the fax. all of the american people. it is time for transparency and releasing all of the transcripts. this is an extraordinary step for our committee to take.
we need to take it. releasing the transcripts will decrease the transparency. almost one full year after we began investigating the irs, it is time the american public receives the truth. i yield. me reclaim my time. i yield permitting time. >> thank you. i want to add my voice to those in support of the motion to release the transcripts. i want to add the chairman of the committee has given hand-picked reporters an opportunity to read entire transcripts. last june, usa today reported they allowed reporters to read the whole transcript. the associated press review transcripts from three interviews with agents.
the chairman has relied extensively on the interview transcripts and various reports that he has published since this investigation has begun. the report cited in the contempt resolution sites from select transcripts of irs personnel. the chairman has already crossed this bridge. we simply submit that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. you ought to release all of them. if you're one to release all of them to some people you should release all of them to all people. i yield back. >> will be gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i appreciate it. i'm not sure the gentleman from that something you heard me when i reiterated that we would welcome all members of congress read these documents. the minority has every right to select documents and use it in producing their positions.
we encourage that. hopefully, people would understand the goose and gander in this case. go ahead and use these documents. provide a roadmap and a time which the irs has refused to give us the documents as simple as ms. lerner's e-mail. yesterday that ms. lerner's e-mails included the kind of communications where she held target others. these are new discoveries. these are discoveries in some are the veryion reason we cannot conclude this hearing. the gentleman yield back. at this time ago to the general mode from texas. >> thank you. i will be read -- i will be brief.
it is important again to the bottom of this. i do not believe that this stops with ms. lerner. there are other people involved. , we just needre to get there. i'm one to go forward with this attempt. i think it is one of the tools and our toolbox to get there. the ways and means committee is referring to ms. lerner. i don't believe for a second that eric holder, who is in contempt for this body for failing to comply with this on fast and furious is going to prosecute that. we do need to move forward with what we have in our toolbox to fill our constitutional duty to get to the bottom of this. the american people deserve to know. i'm going to support this. i yield back. clear, for the record, want to explain my objecting to this motion.
i have no problem. the chairman stated my position. having been on this committee longer than anyone else, ira onber when mr. cummings was national television and said there's no evidence, we need to close this down. each side does use that. we are finished. we have about a half a dozen major people we haven't gotten e-mails from. we want to do this in a proper way. let me say, this chairman opens every meeting. he cites something every time consistently. we have a responsibility as the chief investigative body of congress. there is no other committee like this.
there is no other issue i've seen in my 20 years that has riveted the american people. all of us. whether it is a member of congress or the lowest citizen out there. the have to do with the irs. ofs is shaking the core fairness and understanding. then it deals with trying to manipulate an election. the evidence we have so far is clear. we just wanted to hear from some of those again. the rest of the people we can't hear from. accountable ild this committee. but we have that responsibility to the american people. they are out there working like dogs today. they send is to find out what is going on at these agencies. the elections they hold in the highest level, that is the whole basis of the foundation of this government, not skewed or
manipulated. we have a responsibility to keep that. please do not demagogue the chairman. he has done a good job. logic argument ad hominem, when you attack the man not the argument, and all these other diversions. i know you have a job to do on the other side. we have a job to do for the american people. i yield back. lex will be gentleman further yield? >> i will yield. >> i want to be brief. one thing i want to make sure is in the record is refusal to testify and be held in contempt can be resolved by an agreement to testify. if ms. lerner wants to proffer my inbox is open for her lawyers. testifiedner has before the justice department
without immunity, and given information, if the braking member would like to join me in requesting again that the justice department provided to us, it might negate the need to have her come before us. it may have asked the very same questions. until questions which we believe are on point to testimony she gave well represented by believe we have little choice. i want to make sure everyone , all we want is the truth. she has statements she could give us. she has made half of a statement available. members to consider that is the goal of this committee. i think the gentleman for yielding. does anyone else seek recognition?
>> the gentleman from nevada is recognized. >> i speak in support of the ranking member. after 10 months of cherry picked accusations,seless it is time to make good on his promise to publicly release the full transcript in this investigation. before the committee received the single document or interviewed one witness, chairman issa went on national television and stated this was the targeting of the president political enemies. that claim has been debunked soundly. and, repeatedly. releasing these transcripts will not harm the criminal investigation of ms. lerner.
ms. lerner has already met with federal prosecutors. ms. lerner's quote -- anything, the release of this committee interview transcript could actually a the department of justice in its investigation by providing the agency with more complete and detailed picture of the underlying conduct at the irs. that is ultimately what my colleagues on the other side say they want. why not release the transcript? mr. chairman, if there's something to hide, why not release the transcript? not just to us individual members, but to the public. this is about transparency. if there is something in those
transcripts, that you believe, do not support your position, don't let the public see it. that is what they expect. not one of the 39 witnesses that have appeared before the committee indicated that the white house directed or was anyway involved in irs employees handling of applications. yet chairman issa has continued -- has at certs thanks continued to leak excerpts. chairman issa leaked portions of an irs tax specialist interview to support his conspiracy theory of political targeting. when she saw any evidence of a
plot, to target the president political enemies, this republican irs employee said no. not at all. that kind of laughable that people think that. not at all. this is purely cases that unfortunately cincinnati didn't have enough guidance on. the area is very difficult. perhaps the chairman is more concerned at the release of these transcript will give the public a roadmap to the truth behind this partisan rhetoric. let us in the partisan bickering. let's provide the fax. are you afraid of transparency? is there something in those
transcripts of the public doesn't deserve to know? it will not hurt the criminal investigation. it may actually help the department of justice. >> i thank my friend from nevada for yielding. i want to speak in favor of the motion. the american public deserves transparency. in an investigation, chairman partisanmarred with attacks and released transcripts. i'm incredulous that my friend from florida talk about election integrity and protecting, and stopping the manipulation of an election. resolve forat protecting integrity of elections after the 2000 and
hijacking of a national election? it is not in this room. it wasn't on this committee. >> the gentleman from nevada's time is expired. all time. no further members seek recognition. a sufficient quorum being present, the question is, contempt report to the house, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. chairmam. mr. turner votes aye. mr. mchenry votes aye. mr. chez fits -- mr. langford.
george w. bush of the state of texas has received for president of the united states 271 votes. al gore of the state of tennessee has received 266 votes. the state of the vote for vice president of the united states as delivered to the president of the senate is as follows the whole number of the electors appointed to vote for vice president of the united states is 538 of which a majority is
270. dick cheney of state of wyoming has received for vice president of the united states 271 votes. joe lieberman of the state of connecticut has received 266 votes. this announcement of the state of the votes by the president of the senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected president and vice president of the united states each for the term beginning on the 20th day of january 2001 and shall be entered together with a list of the votes on the journals of the senate and the house of representatives. may god bless our new president vice president and may god bless the united states of america. [applause]
you. i thank the chairman, the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the pro-growth budget act. right now america is not working for too many people. for years our economy has remained stagnant and job growth weak. at the current time three out of four americans report that they
are living paycheck to paycheck. the ability to climb the economic ladder of success and live the american dream is becoming much more difficult for millions of people. mr. chairman, this is the status quo in america. but it is a status quo that we must not accept. . our constituents deserve better. our constituents deserve a government that is focused on turning this economy around and making america work again. nd work again for everybody. in the house, there are some very clear differences on how to solve america's problems. my democratic colleagues
believe the best way to move the country forward -- the chair: the majority leader will suspend. i'd ask members to take their conversations off the floor on the minority side in the back. mr. cantor: my democratic colleagues believe the best way to move the country forward is ith $1.8 trillion in new tax hikes. so that this government can even spend more. that's not right and it's not fair. working americans deserve a chance to put more of their hard-earned pay checks into their personal savings accounts, to invest that or spend it on their families
before they are forced to send it to washington. we house republicans have a better plan. a balanced budget that will begin to provide working families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, with just a little relief. the budget before us will create jobs, it will cut wasteful spending, it will reform our tax code and hold washington more accountable. plain and simple, this budget is pro-growth, this budget is about making america work again. today members of the house have a very simple choice. we can continue the status quo, stand in the way of economic progress and new opportunities for working middle class families or we can choose to lead the american people down a
path to prosperity where all americans have a chance at success. mr. chairman, passing a budget is not only an important step to restoring trust in government and faith in our economy, it is our legal obligation to do so. the house passes a budget even when our paychecks aren't on the line. the house republicans choose to lead on this issue. we have passed a budget every year since taking the majority. so let's now stand together and fulfill one of the most important duties that we were elected to do and pass a budget that the american people that senlt us here can be proud of -- sent us here can be proud of. i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, the chairman of the budget committee, for his continued dedication in reining
in wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility nd in balancing budgets. i also want to thank the other members of the budget committee for their hard work continuously on this issue. and i urge my colleagues to pass this budget on behalf of the american people. nd i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. once again, ask members to take their conversations off the floor, particularly in the back n the minority side.
the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by joining the chairman of the committee and thanking both the democratic and republican staff of the budget committee for their hard work and should be mitt for the record their names -- and submit for the record their names. i'd also, mr. chairman, like to take this opportunity, it's chairman ryan's last year as the head of the budget committee, and i do want to thank him for the professional way in which he's conducted the committee. lest he think i'm getting carried away, this is an example where process did not lead to a better product. and that's why we're here today. because unfortunately i have to report that this house republican budget is the worst of the republican budgets i've seen in the last three years for the united states of america. budgets, budgets -- mr. chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. they tell the american people what we care about and what we care less about.
and at every juncture in this house republican budget they choose to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the other priorities. for example, they have tax cuts that actually encourage companies to ship american jobs , not product, overseas. while our budget invests right here in the united states of america. now, we heard the republican leader say we want a better economy for everybody. the congressional budget office tells us that this republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next couple years. that it will reduce job growth in the next couple years. all while doing what? providing another windfall tax break to millionaires. yes, look at their budget. they want to drop the top tax rate --
the chair: the gentleman will suspend. he committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. look at their budget. they want to drop the top tax rate, 39% to 25%. full 30%. what does that mean? $200,000 average tax break for millionaires. who finances it in their budget? well, math tells you middle income taxpayers pay more. they pay $2,000 more per average in order to finance trickledown economics, even though they we know from experience that that was a dead end for this country. and while our republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit. not one. not a hedge fund owner, not a big oil company, not one.
and because they say hands off the most powerful and the most privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else and it does. so it hits our kids' education, early education, k-12, college students are asked to pay more interest. in fact, they got $45 billion savings by charging college kids more interest while they're still in college and not working. again, while hands off the powerful special interests, seniors, seniors on medicare see their prescription drug doughnut hole open. the safety net, again, sleded -- shredded and all for what purpose? now, they claim that they're going to somehow balance the budget at the end of the 10-year window. but you know what? they can't have it both ways. we have had over 50 votes here in the house of representatives from our colleagues to repeal the affordable care act. but guess what? they've got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues and
savings from the affordable care act. we use some of those savings -- we use those medicare savings to strengthen medicare. i now yield the final minute to the distinguished democratic leader who has been a fighter for america's priorities, nancy pelosi. leader pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker, for the recognition. i congratulate the budget committee for the hard work that you have done. i wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the house democratic budget. but so it is. here we are about to leave for the holy season of easter and passover. it reminds me of the gospel of it says, where your treasure is, there your
heart will be also. this budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our hearts are for the american people. a budget, as our distinguished ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. what is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending priorities, in our treasure. but you be the judge, i want to say to the american people, but the speaker will not allow me to address the american people, so their representatives here. is it a statement of your national values, of our country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year at the expense f increasing taxes of $2,000 to the middle class, is that a statement of our values? i didn't think so. is a statement of our values in order to finance the special interest privilege that is in the republican budget, is a
statement of your values to cut over $17 -- 170,000 children from head start? is that a statement of our values? children learning, parents earning, opportunity, fairness. is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says 3 1/2 million children in our country, disadvantaged children and economically disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of title one, is that a statement of our values in order to get tax breaks to big oil? is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the first in their families to be able to go to college, that we're going to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from head start? is that a statement of values that to say to over a half a million young people, you will not have opportunity to have a higher education, instead we're going to give that same amount of money to big oil for tax incentives, for them to drill, is that a statement of our
values? i don't think so. i don't think so. so where is their treasure and where is their heart? the treasure in this republican budget is just what our ranking member said. it's with the special interests and the wealthiest people in our country. it is a trickledown approach that has never worked. it's worked for the rich. it's worked for the special interests. and their supporters. but it has not worked for the great middle clals. do we need any -- class. do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same warmed-over policies that existed in the bush era, that took us to the great recession, a great recession where we met right before the election, in september of 2008, where the chairman of the fed said to us, if we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by monday, this is a thursday night, that's where these policies took us.
at the end of the bush years. and we're still digging out of that recession. and instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create growth, to invest in science and education, to keep america number one, they call their budget a path to prosperity, it is a road to recession, it always has been and that is what it is now. and that is what it is now. so at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests, or with the great middle class and those who aspire to it. and therefore where our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget. and this is an important budget. some people want to dismiss it as a joke because it's so outrageous. it's debtly serious. it isn't funny at all -- deadly serious. it isn't funny at all because
of the impact it has on the lives of america's families. our children, our seniors, voucherizing medicare, removing the guarantee of medicare for our seniors. is that a statement of our values to say to our seniors, you are on your own? you are on your own. don't think so. so our heart is with the middle class, we will put our treasure there. with investments in education, job creation, investments in science. i'll just close, again, i started with the bible, scientific research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. where there is scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility, certainly a moral imperative to invest in it. to improve health, to improve the quality of health in our country. and to make sure that everybody has access to it. but don't worry about the access to it, because our investments, our investments in
basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. it does violence to any concept of science that keeps innovation making america number one, advancing innovation, investments in science and technology, undermining investments in how we protect our environment so our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we protect our america by investments in science and technology to do so and the intelligence to avoid conflict, to avoid conflict. and the investments in job creation that science will enable us to do. so if you believe in knowledge, if you believe in fact, if you believe in the middle class you must reject the republican budget. you must reject the republican
budget. what the republican leadership is asking members to do is something that i don't know that they share that value. certainly republicans across the country do not. republicans across the country support education, investments in sigh epidemics, and the rest. any poll will show you that. just one other thing. if you really want to reduce the deficit, one of the fastest ways to do it is have a budget as our does, includes comprehensive immigration reform which reduces the deficit by $900 million, $900 with a b, billion according to the congressional budget office. so by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of values, by reason of ethics, by reason of honoring our responsibility to the american people, a good strong no on the ryan republican budget. it's a path to ruin. it is not a path to prosperity.
mr. van hollen's budget is a budget of -- about of growth, keeping america number one, strengthening the middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. thank you-all. ote no on this budget. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. he committee will be in order. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: let me start of by saying you have presided over this budget for many years. you have set a great example for the rest of us. this is your last year serving, and i want to thank you for what you have done for this institution. thank you for setting a great example.
i ask unanimous consent that that applause did not take out of my time. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, what this debate comes down to is a he question of trust. we have offered a budget because we trust the american people. unlike the senate democrats who once again have punted, chosen not to even offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. we trust them to make the right choice for their future. now to their credit the house democrats have offered budgets
as well. the problem is they put their trust in washington. every time you hear this word investment, just know what that means. take from hardworking taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, from other countries, spend it in washington. time and again they are proposing to put government in the driver's seat. they have already engineered to take over our entire health care sector. they are overregulating our energy sector. they are depriving us of jobs. they won't even give us the keystone pipeline. they are proposing yet new taxes. another $1.8 trillion tax increase. they are proposing more cronyism. they are proposing more control for washington, less control of our communities, less control over our businesses, less
control over our lives. less control over our futures. in my respectful opinion it is a vision that is both paternalistic, arrogant, and down right condesending. you know, big government in theory, it sounds compelling. in practice it's totally different. remember if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. remember, if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan. or remember, if government just takes over this sector, it will lower your costs. big government in practice is so different than the theory. the results have nothing to do with the rhetoric. we, on the other hand, trust the eople.
we are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. we are offering patient centered solutions. we are offering patient centered solutions so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not the government. we are offering a plan to save medicare now and for future generations. we are offering a stronger safety net with state flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from welfare to work to make the most of their lives. we are offering pro-growth tax code. we are offering more energy jobs. you can boil the differences down to one question -- who knows better? the people or washington. we have made our choice with this budget. i trust the american people to make theirs. mr. chairman, let's call the vote.
jobs here at te home as well as put pressure on the russian government as it continues its aggressive stance on ukraine. we passed budget reform legislation and a more accurate picture of what we spent. and of course later today the house will pass a jobs budget for the fourth year in a row. this document is the our vision for getting americans back to work and our budget back in balance. it's pretty obvious their efforts have failed the american people are still asking the question where are the jobs? these political votes provide no answers.
so the house is zpwoik to continue to focus on the american people's priorities creating good-paying jobs, increasing wages, and expanding opportunity for all americans. this means reforming our job training and skills programs advancing bipartisan charter schools, legislation. critical water and highway infrastructure
by members of congress, is that a problem for members of your they go after members of the administration? >> there's no issue of race here. the frustration is, is that the american people have not been told the they go after members of the truth about what happened at the i.r.s. the american people have not been told the truth about what happened in fast and furious. the administration has not told the american people the truth about benghazi. and we have been going through all of these hearings having to hold people in contempt because they have made it impossible to get to the documents. they have not been forthcoming. they owe the american people the truth. when it comes to benghazi we have four americans who are dead and their families owe their families the truth and the administration refuses to tell them the truth. >> the house oversight committee voted to hold former lois learner in
contempt of congress. on our next wol we'll get an up-- "washington journal" we'll get an update. then the center for american lo progress on white house efforts to combat gender pay nequality. rights act. civil >> i think what we need is something akin to the grease commission or the brack commission the base realignment and closing commission during the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity, no current elected politicians to come in and do a complete audit of government from top to bottom. every agency has a piece of legislation or a charter that created it. it has the purpose.
if it is not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within reasonable budget it should be cut or eliminated. let's just take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. did you know -- and i didn't until i researched it -- there's three head starts. there's early head start, enhanced head start and regular. why? because the first wasn't working. why do we have the third? because the second wasn't working. a diately following, heritage foundation book party as he signs his book and chats with guests. also this weekend, this year's national black writers conference saturday at noon eastern the panel's on race, power, and politics. literature and shifting identities in africa. and sunday at 2:00 strengthening communities. plus a panel on publishing. book tv every weekend on c-span
2. >> the world's finance ministers and central bankers are in washington this week for the international monetary fund's spring meeting. to ead of the imf spoke reporters about their plans to loan money to ukraine. this meeting is 35 minutes. >> thank you very much for coming. we're on record this morning. we'll get to your questions very shortly and ask you to
keep them short stick to one question, please. it's my pleasure to introduce to you this morning the managing director of the imf and our first deputy managing director. madam at, let me turn to la guard for some opening remarks and then we'll get to your questions. >> thank you very much and good morning to all of you. welcome to the 2014 spring meeting. u will have seen our numbers in the mail that was advanced a couple of days ago. r those not in the room we expect global growth at 3.6% in 2015. and 3.9% the emerging markets and developing economies continue to be the main source of growth even if a bit slower than in he past at 5% in 2014 and 5.4%
in 2015. the advanced economies are finally strengthening a bit with growth projected at 2.3%. this year and next year as well. the erall message to global economy is turning the corner but still too weak and too slow. bottom line is fairly good but not quite good enough. we can do better. and for some, despite the fact that growth is strengthening, they're not feeling it. we still have 200 million unemployed. so bold actions are needed to generate more rapid stronger and sustainable growth as is outlined in our global policy
agenda. what we call our gpa which i know you have received overnight and i hope has made u good reading for you last night. we are sharing it with you for the first time in advance. so you probably wonder what policy makers are going to discuss during this meeting. we believe that the overriding topic for discussion will be the topic of growth. quest for higher growth better quality growth more inclusive growth and sustainable growth. now, what does that mean in practice? t means overriding a trio of hurdles. first, an expanded period of low inflation in the advanced economies. the topic has been discussed. we are concerned about this potential risk in advanced
economies in general in the euro area in particular where that prolonged low inflation would hurt both growth and jobs. and in this context it is that the that prolonged reiterated its commitment to use unconventional methods as needed. second, we need to act on growth because it is just too low and we need to act now. and that requires policy actions across the board. in the advanced economies, they need to get the pace of fiscal adjustments right and the normal station of their monetary policy right in due course as well. it will be about timing it will be about execution, it will be
about communication. in the emerging market economies, they need to strengthen macro and prodential policies to safe gaurt against market volatility. in the low income ecb has count where growth continues to be strong, they need to guard against the rapid debt buildup that needs to be watched. now, short-term growth. but we need to also guard against the risk of low growth in the future. and to deal with that, we need mbitious and coherent policies and id years of subpar
ppropriate corporation between them growth could actually be hee irby 2 percentage points over the next 5 years and that is the kind of growth that would help create jobs and improve the situation of those economies. what is the imf doing about it? well, the fact that you are all members fact that 188 of the institution are represented here means very simply that the imf is the ideal forum for cooperations, for communication. and a lot i can assure you is taking place officially in big blatly eetings but also in private meetings that take
place and advance with resolving issues. our global membership has asked for support. we are actively helping the australian presidency in regards to the 2% objective and how we can measure, tailor it. and that is also why the imf must be reformed. and that reform as you know is the reform of quota and the reform of governance. one that i had hoped we could celebrate on the occasion of this meeting. and we are still longing for. the membership and certainly the institution as well. growth and to secure global financial we're in 2014. it hasn't happened yet. are we giving up? no. it will happen. how quickly? hrough which part?
with whose support? i hope the entire membership and i hope that happens soon. it is important because it matters for the credibility of the institution. it matters for the size of the institution. and we certainly look forward o a good dialogue during the meeting on those particular we can rally support across the board, across the world. thank you. >> thank you. let me turn to your questions again asking you to keep them r across the board, across the world. thank you. >> thank you. let me brief and to the point and we'll try to take as many as possible. we're going to begin here on the left with the lady right here. thank you. >> thank you. my question is about china's economic growth. we have just seen very poor trade data in march. is china -- if china's
authority were to continue to use the depreciation of rnb as a tool to support economic growth to reach its goal forecast 7.5% which is also the imf forecast for china's growth this year, what would be your comment on that? thank you. >> well, i think you're jumping to conclusions. recent nly took the increase of the variation as a move in the direction of the internationalization of the currency. and i would not characterize it as an intended depreciation of the currency. certainly we welcome the internationalization going forward. and we believe that there will be steps in that direction going forward. in terms of china contributeion
to international growth, clearly china is playing a key role with 7.5% growth target for 2014 it is clearly contributing significantly as from the various discussions that i had two weeks ago when i was in china i took great comfort from the fact of the rebalancing not only is being visible in numbers but is also the intended policy of the authority. >> going over to the right here. yes, sir. the gentleman in the second row. > how confident are you that the new imf program with ukraine could go off track and do you think you could put the imf at risk? thank you. >> well, thank you for your question. we generally do not enter into negotiations with the idea that
the program is going to fail. when we do negotiate on the ground, when we do work with the authorities, with support of the entire membership the imf we do not forecast failure. our plan and actually the conditions under > when we enter, we do it so the country can re-finance itself and operate without support of the i.m.f. and that's exactly the conditions under which we enter into that project, which by the way, is not yet agreed upon. the board has met several times in an informal standing. and we hope