Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20111007

we have this great idea for putting teachers back in the classroom. that is not what we're hearing. we're hearing that there big ideas are ones we're already doing. they had given me a list of the republican job creation ideas. but passed it. it is great we're passing them. we put them forward, i expect bipartisan support. i think it's going to be good for the american economy. but it's not going to meet the challenge of 9 percent unemployment, or an economy that is currently weakening. it's not enough. patent reform, very important for our long-term competitiveness. there's nobody out there who actually thinks that that's going to immediately fill the needs of people who are out of work, or strengthen the economy right now. so what i've tried to do is say, here are the best ideas i've heard. not just from partisans, but from independent economists. these are the ideas most likely to create jobs now and strengthen the economy right now. and that's what the american people are looking for. and the response from republicans has been, no. although they haven't given a good reason why they're opposed to putting construction workers back on the job, or teachers back in the classroom. if you ask them, well, okay, if you're not for that, what are you for? trade has already been done, patent reform has been done. what else? the answer we're getting right now is, well, we're going to roll back all these obama regulations. so their big economic plan to put people back to work right now is to roll back financial protections and allow banks to charge hidden fees on credit cards again or weaken consumer watchdogs, or alternatively they've said we'll roll back regulations that make sure we've got clean air and clean water, eliminate the epa. does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy that are -- that is weakening with all these forces coming into play? i mean, here is a good question, here's a little homework assignment for folks, go ask the republicans what their jobs plan is if they're opposed to the american jobs act, and have it scored, have it assessed by the same independent economists that have assessed our jobs plan. these independent economists say that we could grow the economy as much as 2 percent, and as many as 1. 9 million workers would be back on the job. i think it would be interesting to have them do a similar assessment -- same people. some of these folks, by the way, traditionally have worked for republicans, not just democrats. have those economists evaluate what, over the next two years, the republican jobs plan would do. i'll be interested in the answer. i think everybody here -- i see some smirks in the audience because you know that it's not going to be real robust. and so, bill, the question, then, is, will congress do something? if congress does something, then i can't run against a do-nothing congress. if congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them, i think the american people will run them out of town, because they are frustrated, and they know we need to do something big and something bold. now, the american people are also concerned about making sure that we have a government that lives within its means, which is why i put forward a plan that would also reduce our deficit and our debt in a more aggressive way than what the special committee has been charged with. folks want to talk about corporate tax reform. i've already said i'm happy to engage with them on corporate tax reform. i'm happy to engage with them, working to see what we can do to streamline and simplify our tax code, eliminate all the loopholes, eliminate these special interest carveouts and potentially lower rates in the process while raising more revenue. i am happy to negotiate with them on a whole host of issues, but right now we've got an emergency. and the american people are living that emergency out every single day and they have been for a long time. they are working really hard. and if they're not on the job, then they're working really hard to find a job. and they're losing their homes and their kids are having to drop out of school because they can't afford student loans. and they're putting off visiting a doctor because when they lost their job they lost their health insurance. they are struggling. and as a consequence, by the way, all of us are struggling, even those who are well off. the irony is the same folks that the republicans claim to be protecting, the well off -- the millionaires and the billionaires -- they'd be doing better, they'd be making more money if ordinary americans had some money in their pockets and were out there feeling more confident about the economy. that's been the lesson of our history -- when folks in the middle and at the bottom are doing well, the folks at the top do even better. >> is this kind of public pressure the only leverage you have, sir? >> look, we have a democracy. and right now, john boehner is the speaker of the house and mitch mcconnell is best arguments and mobilize the american people so that they're responsive. so far they haven't been responsive to not just me but public opinion. we saw that during the debt ceiling vote. but we're just going to keep on making the case. but i guess what i'm saying, though, here, bill, is -- and i said this when i made my speech at the joint session -- the election is 13, 14 months away. i would love nothing more than to not have to be out there campaigning because we were seeing constructive action here in congress. that's my goal. that's what i'm looking for. but i'm also dealing with a republican majority leader who said that his number-one goal was to beat me -- not put americans back to work, not grow the economy, not help small businesses expand, but to defeat me. and he's been saying that now for a couple of years. so, yes, i've got to go out and enlist the american people to see if maybe he'll listen to them if he's not listening to me. matt spetalnick. where's matt? >> thank you, mr. president. one question on the economy and one on foreign policy. first of all, the senate has taken up today a bill aimed at pressuring china to let its currency rise. what's your position on that bill? would you veto or sign it, should it hit your desk? on the foreign policy front, do you agree with admiral mullen's accusation that pakistan's intelligence agency has used the haqqani network as a virtual arm? and what, if any, consequences up to and including a cut-off of aid would you be willing to consider? >> obviously we've been seeing a remarkable transformation of china over the last two decades, and it's helped to lift millions of people out of poverty in china. we have stabilized our relationship with china in a healthy way. but what is also true is that china has been very aggressive in gaming the trading system to its advantage and to the disadvantage of other countries, particularly the united states. and i have said that publicly, but i've also said it privately to chinese leaders. and currency manipulation is one example of it, or at least intervening in the currency markets in ways that have led their currency to be valued lower than the market would normally dictate. and that makes their exports cheaper, and that makes our exports to them more expensive. so we've seen some improvement, some slight appreciation over the last year, but it's not enough. it's not just currency, though. we've also seen, for example, intellectual property, technologies that were created by u.s. companies with a lot of investment, a lot of upfront capital, taken, not protected properly by chinese firms. and we've pushed china on that issue as well. ultimately, i think that you can have a win-win trading relationship with china. i'm very pleased that we're going to be able to potentially get a trade deal with south korea. but i believe what i think most americans believe, which is trade is great as long as everybody is playing by the same rules. now, the legislation that is being presented in congress is an effort to get at that. my main concern -- and i've expressed this to senator schumer -- is whatever tools we put in place, let's make sure that these are tools that can actually work, that they're consistent with our international treaties and obligations. i don't want a situation where we're just passing laws that are symbolic knowing that they're probably not going to be upheld by the world trade organization, for example, and then suddenly u.s. companies are subject to a whole bunch of sanctions. we've got a -- i think we've got a strong case to make, but we've just got to make sure that we do it in a way that's going to be effective. last point is, my administration has actually been more aggressive than any in recent years in going after some of these practices. we've brought very aggressive enforcement actions against china for violations in the tire case, for example, where it's been upheld by the world trade organization that they were engaging in unfair trading practices. and that's given companies here in the united states a lot of relief. so my overall goal is, i believe u.s. companies, u.s. workers, we can compete with anybody in the world. i think we can make the best products. and a huge part of us winning the future, a huge part of rebuilding this economy on a firm basis that's not just reliant on maxed-out credit cards and a housing bubble and financial speculation, but is dependent on us making things and selling things -- i am absolutely confident that we can win that competition. but in order to do it, we've got to make sure that we're aggressive in looking out for the interests of american workers and american businesses, and that everybody is playing by the same rules, and that we're not getting cheated in the process. >> is china? >> that is a -- that is a term of art, so the treasury secretary, i've got to be careful here -- it's his job to make those decisions. but it's indisputable that they intervene heavily in the currency markets, and that the rmb, their currency, is lower than it probably would be if they weren't making all those purchases in the currency markets to keep the rmb lower. with respect to pakistan, i have said that my number-one goal is to make sure that al qaeda cannot attack the u.s. homeland and cannot affect u.s. interests around the world. and we have done an outstanding job, i think, in going after, directly, al qaeda in this border region between pakistan and afghanistan. we could not have been as successful as we have been without the cooperation of the pakistan government. and so, on a whole range of issues they have been an effective partner with us. what is also true is that our goal of being able to transition out of afghanistan and leave a stable government behind -- one that is independent, one that is respectful of human rights, one that is democratic -- that pakistan, i think, has been more ambivalent about some of our goals there. and i think that they have hedged their bets, in terms of what afghanistan would look like. and part of hedging their bets is having interactions with some of the unsavory characters who they think might end up regaining power in afghanistan after coalition forces have left. what we've tried to persuade pakistan of is that it is in their interest to have a stable afghanistan, that they should not be feeling threatened by a stable, independent afghanistan. we've tried to get conversations between afghans and pakistans going more effectively than they have been in the past, but we've still got more work to do. and there is no doubt that there is some connections that the pakistani military and intelligence services have with certain individuals that we find troubling. and i've said that publicly, and i've said it privately to pakistani officials as well. they see their security interests threatened by an independent afghanistan in part because they think it will ally itself to india, and pakistan still considers india their mortal enemy. part of what we want to do is actually get pakistan to realize that a peaceful approach towards india would be in everybody's interests, and would help pakistan actually develop, because one of the biggest problems we have in pakistan right now is poverty, illiteracy, a lack of development, civil institutions that aren't strong enough to deliver for the pakistani people. and in that environment you've seen extremism grow. you've seen militancy grow that doesn't just threaten our efforts in afghanistan but also threatens the pakistani government and the pakistani people as well. so trying to get that reorientation is something that we're continuing to work on, it's not easy. >> i'm sorry, sir -- consequences of being? >> we will constantly evaluate our relationship with pakistan based on, is, overall, this helping to protect americans and our interests. we have a great desire to help the pakistani people strengthen their own society and their own government. and so i'd be hesitant to punish aid for flood victims in pakistan because of poor decisions by their intelligence services. but there is no doubt that we're not going to feel comfortable with a long-term strategic relationship with pakistan if we don't think that they're mindful of our interest as well. i'll make this the last question. aamer madhani. >> thank you, mr. president. >> caught you by surprise, huh? >> you did. what should european leaders do to resolve the sovereign debt crisis going forward? and second, how risky is this continued situation to the u.s. economy? and finally, do you feel that the european leaders have been negligent in pushing austerity too soon? >> those are good questions. the biggest headwind the american economy is facing right now is uncertainty about europe, because it's affecting global markets. the slowdown that we're seeing is not just happening here in the united states, it's happening everywhere. even in some of the emerging markets like china, you're seeing greater caution, less investment, deep concern. in some ways, as frustrating as the financial sector has been here in the united states after the lehmans collapse, the aggressive actions that were taken right after lehmans did help us to strengthen the financial sector and the banking sector in ways that europe did not fully go through. and uncertainty around greece and their ability to pay their debts runs on -- in the capital markets -- on the debt that many of these southern european countries have been facing, as well as ireland and portugal. all that has put severe strain on the world financial system. i speak frequently with chancellor merkel and president sarkozy, they are mindful of these challenges. i think they want to act to prevent a sovereign debt crisis from spinning out of control, or seeing the potential breakup of the euro. i think they're very committed to the european project. but their politics is tough because, essentially, they've got to get agreement with not only their own parliaments, they've got to get agreement with 20 parliaments, or 24 parliaments, or 27 parliaments. and engineering that kind of coordinated action is very difficult. but what i've been seeing over the last month is a recognition by european leaders of the urgency of the situation. and nobody is obviously going to be affected more than they will be if the situation there spins out of control. so i'm confident that they want to get this done. i think there are some technical issues that they're working on in terms of how they get a big enough -- how do they get enough firepower to let the markets know that they're going to be standing behind euro members who may be in a weaker position. but they've got to act fast. and we've got a g20 meeting coming up in november. my strong hope is that by the time of that g20 meeting, that they have a very clear, concrete plan of action that is sufficient to the task. it will have an effect -- it's already having an effect here in the united states, it will continue to have an effect on our economy because the world is now interconnected in ways that it's never been before. and that's one of the biggest challenges that we have post- 2008, after this financial crisis, is that america has always been -- well, over the last 20 years -- has been the engine for world economic growth. we were the purchasers of last resort, we were the importers of last resort, we would stimulate our economies and our american consumers would buy stuff around the world. and so if they got into trouble, they could always say, well we're going to sell to the u.s. well, we're now going through a situation where families are cutting back and trying to reduce their debts, businesses are more cautious. and the u.s. government obviously has its own fiscal challenges. i mean, we've got to make sure that we're living within our means, although we've got to do it gradually and not in ways that immediately affect a fragile economy. so what that means is, europe is not going to be able to export its way out of this problem. they're going to have to fix that problem. and part of the goal that i've been trying to promote for the last two years and i'll repeat at the g20 is more balanced economic growth worldwide. we've got to get into a posture where the u.s. is always going to be a big market, and we're going to welcome goods from all around the world, but we've also got to be selling goods around the world. we can't just be running up our debt in order to help other folks' economies. we've got to have -- as not only families, our businesses and our government -- we've got to make sure that we're being prudent and we're producing here in the united states. and by the way, that's what's going to create strong middle- class jobs here in the united states. i think part of what's going on for the country generally is this sense of, you know what, a lot of that debt that had been built up prior to 2008, that we were living on borrowed time because the underlying fundamentals of the economy weren't as strong as they needed to be. and that's why not only do we have to put americans back to work now, but we've also got to keep on reforming our education system so it's producing the highest-skilled graduates in the world. it's why we've got to keep on investing in basic research and science. it's why we've got to make sure that we're rebuilding our infrastructure. it's why we've got to have a smarter energy policy, because that's a huge source of us having to import from other countries instead of being able to export to other countries. all those things are going to be important, and all those things are going to be challenging. they're going to be hard. but right now, we've got the problem of putting people back to work. that's why congress needs to pass this jobs bill. and last point i'll make, if bill is right and everybody on capitol hill is cynical and saying there's no way that the overall jobs bill passes in its current form, we're just going to keep on going at it. i want everybody to be clear. my intention is to insist that each part of this, i want an explanation as to why we shouldn't be doing it, each component part, putting people back to work rebuilding our roads, putting teachers back in the classroom, tax cuts for small businesses and middle- class families, tax breaks for our veterans. we will just keep on going at it and hammering away until something gets done. and i would love nothing more than to see congress act so aggressively that i can't campaign against them as a do- nothing congress. all right? thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> john boehner was asked what question he would like to ask the president. he also talked about the president's jobs bill. he is interviewed by "the national journal." >> i am just following directions. welcome. the president is going to have a press conference and in about 10 minutes. i have some familiarity with the news industry. i would give you an opportunity you do not often have. you can ask the president a question that may be translated. >> why have you given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time incident during what the american people sent us here to do, to find common ground, to deal with the big challenges that tax >> there you go. -- @? >> there you go. agree way to get started. the vice president was on the stage. he said the following. there was a rough agreement between yourself, the vice president, and the president on the debt ceiling. sped what point for you tracking it. he implied that the republican party is divided and weak. that is what is helping them do the deal. >> i sure would. >> all year i talked to the president about the need to do what i called the "big deal. at that it was important for our country to deal with the debt problem we had. did the best way to get their would be for us to come to some agreement. i put every ounce i can and to try to come with some agreement. he said he needed revenues. i would be willing to do revenues but only if the president were willing to really look at fundamental reform of our entitlement programs which is a big driver of our deficit and debt. i revenues on the table even though the president never said yes to meaningful reform. when the president asked for 400 billion university -- $400 billion, it is when i decided we would never get there. never got to the point where he would say yes to real changes. i am as far out on a limb as i could possibly walk. agreement. it takes two to tango. >> was a that the legislative record. republicans had defied your request to vote with them. that indicates that there are times were you need house democrats to support you are you cannot keep your own side together. >> there's i question it did. when you look at my colleagues, these are not freshmen members. these are more senior members. they have been misunderstood. some of our members just what more. i want more. >> what? >> march change. when you have senate control, my job is to move it down the field and get things done. i tried to get as much of it as i can. i want to move the ball down the field on behalf of the american people. >> will you correlate those desires with what is a historic and low assessment? i have been around capitol hill since 1990. i've never seen a disparity a 7% or more. -- of 700 or more? -- of 70% or more. favorite whipping boy for 200 years. they are concerned about our country. they do not see the kind of answers they expect. we've got a unique system. we have divided government. our job is to listen to the american people to express their will as they tried to address the big challenges that face our country. >> you helped create the super committee. what should the public expect? to do believe putting out a proposal before congress and that it may get the deadline extended tax it could all come for not? >> i believe that the congress and the administration has to act. we have a big deficit problem. the problems in europe continue to loom. it is larger than ours. it is incumbent to show that we can do the right thing. it is incumbent to show the rest of the world that they can adjust their challenges as well. i am firmly committed to ensuring that the super committee come to an outcome. >> i will not predict what they will will not do. there has to be an outcome. >> does your willingness in your conversations with the president to entertain increase in revenue send a signal that you like the committee to hear? >> i made it clear to the republican members that i expect that there has to be an outcome. the sequester built behind this is of great. it is meant to be ugly. no one goes there. i do not underestimate how hard it will be to come. we have to get to one. with cannot let these challenges continue. to cannot kick the can down the road. it has been happening for far too long. >> let me ask you about in the senate. there is a currency bill on the floor of the senate. there are 61 co-sponsors of identical legislation. you know this center very well. why are you not supportive? are you going to reassess your assessment of that? >> there has been concern on my part and from a lot of quarters about how the chinese have manipulated their currency. there has been every effort you can imagine over the last seven or eight years addressing this. there has been a significant improvement in the evaluation of the currency. for the congress of the united states to pass legislation to force the chinese to do what is very difficult to do, i think it is wrong. it is dangerous. you can start a trade war. given the economic uncertainty and around the world it is very dangerous. we shall not be engaged in this. i have made my position clear. i think the president agrees with me. they made it clear that it is ill-conceived. if charles schumer were here, he would say be spent about 100 business and in this. it would harm them economically. charles schumer describes it. china is a currency bully. >> they have a lot of challenges. the always believed it is right thing for our country and the world. building a commercial relationship is in both of our interests. it is probably the largest buyer of agricultural products. there is a balance here that i think for the long-term good of our country and for our kids and grandkids maintaining this relationship is good. any relationship on not be perfect. you can experience a lot of this. be a demonstration needs to continue to work for the chinese. it is not inappropriate role. >> you mentioned campaigning. i would like to know what degree you are relieved or large sarah palin is running for president. >> i like sarah palin. i know sarah palin. i spent some time with her in alaska before this odyssey of the past few years. i think she made the right decision for herself. i think she can play a role in upcoming elections. i wish her well. >> di water on the campaign trail with republicans? -- do you want her on the campaign trail with republicans? >> you suggested an enormous amount of time campaigning. are you saying it is complicating your efforts to achieve results? >> let me put it this way. i had my share of disappointments this year. i cannot come to an agreement on the big deal. i am disappointed we cannot pass stronger legislation. nothing has disappointed me more than what has happened over the past five weeks. we are on the hill. we have moved on those that are just moving there. no leadership. i cannot say how dangerous are situation is unfair. he throws in the top. we are legislating. he is campaigning. it is disappointing. >> the vice president said he believes you are a partner of his. you are declaring here and now the president is no longer a partner of yours. >> i will sit down with the president and a day at any time. i will continue to do that to seek common ground. we have different ideas about what the proper role of the federal government should be. just because we have different views does not mean that we should not be seeking to find a common ground. we have sent the jobs bill up. we sent him a letter back care. termer it'd be the long highway bill. whether it be a one of the tax credits that he outlined. but that is our job. our job is to find common ground to help our country. while the american people know we will not always agree, they do expect to get something done. it takes two to tango. i have reset to the president. -- reached out to the president. you have to have a willing partner. send the trade agreements up. i will sit down with the president on any day of any time, which i already have. >> the country is approaching its 10th anniversary of the war of afghanistan. relating to the war on terrorism, has president obama bint more effective or less affected than president bush? >> you have watched over the course of the last three years. i've been very supportive of the president's decision and i iraq and afghanistan. if i have questions or concerns, i raise them. by and large, the president has continued the effort to take on the taliban, to take on al qaeda. and to help ensure that america stays secure. i think our number one responsibility as a federal government is to ensure the safety and security of the american people. i think making short in afghanistan that the enemy does not have ground in which to plan, trained, and execute attacks on americans and abroad is the goal. we need to have success there. so far, the president has done just fine. >> those who support the president would say that he is more effective. would you disagree? >> clearly, there has been more been done. he had a career that was innovative at the early stages of it, then he was sidelined and he came back to put finer points on it. that is consistent with your trajectory in washington. >> i wanted to get the gist of the question there. [laughter] >> steve jobs tot america about the power of innovation. will you ever and have you ever worn blue jeans and a black turtleneck? [laughter] >> that would be no and no. we live in the greatest country in the world. our forefathers gave as an economic system that produced opportunities for our citizens on like any country in the world. i came here for one reason. to make sure that those opportunities were available to our kids and grandkids. i think a lot of americans do not believe that the opportunities that we have, all of us in this room have, are going to be available to our kids and grandkids because we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. it is america's free enterprise system. america's openness. america's diversity. that has allowed us the opportunity to succeed. and the opportunity to fail. you cannot have one or the other. you are always going to have both. i just think that government has gotten too big. it has gotten way too involved in our society. it has gotten way too expensive. all of that gets in the way of what i would describe as the american dream. but in america, listen, i tell audiences, i was born with a glass half full. i am the optimist. if i was not, i would not be here. i want all americans to believe and understand that they can do whatever they want to do. they can succeed, they can innovate. this is america. i used to go to law school. i do not go too many anymore because i ended up into many poor schools without any kids. i get a little worked up over it, as you all know. my message to all of these kids in the schools is, listen, you can grow up and be whatever you want to be. i think that most of us have to work for a living. work because it -- and work becomes a life-central activity, so go do something you like. succeed in something you want to succeed in, regardless of what it is. >> on behalf of the washington ideas formed, thank you for your time. [applause] >> more from the atlantic institute and the world ideas for. next, vice president joe biden is interview. then, former vice president dick cheney and his daughter talk with the atlantic. >> to all of those who were expecting brian williams, he was called off to anger our special report about the president will be speaking in a little while. >> you mean the president is more important than me? [laughter] >> i know where i am. it is great to see you. i would like to start by asking you what you think the world has lost with the passing of steve jobs? >> and you know, i was watching some of the show's last night. his commencement speech in 2005 as stanford. if you have not seen it, you ought to see it. and someone said, i am paraphrasing, this guy democratized technology. in a way that he put in the hands of ordinary people. instruments that were available to only nasa scientists, doctors in an operating room, and he put it in the hands of ordinary people, the ability to do extraordinary things carry it and that struck me that he had democratized the use of the most advanced technology on earth. i think his contribution is huge. also, his attitude. i watched him saying he gets up every morning, looks in the mirror and asks himself whether or not, if this was the last day of my life, would i be doing what i was doing today? that seemed like how he approached life. that is a hell of a good day. it is the man who gets up in the morning, puts both feet on the floor, knows what is going to do, and still thinksmatters. it matters. >> what kind of impact has that had not just on news and information, but on the political and policy debates in the country? >> in one sense, it has made policy debates a little more difficult to focus and have in a way that there is no one -- i remember when i first got elected. 400 years ago. [laughter] i remember thinking, this concentration of power, three networks and three outlets, this is -- it should be more open. sometimes i wish there were only three. i would i -- i am not being facetious. there was a large showing of the single most important issues of the day in one place where the debate could be a form of debt was always available. you had 70% of the people watching the evening news. and it was news. the flip side of that is this democratization has taken on the ability to literally bring down governments, and bring down tyranny, to fundamentally alter the way people organize themselves. on balance, it is much healthier. it does that -- there is no governor. there is no editor. a lot of material gets out into the public's fear that is just speeches. my view is and my deceased wife used to always give me about this and i always said i had faith in the american people. she said, i wonder how much faith you would have had if you lost your first election. they are starting to be able to separate the wheat from the strong. i think on balance, it is overwhelmingly positive. >> why is the economy getting worse? >> for a number are reasons. it is not that it is getting worse. it is not getting better at the rate it should get better. there are a number of reasons for that. domestically, the things we can control, it will not surprise you to hear -- it will not surprise you to hear me say, the national debt was a serious mistake. thus being downgraded is a psychological impact of the markets here and people's thinking about where we are. it is not within our power, but it is within our that the scare of the faults, the default of greece, whether or not europeans are going to build a fire wall of $700 million to prevent the contagion to move to banks in france or the collapse in italy, they are estimating a 38-50,000 -- 30 million of our units in china that are vacant. people worry about the real estate bubble there. we should focus on the things we can control. we can now control. we can now give it a jump start by passing this jobs bill. the vast majority of the independent balladares say we create between 1.7 and 2 million jobs. it would increase the gdp by a couple of percentage points. the things we can control are the things that frustrates me the most that we are not able to get done. clots what is going to get it done? the president is campaigning for it writ he will talk about it later this morning. even though you believe you are right, you know that in this town, that is not always enough. >> i think what is going to have to happen for to get past i have a good personal relationship with eric cantor. he is smart. i have a great relationship with john boehner. i know what they are against but i do not know what they are for. i worry whether or not -- there was a report that peter sessions said, after the bill was introduced, obama has his back to the wall. why should we help them? the reason is to help hit not him -- the reason is not to help him, but to help the united states. it would be cutting the payroll tax for businesses as well as employees. he was supporting had just one year ago, including some of the most conservative members. i do not know any republicans out there who have taken the position that we should not be improving infrastructure. i do not know any republican that has taken the position that it does not make sense for us to figure out a way to get a 6 million people who are paying 6% on their mortgages to pay for% on their mortgages. i do not know what they are against. is this dead on arrival? we have 13 months to have this campaign. we will all kinds of flexibility. these faults cannot wait. how many people do you know are going to go to bed tonight staring at the ceiling, literally wondering whether they are going to be in that house next month? >> this president campaigning -- he is campaigning an argument about tax hikes and selling this bill. he is in campaign mode. do you support what democrats are saying, a surtax on the wealthy. >> absolutely. we said this is that we would pay for this bill. you have millionaires who think they should pay more. tea party folks think the millionaire should pay more. republicans think they should pay more. what is the problem? >> this is the argument. i spoke to someone who knows how to tactically move legislation. what happens to get it passed? >> we have to go to the people. that is what the president has decided to do and i have been, as you know, that has been my point of view for a while here. you have a lot of folks who were elected black -- unlike the last time to the congress in 2010 who are in districts where it is not going to matter. you have a lot of folks in the state of pennsylvania, folks who are tea party associated represent swing districts. we should go to the people and be asking everyone of those congress people, "what are you against?" the only way we are going to change this -- we are not wanted changes by getting the leadership of the republican party to take on membership, but only to communicate to the american people off the wall we are proposing is sound, reasonable, and there is no good reason why republicans in the past who supported it do not support it now. >> do we stimulate -- to slip into a recession if the congress fails to support it further? >> i do not think we will slip into recession if this fails to pass. i do think it will stay sluggish and stagnant if it fails to pastorate there is a concern about recession. it is one of the things you talk about often on meet the press. there is a real concern about europe. we are working as hard as we can with our counterparts in and encouraging europe to do what they know they have to do. it is politically very difficult to do, to build this fire wall. you can picture a worst-case scenario in the year rose own -- in the eurozone that could be an international contagion. >> i am reading a book that makes the point that our subprime crisis did a lot of damage to our banks, but the government can still bail our backs out. here you have countries that are destroying their banking system. candy eurozone survive with countries like greece failing to meet its budget targets that's correct it can, but these is a wrenching moment they are going through. that got to figure out, are they willing to take the risk needed to take to maintain this union? our belief is they can and our belief is they will. and our hope is they will. it is interesting to me that you read boomerang and i have not read it. i have not even purchased it yet but there is a lot of talk about it. if you think about what our republican friends are talking about now, i listened to john boehner's speech to the chamber. he talked about liberating the economy in. the last time we did that, we put the middle class in shackles. the fact is everything they're talking about are the very things that got us in trouble. proliferates wall street from the new constraints. talk about how we would increase tax cuts for people. all of the things we tried before from the very things that got as before all the things that you're being proposed. we have to have a debate in this country about this. that what we have done has not totally corrected the problem. people are still hurting. we understand that. there has to be a debate here whether we continue along the path we are talking about and make the kind of changes we have been unable to make, like their distribution of tax burdens in this country. >> i was just watching cnbc as i came in. they had a corporate guy on they're talking to a squawkbox talking about corporate tax cuts. the problem is, as this guy pointed out, industries are paying 35%. the financial sector is paying 20%. our problem now is, and getting everybody to get in the game. it is not that we are slowing up corporate tax reform. corporations are in disagreement because there are going to be winners and losers. we talk about the buffettfrule. i call it the reagan rule. this is ronald reagan in 1985. some of these loopholes are understandable, but in practice, and make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing of the bus driver is paying 10% of his salary. don't you think the millionaire should pay more than the bus driver? or you think he should pay less? all that stuff about us talking about class warfare. give me a break. >> most millionaires to pay more. warren buffett is not an outsider. >> all millionaires, not all but the vast majority, pay more money than the bus driver. on a progressive tax rate, they do not pay at the rate they should pay. what warren buffett was talking about was his effective tax rate, i forget what he said it was, 17% or 18% and his secretary making $55,000 per year is paying 28%. that is not what teddy roosevelt had in mind. that is not what has been the process for the last 100 years. >> let me ask you a question about what is happening in the streets of wall street. the occupied wall street protest movement. do you and the president stand in solidarity with those protesters? [laughter] >> that is a fair question. let's be honest with one another. what is the core of that protest? why is it increasing in terms of the people it is attracting? the core is the bargain has been breached. with the american people. the core is the american people do not think the system is fair or on the level. that is the core of what you are seeing in wall street. that is what started -- by the way, there is a lot in common with the tea . why did they start? tarp. they thought it was unfair were bailing out the big guys. we have people on the other end of the political spectrum say the same thing. look guys, the bargain is not on the level anymore in the minds of the vast majority of american people. >> our banks the problem in this economy? >> they are part of the problem. why these think -- i know you know -- there is this overwhelming debt reaction to bank of america putting in a $5 fee. the american people know the reason the ceo of the bank of america or any other body in that business is in the business because they, that by making six -- $50,000, bailed him out. bailed him out. put his financial security on the line when his government said, we are going to come up with over $1 trillion to bail him out. and then they turn around and say, by the way, we are likely only projected to make $17 billion next year, but you know what, here is what we are going to do. the middle class folks, these guys with their debit cards are on their backs and we are going to charge of $5 more to use a debit card. at a minimum, they are incredibly tone deaf. at a minimum. at a maximum, they are not paying their fair share. middle-class people are getting killed. >> and editorial in the wall street journal this morning says, wait a minute, mr. president, mr. vice president, they are responding to your rules. there are restrictions on overdraft protection and so forth. >> that is a little bit like saying to my kid, look, here is the deal. i do not only what you not driving a car when you did he do not have a license. i call you at of stopping you from doing that. my son says, i can do that and more so now i've got to steal a car. i have got to get a loan someplace. you know what i mean? [laughter] >> is that really the analogy you want to make? >> i am asking seriously. >> i know you're not suggesting that, even the that was an analogy. you're suggesting that are wrong in seeking to make a profit in a different way based on new regulation. there are people will hear this and say, this is the problem with these guys. they are fundamentally anti- business. >> 99% of the american people are not going to make that argument. i'm not worried about how that islam to be perceived by anybody listening to this program. what i am worried about is the failure of the banks to understand that, in a circumstance where it was viewed by the congress responding to the american people that the tax in affect the was being placed on their purchase of goods when they select a card -- swiped a card is now forcing them to add another fee when they are already making a profit. you can make a lot more profit. there are a lot of things they could do. at least when you charge an extra four bags on airlines, people are angry. but the effort for the last 25 years out airlines are going bankrupt. they hate it, but if they do not do it, the airline will go bankrupt. nobody thinks the banks are going bankrupt. all they're thinking about is, does what, if they are a lot more liquid than they ever were and they're not lending any money. that is what they are thinking. you cannot blame the american people for stealing an overwhelming sense of frustration at this moment when they are hanging on by their fingernails and all of a sudden, they come along and say, okay, even though we are going to make a healthy profit next year, if we think we need this additional income coming in. >> let me ask you about accountability when it comes to the economy. the president's approval rating access to 42%. his and your handling of the economy is pretty low. in the efforts that you made as an administration turn the economy around or they didn't and they appear to not have done that. if you are accountable or there's only so much government can do. >> it is two things. if you look at all the polls that you cited before, a clear majority of the american people plan their financial strength on the last administration. if they understand what got us in this troubled. they understand it was no regulation, no documentation loans, these wacky instruments that are taking risks on, etc. they get it. but we are in charge. they're looking to us to fix it. they are frustrated and i do not blame them. if you were ever raised in a household where someone in the house lost their job, you understand the frustration and anger they feel. we are in charge. we have turned it around. we have, but for the local, and the last 15 months, we have created jobs, but not nearly enough. it has been offset by the failure of republicans to support the stimulus efforts we have had to give help to the counties, cities, states, so they have laid off 300,000 teachers. we have taken a hit. i think what they understand is, they understand that we made it better, but not good enough. in with the 42% -- what the 42% represents is what they feel. if they do not feel enough has been done. that is why i think we need to take this to the american people and say, this is what we want to continue to do to keep us on the road. it is like the car is out of the ditch, it is moving along but only at 25 miles per hour. they are used to going 60. >> that does not sound like a lot of accountability to me. let's look at the facts. the stimulus plan was a big and you got it passed. health care reform was big, you initially thought it was a bad idea in terms of political capital, that got passed. that was sold as part of our economic security. and things have not turned around. there are either limits to what government can do or your in a position of saying, i know we are in charge, but really it is the other guy's fault. >> there are limits as to how fast government can make up for eight years of profligate spending, no oversight, putting two wars on a credit card, the health care bill on a credit card, the prescription drug bill, a tax cut of several trillion dollars on the credit card. it takes time to get that done. there are limits at how rapidly government can work. there are also limits on what government can do when one party decides they're going to do nothing. they're going to do nothing. nothing. let me say it again, we are going to do nothing. what have they proposed. to stimulate economic growth except the same exact things that "liberated the economy" before. increase tax cuts for the wealthy. that has not worked. it is very difficult in an environment when one team says, not only are we not to compromise on moving forward, we just think the old method that got us here worked. the american people are frustrated. their frustration israel. at the end of the day, you heard me quoted before on your show, there used to be a mayor in boston who got elected at age 29. i got up at age 30 to do any event and kevin white was the phenom who bought elected. in 1972, he was in trouble for running for reelection. the press called him a wise guy and a hot shot and ask him how he felt now. he looked at them and i will never forget what he said. he said, "do not compare me to the almighty. compare me to the alternatives in the day this is about the alternative. >> to talk about whether it will be passed. he does not have a partner. >> i think he does have a partner in bulk of the leadership. they are hamstrung. i can tell you without violating any confidence, we had a much bigger proposal. i was the negotiating with them. they cannot sell it. this is joe biden. he will have to say no. i have a bad habit of saying what i believe. >> that do not want to get in the way of that now. >> i truly believe if erick kanter, joe biden, barack obama, john maynard were allowed to settle a deal in the room we will have done it. >> that is not how it works. they're not strong enough leaders. >> my view is that their party is not the republican party that we know. one of the worst things that has happened to us is we'd need a strong republican party. we need a republican party that is united. we need a republican party you can sit down and say this is a deal, can you deliver? this is going over the heads. it is going to the constituents. it put pressure. >> and one is the almighty. it is not strong enough. >> is a strong enough of the republican party for the nominee to be did? >> absolutely. it is strong enough to be both of us. >> at the end of the day, the american people are in real trouble. an even larger percentage have staggered wages. it is, sometimes a relevant. what i am counting on is what i read out there, this judgment of the american people to decide they know the whole we are in. they know how far we have come out. they're dissatisfied. we have said the country on a path. it is the path to reach a kidney -- we should continue or go back to liberating the economy. >> the president said he is an underdog. with the enthusiasm with which she was swept into office, the tears on an election night because people are so full of hope, how in the world that have been? -- did that happen? >> when franklin roosevelt came into office, they have been in depression for two years. and to havesworn in the inaugural parade, they said behind a desk. they bought into high. if we have been sworn in, in not having clip where we got where we were. that is the matter. we are in charge naow. the american people are dissatisfied for the state of the nation. that is enough to make you the underdog. it is looking at the facts. this and that being a situation where the american people will have to make a choice. our job is leaders -- ad leaders is to lay out choices. if he did not like what we're doing, understand it. >> do you prevail? >> i think we win. >> who is your nominee? >> i spent 30 years trying to figure out the democratic party. with little success i might add. i have no idea p.m.. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this is an interesting opportunity. when it comes to a vice president being incumbent and his immediate predecessor within an hour of each other is an enviable opportunity for anyone. if you get to compare free awards. dick cheney has had one of the most powerful and distinctive ones. he took credit for the increasingly powerful sets by saying his was the first office in the white house. it had grown at the time. when i was in the middle east, we saw the world differently. she had worked closely with your father. we talked. the taut but national security decision making. did that made for a lot of people. we had a productive discussion. it is what led me today. ms. cheney is known as the ceo of this important book. i wanted to put something that is slightly outside of our normal editorial format. i want to challenge her to give her tough questions. i will not really intervene. this is not a normal engagement. i also want the vice president to a fess up to what he did not agree with. welcome vice president cheney. . i wondered if he might explain whether you agree with that comment. >> it is all his. >> they'll disagree. i wonder if the economy has been fit ca. >> d.c. a victory for president obama? >> i think you have trouble. i think somebody suggested to me that president obama may be the jimmy carter of the 21st century. he will get one term. he will leave under similar circumstances. with the economy. cracks back to the book. we took some pretty heavy criticisms including from some folks in in room. the notice hard to believe. doesn't bother you? >> when you are the former vice president, no. they were up against others. with some very special problems. it was the need to pursue some very tough aggressive controversy policies. that is what we believe is necessary. this involves things like enhanced interrogation techniques. things broke china. it created controversy. a lot of them are classified. we cannot talk about it. i took my fair share of shots. i did not feel personally abused. >> some have said in light of the success in chair into -- charity area that the most effective teams we have seen was this. maybe you can talk about why you see this. >> i would defer to henry kissinger. >> the three of us worked well together. we had all worked together before appearin. there was a well-established set of relationships. there were a couple of other roles we were bound by. the various departments quickly learned if you wanted to get something done a good way was to get it on the agenda. it cut down the amount of noise inside pear -- the noises. none ever excuse jim baker and not leak iing. we tried to avoid this kind of complex. i think we were successful. >> the best job you ever had? >> each one was different and unique. if i had to pick one that was read at the top of the list, working for ford at a very early age as chief of staff. after watergate. been vice-president of the united states. of the is where great jobs. >> -- all of those were great job spirit if i had to say one, i would say secretary of defense. because of the association with the military. i had the opportunity. we were able to do some remarkable things in terms of the rearranging our military forces. the opportunity to work closely with the men and women of the u.s. senior military leadership was a remarkable. >> when you look at the 2012 candidates, what is on our side? what gives you hope? what worries you. >> how is she doing? >> i might have asked that one. i have not endorsed anybody yet. they do not need my advice. there will be the opportunity for us to give them. they experience the ability for various candidates. this is what everybody is focused on. i'm concerned we do not lose sight of how important it is the book maintain our vigilance. i think what is driving the debt are the entitlement programs and the fact that we're not dealt with social security and medicare. if you take too much out, they will do serious damage today you have 10. yet a pretty dramatic restructuring. there may be a few systems left. want to know what the candidates think. and how they propose to deal with the defense issues. >> 20 but that they issues, he said president obama ought to apologize, and particular the statement about abandoning our ideals. the white house came back in responded. and to not think this is out of bounds. but i'll is responding to have brought up the subject of the president's speech in in cairo in 09. i was asked by the interviewer how that sap. this is a situation where we announced we overreacted. we had walked away from our ideals. president obama had been the one. they implied we were torturing. in light of the fact that they were pursuing this. they are at the point now where they were executed. i will lay this alongside our enhanced interrogations. >> the content about this later on. if you look at the five republican presidents, the work of four of them. it was the best. am i going to answer the question. i hope she does not give up. >> i look back over that peri. i look for common thread some problems. the focus wasn't the of what the different set of experiences to the office and had their strengths. we found it necessary to deal with anticipated situations. if the lives of our loss administration, george w. bush, there is a little bit of speculation that the problems. they dominated the agenda this is what they had to deal with. it is dramatically different. would not appreciate that we would send them to the gulf. he never would have bet that richard nixon would impose wage price controls. this gave him the authority. >> i have one. >> the best secretary stay ever worked with? >> i would have for different reasons two. one would be the gentleman you just heard from, and henry kissinger. as a very nice things about him. -- would be the one you just heard from, henry kissinger. i said some very nice things about him in book. the thing i've always done remarkable about kissinger, it is the only time in history we ever had a president to resign. they manage the transition. he went out into the house. he announced that secretary kissinger would continue. there are difficult problems. it is under the most difficult political conditions. >> this is unscripted. my colleagues have brought in such a wide in the first group of political players. everyone from vice president biden to dick cheney. i like to ask you a question. and your role, and thinking of the security decisionmaking structure that the bill, there has been some critique that you took over the process. >> i'm not sure the structure is there. i come back to something i mentioned earlier. i am convinced that what makes it work are the individuals and the relationships they have. >> it is not enough that ino the others involved. it is whether not you can benefit. we talked earlier. we said we would all work together. we had run into problems. we have an opportunity to support this. by the time they finish, they failed. what we had not done is do it as a team. and do not think we do a good enough job in the transition. get them to book their real- world problems. we look at previous times. scare the of them. it is sobering and brief. hopefully you will not do that. what you do not it is any sort of work. you have them actually go back. we have a couple of good games. i am unaware of this happen. >> i only said he did have one question. talking about training. did you consciously think about this ta? >> it had a big impact. it turned out to be very useful. it uses programs that existed for how you would preserve the government. i've been involved in this program. it is one of those things that clicked in. they make certain they did not have all the leaders. it is so our advisers kiddy capitate it. we went to a safe and secure location. >> is that what you're able to focus so much? are used to the trauma of the fact that we were under attack? >> there are other things that are important. it was getting the planes down. those are two priorities. it all the planes down ticket tell which ones have been hijacked. we have conflicting information. we were told there were six. turn up their only for -- turned out there were only four. >> just in this cheyne bike question. if you did have a chance to redo or we think are taking a different step, what might that have been? i guess it is the regret question. do you have regrets about things you might have done? >> do i have any regrets? you want something from my time as vice-president. >> i think we were under difficult circumstances. i believe in the policies we pursue it. it was in terms of my reputation pyrifor. politicians like to be loved. quite to do you feel loved? >> my grand kids. these are things we had to do. we knew it the controversy will -- it would be controversy and. -- controversial. if i had to do it over again, i would. >> were you secretly running things? >> no. we had a great dog that was a big yellow lab. we used to take a month to camp david. he loved it up there. one morning we went to the dining room. we walked in. there was barney with little scotty. it look like a squirrel. do not tell the president i said that. barney took off. he never caught is grow but he led chasing them. he took up chasing around the dining room. they made a couple of circuit at the table. i heard the president stepped into the room and said what the hell's going on? i grasped days -- grabbed dave and drove up to the category were staying. about 50 minutes later, there is a knock on the door. it is the camp commander. he said until further notice, your dog is a band from the real lodge. the presence never said a word. lodge. the president never said a word. the captain was not happy to be transmitting messages about a dog. nobody got hurt. >> we could close by having you tell the most important lessons you learned while you're working on this book. he was working with them. >> you divulge your biggest arguments. >> we left it out. there is something remarkable about having your eldest child interested in how you spend your life to have you sit there for two years and having you tell stories. that is what we did. it added to the project. we did not sign on for any more books. >> i want to thank you of both. thank you so much for joining us. now we are back. >> more from the atlantic institute forum. the former pakistani president is interviewed by the chairman of the company. he speaks about relations between the u.s. and his country for the next 20 minutes. >> good morning. i was struck. the volume of what his works into this so surpasses this. it is before this. this nightn to train. he came back here. he is not a model citizen. not is something i'm terribly disposed to. use in the military. then it was a bloodless coup. there have been six assassination attempts. you were overseas. >> yes, i was. i was traveling in a normal one. >> 1990 of them are school students. the pilot called me. it is very important. we have been told to go up to 21,000 feet. he cannot help them get data pakistan. why else would the second order be passed? as a defense attorney the pilot in the air traffic controller. and he was taking about six minutes. he was passing messages directly. he is getting messages back. he is taking a lot of time. all this kept on going. we said we do not have fuel to go out. we can go to a recovery airfield. i was not in contact at all. the pilot caught a message from the air traffic controller. we are in charge. i went back. we have just enough fuel for this. when we landed, we only had a few. i was in charge of pakistan. >> we have had bad flights. let's roll forward a little bit. we look forward to 2004. the president is the most popular president in the world. you were publicly supportive of president bush and the united states. it is viewed as the no. 1 external threat to the country. there is a very acute one for pakistan. we talk about what went wrong. when you were present, d.c. the relation slipping away deck/ >> in my time, we had a degree of trust and confidence. it has to do it interpersonal relations. i had a relationship with president bush. let's talk general to a general. they have all these issues. i wonder where that exists now. that we show confidence is not there. >> what is it that the united states is not understand that >? >> what do not understand? >> i do not like to go into much detail. it has a history in past. they were from the united states. in 1989, they quit the area with no rehabilitation. we have been accused and the trade. >> are you feeling like that today? >> yes. we have been all along. pakistan was all along. we are in the lead role. it is the same thing that will not be have been that of the dues again. they have a historical past. it leads to mistrust against the united states. everything was happening through pakistan. what happened beyond 1989? now that we're planning to leave, that has impact on the people again. i am not speaking on behalf of the government. my personal view is that there must be some analysis going on of what will happen if the united states leads an unstable afghanistan. afghanistan was ravaged. every ethnic group was fighting each other. we have to be ready for this. it is a situation that is unstable. . . the gentleman from illinois. mr. jackson: whereas, on october 2, 2011, "the washington post" reported a story called, and i quote, rick perry and a word set on stone, unquote. whereas upon reading that story the vast majority of the people of the united states were morrallly outraged. whereas, most of the facts in this resolution come from that "washington post" story. whereas, governor rick perry has described a childhood in has kill county, paint creek, texas, as the center on boy scout, school, and church. whereas texas governor, rick perry, is from west texas and was originally a southern democrat often known as a dixicrat who switched parties in the late 1980's to become a republican and is currently a leading republican presidential candidate. whereas, ranchers who once grazed cattle on the 1,070 acre parcel in on the clear fork of the brasols river, near where governor perry was raised in paint creek, texas, it has become a hunting ground called by the name, nickerhead, well before governor perry and his father began hunting there in the early 1980's, even though there is no definitive account when the rock first appeared on the property. whereas the use of the term, nigger head, to describe a hunting retreat is morrallly offensive. whereas, ronnie brooks, a local resident who guided a few turkey shoots for governor perry between 1985 and 1990, said he holds governor perry, and i quote, in the highest esteem, unquote, but said that of this rock at the camp, quote, it kind of offended me, truthfully, unquote. whereas, has kill county judge, david davis, sitting in his courtroom and looking at a window there, said the word was, quote, like those vertical blinds, it's just what it was called. there was no significance other than a hunting deal, unquote. in other words, the judge was -- whereas the name of this particular parcel did not change for years and for many remained the same after it became associated with rick perry. first as a private citizen, then as a state official, and finally, as texas governor. whereas, some local residents still call it by the morrallly repugnant named, nigger head. whereas recently as this summer a slab like rock flying flat portions of the name still visible beneath white paint remained by the gate to the camp. whereas asked last week about the name, governor perry said on the rock is an offensive name that has no place in the modern world. implying it may have been ok and had an appropriate place in that community when he was growing up. whereas, mary lou has lived in haskill county, texas, and recalls the racism she feels in 1950's and 1960's in west texas when being called an offensive name like white screeting blacks with, quote, morning, nigger, was like a broken record. whereas throck morton county, near haskill county, was for years considered a no-go zone by african-americans because of old stories told by locals of african-american men lynched there. whereas they began observing martin luther king jr.'s day, birthday celebration, just two years ago according to a county commissioner in haskill county. whereas governor perry grew up in a segregated area -- era whose history has defined and complicated the careers of many southern politicians. whereas governor perry has spoken often about how his upbringing in his sparsely populated farming community influenced his conservatism. whereas, governor perry says he mentioned the offensive word on the rock to his parents shortly after they signed a lease and he had visited the property, and they rather immediately painted over the word during the next july 4 holiday. but seven people interviewed by "the washington post" said they still saw the word on the rock at various points during the years that the perry family was associated with the property through his family, partners, or signature on the lease. whereas another local resident who visited the property with governor perry and the legislators he brought there to go hunting recalled seeing the rock and the name clearly visible. whereas, how, , when weather governor perry dealt with it when he was using the property isn't clear and as a dimension to the emerging biographer of governor perry who quickly moved in the top-tear of republican presidential candidates when he entered the race in august. whereas, herman cane is the only republican presidential candidate to criticize governor rick perry for being insensitive when the word was not immediately condemned, but we would remind herman cain, it is insensitive and it is also offensive. now therefore it be resolved, resolved that the house of representatives call on governor rick perry to apologize for not immediately doing away with the rock that contained the word nigger head, at the entrance of a ranch he was leasing on and which he was taking friends, colleagues, and supporters to hunt. it calls on governor rick perry's presidential rivals who have not yet made strong statements of outrage over the rock that contained the word to do so. it calls upon governor rick perry to condemn the use of this word as being totally offensive and inappropriate at any time and at any place in united states history. and lastly, it calls upon governor rick perry to list the names of all lawmakers, friends, and financial supporters he took with him on his hunting trips to nigger head. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 the resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or minority leader is as a question of privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from illinois will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution >> europe's worsening debt crisis, his -- tim geithner's testimony is next. on "washington journal" we'll talk about the debt crisis. conservative leaders and number of republican candidates will attend family research council voters summit this morning. we'll hear from house speaker john boehner and rick san torah. live coverage starts at 8:40 eastern on c-span three. a proposed keystone pipeline project. it would run for alberta canada to the gulf coast. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> find new books for your fall reading list on c-span 2. president james garfield is mortally wounded and candice miller on the political intrigue and the destiny of the republic. afterwards a.c.l. head susan blames anti-terrorism laws for damaging the lives and liberties of americans. also steffen hessell, resistance fighter and concentration camp survivor has a message for today's youth. life and liberty are worth fighting for. >> during deliberations the only people allowed in the east conference room are the nine justices. so who gets the door? >> i was paying very close attention to the discussion and i failed to hear the knock on the door. and billy brennan on my left and bill rank cuss on my right both got up and answered the door and made me feel like i was about two feet high. i learned from that one of the most important jobs of the junior justices is to remember that you're the doorman. >> retired john paul stevens justice. sunday at 6:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> next, secretary intimidate geithner talks about the financial stability of the banking system. he testified before the house financial services committee chaired by senator baucus. this is an hour, 50 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. mr. secretary, this morning you were quoted as saying the biggest risk we take is financial institutions not taking enough risk. secretary geithner, with all due respect, i'm not sure off clear picture of reality. as it relates to not only the thousands of pages of restricting regulations that have been imposed on financial sfougses but also the daily drum beat of the fdic and other agencies directing the banks not to take risk. if you want a dose of reality, sit in my office or the office of other members of this committee and listen to the stories related to them by main street bankers. talking about the restrictive regulations imposed. and who do you think has a responsibility to encourage the banks to make more isn't it the regulators? the regulators that make up -- if it is, they need look in the mirror. if in fact you are correct, and banks are not taking enough risks, i would submit to you the problem does not lie with the loan offers in regional banks, it lies in the very members of f sock -- of fsoc we are all saddened by the death of steve jobs. he made innovate products. he would have not made pixar a success and could not have vastly improved the phone or ipod or tab let computer. that's why many of us were disturbed to hear president obama questioning the -- there's a real and real concern among americans that the increasing cost and size of government and especially the expansion of the regulatory state makes it harder and harder for the next steve jobs to come along and if more and more regulations stifle that, many of us have expressed that same concern to you. more regulations from washington and higher taxes do not encourage risk taking and growth. another charles swhab said recently about our economic problems we can't spend our way or tax our way or artificially stimulate our way out of this. we cannot regulate our way out of this, what we can do and absolutely must do is knock down all the hurdles that create dis incentives for business. i agree with this statement and hope you do too and look forward to the discussion we will be having today. a this the time i recognize ranking member mr. frank for an opening statement. >> i note in the chairman's statement while he discusses his objection to the regulation in general he cites to regulation in specific he objects to and i think because the basis of the argument prevents community banks from lending is -- i wait for somebody to show me in there. i afree we have had a problem with the loan officers being shell shocked and being too restrictive. but there are no things in there that restrict them. with regard to the fdic deposit insurance gives help the a great visa have i the large banks. but let's talk about these regulations that are so demonized in general. are we regulating stocks and driven tis? they want to see when the loan officers can ride rough shot over the regulators. yes, we do say that people who are advising people on investments should have a fiduciary responsibility. chairman comes from a community that's had a serious problem because they were advised to get into a financial investment that was a disaster. and we put into the legislation a new regulation. the new legislation is people in the future who are advising a deficit county would have a fiduciary responsibility to that entity. i'm very proud of that. i think that's a good thing. so i would like for on? tell me what is it in particular that they are objecting to? the regulators are there to serve the banks. that's not exactly what he meant but we did have a situation where the bank regulators were the arbitrators of issues and we said no longer will that be the case. by the way there were not new regulations in that situation over banks but there are regulations over the community banks to give them protection against competitors who are not regulated and put pressure on them to do things irspofpblet that's another area where we have regulated. we did what some of us have tried to do earlier. including we put restrictions on the mortgage lending that got us into trouble. yes, we regulate mortgages. there are mortgages people shouldn't have been granted and they had trouble repaying it, and we also reregulated the notion of -- it used to be you could make bad loans and then sell them, count on the credit rating agencies to overrate them and contribute to the problem. now there will have to be risk retention. you cannot make loans with money you do not have and sell them to other peep based on inappropriate credit ratings and they been have those cascade through the economy in a negative way. so yes, we regulate trivia tives and say you can't make loans without any kind of repayment and i'm proud of those if the members think they are choking off activity, they ought to be explicit about it. >> i thank the ranking member. mr. secretary, you're recognized and your written statement made a part of the record and without objection. you're recognized that the time to summarize your testimony. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking members of the committee. thank you for giving me a chance to talk about the council's work. the responsibility so provide you of potential threats to our financial system. so let me give you a broad overview of our conclusions and recommendations. in early 2011, the world economy still healing from crisis, was hit by a series of very severe challenges. higher oil prices, the disaster in japan, the ongoing crisis in europe, and on top of that we had this very damaging debate in congress over the summer about whether we should meet our obligations. and that debate had caused a loft damage to the fabric of businesses across the country. if you as i did talk to businesses in july and august they would say to me why would i make a new investment or hire somebody newif i don't know if congress is going to allow the -- to pay our bills? >> oil price vs fallen. 1kwr5 pan coming back. but the cumulative pressures has resulted in slower growth in the united states and around the world and much lower, significant lower expectations of growth in the next few years. the crisis in europe represents a big risk to global recovery and are working along decide i.m.f. to put forth strategy stabilize that crisis. and the critical imperative for them so ensure them that the governments and the financial systems that are under pressure have access to a more powerful financial backstop conditioned on policy reforms and policy reactions that can address the under lying cause of the problem. in the face of the situation in europe and the general slowdown in growth, the most important thing we can do, congress can do is to take strong steps to strengthen our economy at home. and we think the most effective way to do that so tie long-term trosmse restore fiscal sustain ability. it provides a very strong package and according to estimates would raise economic growth by one or two percentage points and help create one to two million jobs. and in the president's proposal to the joint committee, we outline differences in the programs that if enacted would be begin to fall as a share of our commy. this council as established under law is responsible for the oversight of the financial system and the financial markets have cop prized the system. it is the judgment of this council that it is in a stronger position today to with stand the new risks we face in the goebel economy. because of the actions we took in the early stage of the crisis to repair and reform our system, the weakest parts of our system, the ones that took the most leverage no longer exist today and were significantly reconstructed and the largest have increased their common equity. this is most common equity we have and increased their common equity by over 3 billion since early 2009 and they are funding themselves much more consecutively obtaining much larger cushions. these are significant improvements and together represent more progress to a path to a financial system than has been achieved in the other economies that were caught up in this crisis. now u.s. financial stewings including the banks and money market funds have -- our direct financial exposures to those governments and their institution sincere quite small. europe as a whole is large. so large and so closely sbezpwrated with europe and with the u.s. and world economy that a crisis in europe would cause significant damage to growth here around the world but the largest parts of europe are strong enough to manage the problems faced across the continent. now these pressures we're facing from europe make it more important that congress took into account strengthen growth now and took into account put our fiscal system an more sustainable pavement now the economic ail ments we've seen reinforce the importance of the recommend daigles we've presented the congress and let me summarize those quickly. first, the council emphasizes the importance, as it always will, of making sure that the core parts of the u.s. financial system are moving to strengthen their financial stp and financial resilience. we want the largest institutions to manage their businesses so they have the ability to with stand future economic environments that are much more challenging without -- and the regulators will gradually phase in over a period of several years a much tougher standard for liquidity and capital. second, the council recommends reforms to strengthen a number of of the markets that were a critical vulnerability. and the triparty repowe and money markets funds and the essence of the council's funds in these areas so make the trimarket funds less tie no, ma'am i can -- dynamic than the ones you saw. we've made substantial progress towards this objective. third the council recommends reform to the housing finance system and recognizes the importance of much closer coordination and cooperation and the implementation of the financial reform here in the united states and around the world. this is important, because if he allow large gaps to emerge as we did in the years before the crisis, risk will migrate toward those gaps leaving all of us vulnerable to those. and the design and enforcement of these new capital standards and the new reforms to the derivatives markets. although our stp is much stronger than it was before the crisis, we have more work to do on reform but we're going to do this in a balanced way, weighing the benefits of regulation against the cost of strength. we need to move in a pace that fully recognizes the fragility of economic -- phasing in these reforms over time to limit economic growth. i want to thank council and the staff for all their hard work in building this institution for cooperation and for producing this report, and i want to emphasize as i always do that i look forward to continuing work with this committee and the congress as a whole to build phenomenon progress we've made and in creating a stronger financial system here in the quhithes united states. thank you. >> thank you secretary. earlier this week president obama said banks don't have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated. it appears as if he is equating profits with mistreating people. does it bother you that he connects the idea of profits with mistreating people? >> i don't hear anything inherently evil about profits. >> i don't think he did that, and the president believes as i believe that it's not the role of government to determine how profitable people are but we've learned with tragic consequences to this country that if you don't put in place basic protections for securities and investors and apply those across the market, don't prevent firms from taking the kind of risk it's that could impayroll the economy as a whole, you leave all of us much more vulnerable, so what we're trying to do is build a system with more protection and transparency and prevent fraupped and risk that were so damaging to us. >> mr. secretary, can you give us some practice that you think financial institutions, how they are mistreating people today? that you don't have the power presently to stop? >> thank you for asking me that. an excellent example. i'll just give you one. >> ok. >> the reforms congress enacted lay out a much more comprehensive system of protection for consumers so we have rules that apply not just to banks but all the other institutions that are in the business of finance from payday lenders to growth across the country and to the authority is there in the law, until there's a director confirmed for the new protection bureau, we do not have the authority to apply those protections to non-bank financial institutions and that makes no sense. >> i would agree with that. but we're talking about our banks, our regulated institutions those are presently regulated. now are there practices -- widespread practices going on that are mistreating customers? >> i think the most compelling example today of behavior by the largest banks in the country that we worry all about and you're all living with is the mortgaging service business. just look at what's happening in the forclosure process across the country, you have people who still cannot get somebody on the phone who they can talk to about how the figure out how they can stay in their house or transition into better options and because we don't have yet in place an authority that allows us to nut that position we see system atic problems still. >> i think what we found is that there were legal requirements that weren't complied with on many cases. >> you have seen some evidence of that but the problem is much bigger than that. >> i will acknowledge that there are problems but let me ask you about charges for debit cards. that's one the president picked out as an example of a -- i think in his terminology or he represented it as almost a agreedy reach. but do you think dodd frank in particular the durban amendment had anything to do with the banks charging for their services? >> mr. chairman, i'm not going to comment on any particular bank practice in the area of fees. >> do you think it was wise for the president to do that? >> i'm not going to speak to that, but i'll tell you what is important is what the law does is try to make sure we move this system to a place where there is much more transparency and clarity about the fees americans have to pay for basic service or to borrow. >> i agree. the $5 disclosure was a pretty honest and up-front disclosure. >> and i think you are seeing some improvements in transparency, but remember -- you all do banking and banking services. look at your disclosure statements that come with -- >> but -- i don't mean to interrupt you but >> we have got some work to do. >> but we're talking about a $5 disclosed fee on debit cards which i think if you be forthright you'll say is a result of the durban amendment. that's what restricted their -- >> no. i didn't say that, and i don't think you can justify that judgment. >> so you don't think there's a connection between the charges the banks are now banking and the reduction in their revenues based on -- >> i'll tell you what i think is happening. we are -- and we need to -- we are trying to fundamentally improve the quality of disclosure and doing things that change fundamentally because we're putting bigger rules on how they practice how banks charge for basic services and there's much more change ahead of us and that's necessary for us because we're still living with the scars from the damage caused by -- >> well, i agree with that but i don't think i understand how there's anything misleading about a $5 charge. i'm not defending it, but it appeared to be very transparent. >> well, to begin with, as i think you misrepresented his quote. as you read it, there was no right to make a for-profit there's mistreatment of the customers and not saying there's no right to make a profit in fact clearly he stated there is but if it came from mistreating the customer, there is no right. now i'm not commenting on this particular controversy here, because as we all remember the swipe fee thing was never in our bill and i believe we passed a bill and we would have put it through the house quickly and i do not think consumers and whether they are going to the 7-eleven, the slushy's going to be any cheaper when they don't do it. but that's not what the president said. he said if there was no right to mistreat. now i want to go on to the secretary. one of the issues that people were concerned about legitimately with regard to the financial reform bill was the possibility that we would put our financial institutions at competitive disadvantage. you don't want to do that. smun pretty funkible. it moves through pretty quickly. i've had them with the european union and japan and canada. what's the what's it look like so far as far as not having competitive disadvantage from the implementation? >>i would say we're reasonably encouraged so far that having set the standards here that the world is going to move to those standards, and based on what we have seen so far on capital and liquidity, the most complicated error for making sure there's a level playing field, we're encouraged by what they are saying and doing and not focused just on europe but asia, too, where you see growth in activity. >> we put into the bill very specifically, as you know we consulted a mandate to you and the federal reserve that if there are countries taking advantage of a gap and underprotecting the public interest here, they are to be excludeed from our financial system. so yes, it's important to work together and sometimes the administration is sthrow take action against anybody, but in this case i think it's important -- and i don't think lit come from the e.u. or gentleman fan, but small countries that try do that, we would expect to use that authority. i want to turn to the other area the chairman talked about which was the regulation. and again, i await for anyone to tell me which regulation they want to get rid of. i agree with the chairman we want to see productive activity. one of the problems is i think a good deal of the financial activity we were seeing that we tried give people authority to regulate contributed to the real economy. the role of the financial institutions are interimmediate areas. that is they are they are the connector of people with money to invest and people who will take that money and use it for goods and services in a major way. that's a fundamental role. i do think when a.i.g. was playing credit default swap games with other financial institutions, when we had debt obligations squared, that we were not helping the real economy. i think some of those things had as much treep the real economy as fantasy football as what happened on sunday afternoon. so in that regard i was pleased to hear you say that -- and we don't want to just be looking into past problems. one of the things we tried do was give the regulatory authority new things. you talked about some new things that had people worried now that twhrrnt before. second lyrics even more in the newness that tech in a logically produced exchange rate funds, very, very, very rapid trading -- where were we in those because there were dangers in those and i am pleased to say that we did give the regulators appropriate authority look at those. what's the status now of looking at what the impact could be going forward on the exchange funds and rapid trading on the questions of stability? >> mary shapiro is taking the lead in the council in looking at developing both and has a process under way not only here backup around the world where there's rapid growth and she's also looking at the market structure issues and i don't really precisely when she expected to come back and talk about it, but she's all over it and you're right to emphasize again one of the jobs of the council is to lock at the area where we're seeing rapid growth and we need to make sure we can move more quickly. mr. chairman can i briefly respond to one thing you said in your opening zphents >> mr. chairman you quoted something slightly off. >> i assume by mr. chairman you meant me? >> ok. >> i said this morning in the senate that one of the big challenges is the economy as a whole and i mean the risk after a period of repeal we took too much risk and after crisis people aren't going to take enough risk and i was not commenting beyond that but it's true the natural thing you see after crisis is a people of pulling back, too much excess caution and that can make growth weaker than it is and we have to be careful and we want people to take responsible risks, and that will be helpful as we recover. there's still a lot to be worried about, a lot of challenges out there, but we have been very tchafe as we design these tougher rules for our system that we're designing them senseably and phasing them in time so we don't hurt recovery. >> what you're saying is the quote if you look at the u.s. economy today i would say the biggest risk is institutions not taking enough risk? was that it? >> yes. think about it this way. consumers still have too much debt. they are bringing in too much debt and they are being more cautious. supervisor, you said it. examiners having been a little burn ready being tough now. you see banks being cautious, too. and making a sensible observation that those things end to work against growth this this days, and you want to make sure you don't see too much tightness follow too much looseness. >> i agree, but i think the fault lies with the regulators. >> i tend to agree with that though not with the top regulators. the departments with the people in the field but i also say i have asked people to point to anything in the statute. i do agree there's a mindset among some of the people in the field that's been problematic. >> and i think we're all three aagreing that -- ugh mr. roy? >> thank you, cheryl. secretary excite they are in, you and i agree to higher standards as part of the problem. we've talked about that in the past and agree on regulating derivatives for transparency and the importance of that in terms of being a component of the equation. i think my concern, as i've expressed to you before is that we're taking our eye off the ball and instead pursuing this course of micro managing the financial sector without the international community really buying into the approach that we have laid out. and you're right to say that the regulatory community in europe says that they will buy into the approach. but that is not what's happening in country. i think the concerning comments by the c.e.o. of a large foreign bank who called the u.s. approach to derivatives a terrific opportunity -- he said it's one of the biggest own-goals in financial market history. and he says, you know, the asians don't need to do annoying gain an advantage. this is the type of press, if you pick up the financial times, the kinds of advertisements that are being made. and then when you they about the fed chairman's own comment on this point. he says, portions of the proposed derivatives rules, i think he's talking about extra territorialty could create significant disadvantages for institutions, so the farther we get from passage of dodd-frank, the less like i it seems europe will blindly follow us, and i don't see that on asia's part. they have already rejected many institutions we have put throufment will treasury commit to ensuring that if we can't get that concurrence, we hit the pause button on some of this micro management until we bring them on line so that everybody is on the same playing field, and we don't have to worry about that competitiveness issue that the fed chairman is bringing up? >> let me just say pointing out there are provisions of the law that because of how they treat the foreign operations of u.s. affiliates that, could cause that problem that we're worried about. but i would say in general, based on what our counterparts around the world are saying, i'm more encouraged than i thought i would be that the point. and it's not just how they are -- what they are saying but how they are drafting their rules. we have had three or four decades of experience with global capital standards. not an excellent period, because frankly they were set too low. no such regime existed under derivatives. but after it was passed we negotiated global regime on margin for derivatives and found very strong support not just from the european systems but from the asia asians, too. and we are making sure we try to consequence and design the rules in the united states so we're not in the position of landing ours before we're confident that the others are going to land theirs in the sensible place. we are not going to do this on trust. we're going to verify and look over it. >> i am going to lay out another thought would give you and i both pause, because i think we agree on this, too. it's no surprise that the financial community is pushing back on this, because they look at us and say it alludes the u.s. they can't even get their international coordination right between the -- >> well -- no. i wouldn't say quite that way. i would say i'll reinforce your point. we left the place -- we left in place justs and responsibilities and that makes it much harder but much more important. because i'm not sure it was a mistake, but you guys zithed to do it. but if you don't vay linement among them then how are we supposed to get rest of the tworled -- >> we are out of alignment on 50 different rules. >> but we want them, the congress, where the statute permits it, we want them to be fully aligned. >> and until we get there, it's going to be hard to figure out how to get the europeans there. and you have to be cautious to quote a former fed chairman if the capital markets march tufe london. >> you're right. we're not going to let that happen, and i think i am reasonably encouraged that the point that we're going to be able to prevent that, but we're working very hard at it and part of it is making sure that where we can, we have alignment here at home. and you're right that if we're off here, it's hard to get the world to come to a common standard but you're right to emphasize that we care about it as much as you do and we are working to the same objective. >> thank you, secretary. >> thank you, mr. roice. ms. walker? >> thank you very much. mr. geithner, we are delighted to have you here with us again today. i would like to draw your attention to something that is going on in this country that i think is extremely important and needs to be addressed or recognized. there's an occupation on wall street in new york that's taking place by protesters and the protesters are growing every day. today near washington, d.c., we have an organized protest. los angeles, they have set up camps on city hall steps and in many other cities across the country. they are basically resiting their concerns. they are very concerned that 1% of rich americans do not pay their fair share of taxes. they are really concerned about the banks we bailed out. the too big to fail banks that we bailed out that are not reinvesting in this country with small businesses and they are not giving mortgages and modifying mortgages. and in addition to that, they talk about the $1 trillion that the feds used to bail out banks and other well-collected businesses and institutions. they are really agitated about the bank of america announcing that they are going to charge a $5 monthly fee for these debit cards. citibank has announced it's going to charge up to $20 a month for checking accounts. they are saying no one has gone to jail as a result of causing the financial crisis. what do you say? have you said anything about the protesters? do you support them? do you recognize them? do they have a real beef here? you're the treasurer, and i'm not just saying they are angry at you, but you represent the money systems of our government. so what have you said about the protests? do you support them? >> i've been asked about this several times in the last couple days and i was in new york on tuesday and i'll tell you what i said in response to those questions which was i think you see reflection there like you see across the country a deep sense of concern about the fact that we have 9 million americans out of work and we have seen a huge increase in inequality and a huge flies poverty and 40% of americans born today are born to families eligible for medicaid. one in eight americans are eligible for food stamps today. you've seen a dramatic change deterioration in people's confidence in this political system to do a job for the middle class families. we're still living with the scars of the generation and i think that's why it's important, so important that we are working to improve confidence not just in the quality of public institutions, the safe guards we provide and protections we provide in the financial system but also so we can provide congress with ways of doing things now. and if congress does not act this fuel do things to help get more americans back to work, then you're going to be causing much more damage to an economy. >> i don't want to interrupt you, but some of us have been wondering for a long time, what are you saying about principle write zphoun that's a big issue in this debate. what can you do to get banks and the financial institutions that cause this subprime meltdown to do something about keeping you know what i mean their homes? that's a big issue. where do you stand on principle write downs? >> the programs we nut place have helped directly-indirectly about 4 million americans get their mortgages restrucktured and payments reduced significantly. as part of our programs, we have also targeted principle reduction which to be frank has had very little take-up nay part because we don't have the power to come fell biggest parts of the mortgage market. f.h.a. is prohibited by law and fannie mae and freddie mac, we can't compel them to do it have not been willing to move in that direction. but we have been supportive of it and put a fair amount of resources into it but don't have the authority come fell largest parts of -- >> i don't want the interrupt you. would you like to send a message to the protesters while you have national attention? >> i would say what i said. >> that you support them. >> we all need to do a better job of demonstrating that the responsible body for the economy today that requires congress are able to act to help get economy stronger. without that you're going to be liveing with more pain, more poverty and more insecurity about the future. >> i thank you. and congresswoman waters and secretary, i do agree with you that the demonstrators probably ought to be demonstrating in front of congress and the white house and the secretary over treasury, maybe they have misdirected their protests at the wrong city. >> i didn't imply that. [laughter] >> but i'm sure the banks will appreciate it. >> i was talking about all these job-killing regulations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary. i noticed in your testimony you working a reference to the president's latest economic plan where you speak about the tax relief, i do think it's important from one perspective, according to the job creators i speak to in the fifth congressional district of texas, number one, when you combine tax relief with permanent tax increase on the other end, you're unlikely to create too many jobs and at the same time i would point out that the payroll tax relief in the president's plan, although perhaps could be mayor toreous in a certain contract to deal with the insolvent as i by barring from the payroll tax for this program, you are frankly hastening the bankruptcy of programs that we already know are going bankrupt for our seniors, but the question i have for you is, sir, in your testimony that the president's economic plan, that would help create1 million-2 approximately jobs, my question is these are the outside economists that told us the original president's economic plan would make sure unemployment would not go past % and create 3 million to four million jobs. >> congressman, always a pleasure to debate these political questions. i knew you were looking forward to hit the way. i'll make the same argument many on your side have been making for some time. >> if congress discuss not act what happens? what happens is the taxes every person with a job in this country pays go up by roughly $1,000. at the end of this year. the taxes every business pays will go up. now what we propose to do is extend and expand those tax cuts and to tie them to long-term reforms that give people confidence we're going to go back to their planes. >> i'm curious, because i haven't seen the estimates. >> i would be happy to share them with you. >> they are in the public domain. but i would be happy to do it. there's a range of views and economists agree on everything but the broad consensus are in agreement. they are not our estimates. they are their estimates. >> unfortunately, the time is running out here, and specifically i was trying to figure out about which economists were saying this. at least when i speak to a number of small business people, i think you mentioned it in your testimony. there does seem to be a lot of uncertainty, frankly a lack of confidence. part of this does have to do with regulatory uncertainty, and i do know there's been a dizzying array of rule making that needs take place of which fsoc certainly has frankly a fair amount of oversight. as i understand it, we have had 64 new rules have been finalized and 126 declines have been missed and i'm not actually trying to enscribe blame. i would rather it get done right than quickly. we still have another 110 rules to come, as i understand it. and i guess the question i have is, there's there still appears to be so much lack of specificity and certainty within a lot of the community financial institutions i speak to. what is it that fsoc can do to move this particular process forward? because i believe, again, it is the uncertainty of the rulemaking process and frank thirty certainty of bad rules that is inhibiting a lot of our job creators today. >> i disagree with you but i'll respond the following way. if you talk to community banks across the country as i do. most of them will say they recognize that they were largely and almost completely left out of in the dodd frank act. but they are concerned they're under too much pressure from examiners to tighten beyond what they think is necessary. they don't complain about the regulatory frame work. as you know the people who work support the bill and they are privileged in many ways but say the concern is getting all the heat from the examiners it's hard to justify that examiners are trying to do their job. >> we're running out of time but it's clear we're speaking to a different universe of community bankers but i appreciate your testimony and yield back. >> i thank gentle woman miss maloney. >> first of all, i'd like to say thank you mr. secretary for your service. you probably understand more than anyone how close we came to a total collapse in 2008, and your leadership has been a great part of helping us to dig out of that challenge. i also want to join the comments of our ranking member who said that the -- was a gift from the other body. but a gift from this committee and that congress on this side of the aisle was the card act. the credit card holders bill of rights, and in that they had many of the principles of dodd frank and transparency and level playing field and really making life better for the working men and women in our country. it stopped many of the most abusive practices such as raising rates at any time for any reason troth actively mandatory were not following these deceptive practices but others were and the report that came out recently from the puge foundation said this bill alone saved consumers over $10 billion last year. so this is an effort that the president signed into law that you championed and many members of this committee on both sides of the i'll -- both sides of the aisle championed. and i swoovent to say thank you for that. yesterday i was in new york and i met with some of the protesters and they were angry, and i can understand their anger. they were angry about what happened to them financially and their prospects for the future. my question to you would be what would you say to the protesters if they were camped out in this room today about what has happened to them, what have we done to change their prospects for the future? what is this -- has this fsoc report said to the possibilities of the snuche certainly stabilizing our markets, bringing in things that prep their work and future is something that's really important and i want to share with my colleagues, many of whom treat dodd-frank like it was a horrible thing. i call that mentality, let's forget that the financial crisis never happened. when president obama came to wall street, and spoke to wall street, it was the day after the senate vote. and he pulled out a press clipping and he said i want to read this to you. and he said it passed out of the senate yesterday, and many leaders in the financial industry were agasp, they thought this was going to be the ending of the capitalist system of the opportunity to grow and expand c

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Canada ,Japan ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,Alaska ,Turkey ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,China ,Illinois ,Portugal ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Pakistan ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Cairo ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Iraq ,India ,Israel ,Durban ,Kwazulu Natal ,South Africa ,Pennsylvania ,Ireland ,Capitol Hill ,South Korea ,France ,Italy ,Greece ,Americans ,America ,Chinese ,Afghans ,Pakistani ,American ,Henry Kissinger ,Matt Spetalnick ,Joe Biden ,James Garfield ,Ronald Reagan ,Jim Baker ,Billy Brennan ,Rick Perry ,David Davis ,Dodd Frank ,Harry Truman ,Charles Schumer ,Al Qaeda ,Herman Cain ,Dick Cheney ,John Boehner ,Freddie Mac ,Mary Shapiro ,Warren Buffett ,Eric Cantor ,Los Angeles ,Candice Miller ,Tim Geithner ,Martin Luther King Jr ,John Paul Stevens ,Brian Williams ,Jimmy Carter ,Mary Lou ,George W Bush ,Erick Kanter ,Sarah Palin ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Barack Obama John Maynard ,Richard Nixon ,Franklin Roosevelt ,