[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the ladies and gentlemen, our president of the united states. >> good evening. please be seated. before i take your questions, i

want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we are making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our a broader economic strategy for the six months ago i took office amid the worst recession in half a century. we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse. as a result of the actions we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brank. we took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market and we passed the recovery act that has already saved jobs and created new ones, delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off. of course we still have a long way to go. the recovery act will continue to create more jobs over the next two years just like it was designed to do. i realize this is no comfort to those americans who are currently out of court and i

will be honest with you. the new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession. the fact is even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for those folks of the very top of not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of america. it is an economy that simply wasn't ready to compete in the 21st century and one where we have been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries where we have watched our graduation lag behind and where we spent much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it. that is why i have said even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before and health insurance reform is central to that effort. this is not just about the 47 million americans who don't have any health insurance at all. reform is about every american who has ever feared they may

lose their coverage if they become too sick or lose their job or change their job. it is about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. it is about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of medicare and medicaid. let me be clear. if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. if we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. if we don't act, 14,000 americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. these are the consequences of inaction. these are the stakes of the debate we are having right now. i realize that with all the charges and criticisms being thrown around in washington, a lot of americans may be wondering what is in this for me? how does my family stand to

benefit from health insurance reform? tonight i want to answer those questions because even though congress is still working through a few key issues we already have gruff agreement on the following areas. if you have health insurance, the reform we are proposing will provide more security and more stability and will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you are happy with it. it will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick and it will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move or change your job you will still be able to have coverage. it will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for medical costs out of your own pocket and will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money. now, if you don't have health insurance or you are a small business looking to cover your employees you will be able to choose a quality, affordable

health plan through health insurance exchange, a marketplace that promotes choice and competition. finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a preexisting medical condition. i have also pledged reform will not add toward deficit over the next decade and i mean it. in the past eight years we saw the enactment of to tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest americans and the medicare prescription program, none of which were paid for and that is partly why i inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. that will not happen with health insurance reform. it will be paid for. already we have estimated two-thirds of the cost of reform can be paid for by reallocating money that is simply being wasted in federal health care programs. this includes over $100 billion on wanted subsidies that go to insurance companies part of medicare, subsidies that do nothing to improve care for seniors and i am pleased that congress has already embraced these proposals. well there currently working to

a proposal to finance the remaining costs i continue to insist that health reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families. in addition to making sure this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short term, the bill einstein must also slow the growth of health care costs in the long run. our proposals will change the senate's of doctors and nurses are free to give patients the best care, just not the most expensive care. that is why the nation's largest organizations representing doctors and nurses have embraced our plan. we also want to create an independent group of doctors and experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in medicare on an annual basis, a proposal that could save even more money and ensure long-term financial health for medicare. overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors and save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, which is why the aarp has read-- endorsed our

efforts. not all the measures i mentioned were contained in congress is drafting legislation that we are now seeing broad agreement thanks to the work that has been done over the last few days so even though we have a few issues to work out, what is remarkable at this point is not how far we have left to go, it is how far we have already come. i understand how easy it is for this town to become consumed in the name of politics, to turn every issue into running tally of who's up and who's down. i have heard the one republican strategist tell us party even though they may want to pollack-- to go for the kill. another republican senator that defeating health care reform is about breaking me. so let me be clear. this is about me. i have great health insurance and so does every member of congress. if this debate is about the letters i read when i sit in oval office every day and the stories i hear at town hall meetings. this is about the woman in colorado who pays $700 a month

to her insurance company only to find out that when pay a dime for cancer treatment it had used up her retirement funds to save her own life. it is about the middle-class college graduate from maryland his health insurance expired 20 change jobs and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt. this is about every family, every business and every taxpayer who continues to shoulder the burden of a problem that washington has failed to solve for decades. this debate is not a game for these americans and can afford to wait any longer for reform. they are counting on us to get this done other looking to us for leadership and we can't let them down. we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage every american can count on and we will do it this year. with that i will take your questions. and, we are going to start off with the then feller with "associated press."

>> thank you mr. president. congress as you alluded to is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. have you told house and senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? if so are you willing to share that standard with the american people and if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to, are you willing to explain why do you are not stepping in to get a deal done since you are the ones setting the deadline? >> well, before we talk about how to pay for it, let's talk about what exactly needs to be done, and the reason i want to emphasize this is because there has been a lot of misinformation out there. right now premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last ten years. they have gone up three times faster than wages so what we know is that if the current trends continue, more and more families will lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they

keep their health care but it takes a bigger bite out of their budget. employers are going to put more cost on the employee or just stop providing health care altogether. we also know what health care inflation on the curve it is on we are guaranteed to see medicare and medicaid basically break the federal budget. and, we know we are spending on average, we hear in the united states are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries, where they are just as healthy, and i have said this before. if you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you would want to figure out how to get that deal. and that is what reform is all about, how can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for health care dollar? now, what we did very early on wednesday two-thirds of the cost of health care reform, which includes providing coverage for people who don't have it, making

it more affordable for folks to do and making sure that we are over the long term creating the kinds of systems were prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient, that the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it has got to be deficit neutral. we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now, so taxpayers are already putting this money into the kitty. the problem is they are not getting a deal for the money they are spending. that takes care of two-thirds of the cost. the remaining one-third is what the argument has been about of late. what i have said is that there may be a number of different ways to raise money. i put forward what i thought was the best proposal, which was to limit the deductions, the itemized deductions for the wealthiest americans, people like myself could take the same percentage deduction that

middle-class families do, and that would raise sufficient funds for the final one-third. now, so far, we haven't seen any bills a top that. there are other ideas that are out there. i continue to think my idea is the best one, but i am not foreclosing some of these other ideas as the committees are working them through. the one commitment i have been clear about is, i don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy, and so if i see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing, middle-class families, i am going to be opposed to that because i think there are better ideas to do it. now, i have not yet seen what the senate finance committee is producing productive than the number of ideas that we have not seen the final draft.

the house suggested a surcharge on wealthy americans, and my understanding although i have not seen the final versions, there is talk about making that basically only apply to families whose joint income is $1 million. to me, that meets my principle that it has not been shouldered by families who are already having a tough time. what i want to do is to see what emerges from these committees, continuing to work to find more savings because i actually think it is possible for us to fund more of this process to identifying waste in the system, try to narrow as much as possible the revenue needed on the front end and then see how we can piece this thing together in a way that is acceptable to both democrats and i hope republicans. absolutely it is my job. i am the president, and i think this has to get done. just a broader point, if

somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next ten years, that is guaranteed to result in more americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, i think most people would be opposed to it. that is the status quo. that is what we have right now, so if we don't change, we can expect a different result. that is why i think this is so important, not only for those families out there who are struggling and you need some protection from abuses of the insurance company or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it is also important for our economy and by the way it is important for families wages and incomes. one of the things that does not yet talked about is the fact

that when premiums are going up and the cost to employers are going up, that is money that could be going into people's wages and incomes and over the last decade we basically saw middle-class families, their incomes and wages flatlined. part of the reason is because health care costs are gobbling that up and that is why i say, even if we don't reduce our health care costs by the $6,000 that we are paying more than any other country on earth, if we just reduced it by two or 3,000 that would mean money in people's pockets and that is possible to do, but we are going to have to make some changes. we have got to change how health care is delivered into the health care dissolute-- so that doctors are being paid for the quality of care and not the quantity of care. we have got to make information technology more effective. we have got to have the medical system work in teams so that

people don't go through five different tests. those are all critical to do and we can do them. i understand people are feeling uncertain about this. they feel anxious partly because we have become so cynical about what government can accomplish. people's attitudes are, you know, even though i don't like this, at least i know it and i would like to have more that i don't know so folks are skeptical. that is entirely legitimate because they have not seen a lot of laws coming out of washington lately that have helped them. but, my hope is, and i am confident that when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they are going to say we can make this happen. we have made big changes before that and up resulting in a better life for the american people. david alexander of reuters.

>> thank you mr. president. you have been pushing congress to pass health care reform by august. why the rush? are you worried that if you don't, there is a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse? >> a couple of points. number one, i am rushed because i get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. and they ask me, can you help. i have got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say our daughter just found out she is that leukemia, and if i don't do something soon, we just r.e. they are going to go bankrupt or we are not going to be able to provide their daughter with the care that she needs. and, in a country like ours, that is not right. so that is part of my rush. the second thing is the fact that, if you don't set deadlines

in this town, things don't happen. the default position is inertia, because doing something always creates some people who are unhappy. there is always going to be some interest out there that decides, you know what? the status quo is working for me a little bit better, and the fact that we have made so much progress, where we have got doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, aarp, saying that this makes sense to do, i think means that the stars are lined and we need to take advantage of that. now, i do think it is important to get this right. and, if at the end of the day i do not yet see that we have it right, then i am not going to sign a bill that for example ed

store deficit. i won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care inflation, so that families as well as government are saving money. i am not going to sign a bill that i don't think will work, and my measure of whether things work or not our listening to the american people but also listening to health care experts, who have shown that in some communities, health care is cheaper and delivers a better result. i think we can achieve it so i am confident that if we just keep at it, we keep working, we are diligent, we are on this, if we take criticisms that are out there, and modify whatever plans are already working through congress so that it meets those concerns and those criticisms, that we can arrive at a bill that is going to improve the lives of the american people. i will give you one specific

example. i think there was legitimate concern that we have not incorporated all of the measures that could reduce health care inflation over the long term. in some of the versions of health care reform that were coming out of committee. over the last week, working with not only health care experts but also members of congress who are concerned about this, we actually have now got a commitment to incorporate an idea that has a panel of doctors and health care experts advising on how we can get a better value for our money in medicare. and, every expert out there says this can be a valuable tool to start reducing inflation over the long term. so, can i say this though? if we hadn't had any kind of deadline, that change probably would have never surfaced until

who knows when. and, so, i want to do this right, but the american people need some relief. chuck todd. >> thank you our. where just talking on that question about reducing health care inflation, reducing costs. can you explain how you are going to expand coverage? is it fair to say, is this bill going to cover all 47 million americans who are uninsured or is it going to take a mandate? is this something, your bill is probably not going to get it all the way there and if it is not going to get all the way there, how far is enough? 20 million mark, i can sign that, 10 million more i can't. >> now, the truth is that unless you have what is called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically

covered, then you are probably not going to reach every single individual because there is always going to be somebody out there who thinks they are indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care and then unfortunately when they get hit by a bus and end up in the emergency room, the rest of us have to pay for it. that is not the overwhelming majority of americans. the overwhelming majority of americans want health care but millions of them can afford it, so the plan that has been, that i put forward and that we are seeing in congress would cover the estimates are at least 97 to 98% of americans. there might still be people left out there who, even though there is an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not getting it, war despite a lot of subsidies are still in such dire straits and that it is still hard for them to afford it and we may end up

giving them some sort of hardship exemption. i am sorry, go ahead. so, i think that's the basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care you should be able to get affordable health care, and given the ways that is already in the system right now, if we just to redesign certain elements of health care, then we can pay for it. we can pay for it in the short term but we can also pay for it in along term and in fact there is going to be a whole lot of savings that we obtain from that because for example, the average american family is paying thousands of dollars in hidden costs in their insurance premiums to pay for what is called uncompensated care. people the show up at the emergency room because they don't have a primary care physician. if we can get those people insured, and instead of having a

foot amputation because of advanced diabetes, they are getting a nutritionist who was working with them to make sure that they are keeping their diet where it needs to be. that is going to save us all money in the long term. >> you mentioned to republicans in your opening statement, but you have 60 democratic seats, healthy majority in the house for goeth you don't get this, isn't this a fight inside the democratic party and republicans really aren't playing? you can't blame the republicans for this one. >> first of all, you have not seen me out there blaming the republicans. i have been a little frustrated by some of the misinformation that has been coming out of the republicans, but that has to do with as you pointed out, politics. if you have got somebody out there saying, not let's get the best bill possible but instead says, let's try to beat this so

we can gain political of advantage, well, that is not i think what the american people expect. i am very appreciative that people like chuck grassley on the finance committee in the senate, people like mike enzi, people like alexius know have been serious and engaging democrats in trying to figure out how do we action get a system that works, and even in those committees were you did not see republican votes we have seen republican ideas so for example in the health committee in the senate, 160 republican amendments were adopted into the bill because they have got good ideas to contribute so the politics may dictate that they don't vote for health care reform because they think you know, it will make obama more vulnerable. but, they have got a good idea we will still take it and in terms of democrats, the fact of

the matter is that, because this is a big issue i think that a lot of democrats have a lot of different ideas. some of them have to do with regional disparities. for example you have got some democrats who are concerned that the medicare reimbursement rates and their communities are too low, so they would like to see the bill incorporates higher rates for doctors and providers in rural communities to incentivize good care and those communities. that is a legitimate concern but the minute you bring up that concern, that adds money which means we then have to find additional dollars. so, this is part of the normal give-and-take of the legislative process. i am confident in the end we will have a bill that democrats and some republicans support. jake. >> thank you mr. president. you said earlier that you want to tell the american people what

is in it for them, how will their families benefit from health care reform but experts say in addition to the benefits you were pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures such as americans giving up tasks, referrals, choice and end of life care. when you describe health care reform you don't understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices americans have to make. do you accept the premise that, other than some tax increases on the wealthiest americans, the american people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen? >> they are going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. and, speaking as an american i think that is the kind of change you want. look, if right now hospitals and doctors aren't coordinating and of to have you just take one

test when you come in because of an illness, but instead have you take one test, then you go to another specialist and take a another test, then you take a third test and nobody is bothering to send the first test, the same test, to the next doctors. you are wasting money. you may not see it because if you have health insurance right now, it is just being sent to the insurance company but that is raising your premiums, that is raising everybody's premiums. that money one way or another is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that because there are tax breaks for health care. so, not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it is also costing you as a taxpayer. i want to change that. every american should want to change that. why would we want to pay for things that don't work that are not making us healthier? and come here is what i am

confident about. if doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they are going to want to pay for what works. if there is a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that is going to make you well? the system right now doesn't incentivize that. those are the changes that are going to be needed, that we are going to need to make inside the system. it will require i think patients to, as well as doctors, as well as hospitals, to be more discriminating consumers. but i think that is a good thing, because ultimately we can't afford this. we just can't afford what we are doing right now.

and, just to raise a broader issue, that i think has how we look at health care reform, let me just talk about deficit and debt, because part of what has been happening in this debate is the american people are understandably queasy about the huge deficits and debt we are facing right now. and, the feeling is, alright, we have the bank bailout. we have the recovery package. we have the supplemental. we have got the budget. we ours the numbers, trillionth here in trillionth there's a legitimately people are saying look, we are in recession. i am having to give up things and yet all they see as government spending more and more money. that argument i think it's been used effectively by people who don't want to change health

care, to suggest that somehow this is one more government programs so i just want to address that point very quickly. first of all, let's understand that when i came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. we had to immediately move forward with a stimulus package because the american economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth. consumers have lost their their 401(k)'s, through their home values, you name it, they have lost trillions of dollars. that all just went away. that was the day i was sworn in, it was already happening. we had 700,000 dolleck-- 700,000 jobs being lost. we felt it was important put

together a recovery package that would help stabilize the economy. then we passed the budget by law, and our budget at a ten year projection, and i just want everybody to be clear about this, if we had done nothing, if you have the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget he would have been $9.3 trillion deficit over the next ten years. because of the changes we have made, it is going to be 7.1 trillion. that is not good, but it is $2.2 trillion less than it would have then if we have the same policies in place when we came in. so, the reason i point this out is to say that the debt and the deficit our deep concern of mine. i am very worried about federal spending. and, the steps that we have

taken so far have reduce federal spending over the next ten years by $2.2 trillion. it is not enough, but in order for us to do more, we are not only going to have to eliminate waste in the system and by the way we have a big victory yesterday by eliminating a weapons program, the f-22 that the pentagon had repeatedly said we didn't need so we are going to have to eliminate waste there. we are going to have to eliminate no-bid contracts. we are going to have to do all kinds of reforms in our budget but we are also going to have to change health care. otherwise we can't close that $7.1 trillion gap in the way the american people want it to change. so, to everybody who is out there who has been ginned up about this idea that the obama administration wants to spend and spend and spend the fact of the matter is that we inherited an enormous deficit, enormous

long-term debt projections. we have not reduced it as much as we need to end as i would like to, but health care reform is not going to add to that deficit. it is designed to lower it. that is part of the reason why it is so important to do and to do now. chipper read. >> thank you mr. president. on medicare, they are obviously millions of americans who depend on medicare, and when you talk about ending the long term cost them or when you talk about cuts in the current proposal on capitol hill, you talk about cuts in medicare or they talk about cuts in medicare but there never many specifics. specifically what kind of thing, what kind of sacrifice are you calling on beneficiaries to make and even if not right away our future beneficiaries going to be getting less generous benefits than today? and what you think about taking it out of the political realm and giving it to an outside body

of experts to take it out of health care? >> that is what our proposal is. it is called the medpac program. by the way it was originally a republican idea. i want to give credit where credit is due. the republican congress passed a bill that created a panel of health care experts to make recommendations to congress on how we could get better quality, lower costs. the problem is every year it would just go on the shelf and nobody would act on it, so what we have said is, let's give that body some power. let's require congress to vote on the proposals they are making every year. congress can still reject it, so does not completely removing it from politics, but they have to reject or accept it as a package and that i think what incentivize and empower important changes, but here's

the thing i want to emphasize. it is not going to reduce medicare benefits. what is going to do is to change of those benefits are delivered, so that they are more efficient. let me give you a theories that the example. you have heard that there is a consequence of our efforts of reform, the pharmaceutical industry has already said they are willing to put $80 billion on the table. why is that? the reason is, is because there is probably more waste than $80 billion in terms of how the drug plan and medicare is administered. we might be able to get $100 billion of debt or more, but the pharmaceutical industry voluntarily said here the $80 billion. do you know what that means? that mean senior citizens who right now have a so-called donut hole in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on

prescription drugs, suddenly they drop off the cliff and they have got to pocket the entire cost. so they half of that is filled. that is a hard commitment that we already have, so that is the change in how we are delivering medicare, but do you know what? it turns out it means out-of-pocket savings for seniors. that is why aarp has endorsed us. christie parson. >> you promised health care negotiations would take place on c-span and that has not happened. nord ministries and recently turned down a request from a watchdog group seeking a list of health care executives who visited the white us to talk about health care reform. also, the t.a.r.p. inspector general recently said your white house of withhold and to much information on the bank bailout so my question for you is are you fulfilling a promise of transparency and the white house? >> on the list of health care executives who visited us, most

of the time you guys have been in there taking pictures though it has not been a secret and my understanding is we sent a letter out providing a full list of all the executives, but frankly these have mostly been at least photos phrase for you could see who was participating. with respect to while the negotiations not being on c-span, you will recall in this very room that our kickoff event was here on c-span, and at a certain point, you know you start getting into all kinds of different meetings, the senate finance is having a meeting, the house is having a meeting. if they want this to be on c-span, then i would welcome it. i don't think there are a lot of secrets going on in there. and, the last question with respect to t.a.r.p.. let me take a look at what exactly they say we have not provided. i think that we have provided

much greater transparency then existed prior to our administration coming in. it is a big program. i don't know exactly what has been requested. i will find out and i will have answered for you. >> thank you mr. president. you have said the recent bank profits indicate there has been no sense of remorse on wall street for risky behavior and we haven't seen a change in culture there. do you think that your administration needs to be taking a harder line with wall street and also, would you consider going a step further than your regulatory reform proposals and supporting a fee on risky activities that go beyond traditional lending? >> we were on the verge of a complete financial meltdown.

and, the reason was because wall street took extraordinary risks with other people's money. they were peddling loans that they knew could never be paid back. they were flipping those loans and leveraging those loans and higher and higher mountains of debt were being built on loans that were fundamentally unsound. and, all of us now are paying the price. now, i believe it was the right thing to do. as unpopular as it is, it was the right thing for us to do to step in to make sure that the financial system did not collapse, because things would be even worse today that the steps not been taken. it originated under the bush administration. we continue it, because, with your on the left of the right if you talk to economists, they said that this could have the kinds of consequences that would

drop this into a deep depression and not simply a very severe recession. now, one of these success stories of the past six months is that we really have seen a stabilization in the financial system. it is not where it needs to be, but people are no longer talking about the financial system falling off a cliff. we have stepped away from the brink and that is important because what it means is there are a lot of companies right now that can go into the marketplace and borrow money to fund inventory from payroll and that will help the economy grow as a whole. the problem is, now that the financial system has bounced back, what you are saying is banks are starting to make profits again. some of them have paid back the t.a.r.p. money that they received, the bank bailout money that they have received and we expect more of them to pay this back.

that is a good thing and we also think it is a good thing that their profitable because of their profitable that means they have reserves in place and they can lend. this is america, so if you are profitable in the free market system, then you benefit. but, what we haven't seen i think it's the kind of change in behavior and practices on wall street that would ensure that we don't find ourselves in the fix again where we have got to bailout these folks and while they are taking huge risks, and taking huge bonuses. so, what do i think we need to do? we have got to pass the financial regulatory reform, and you know this is an example of where folks say, should the obama administration be taking on too much? the fact of the matter is that if we don't pass financial regulatory reform, then banks

are going to go back to the same things that they were doing before. in some ways it could be worse because now they know that the federal government may think they are too big to fail, so if they are unconstrained they can take even more risks. so, there are a number of elements of financial regulatory reform. with respect to compensation i would like to think that people would feel a little remorse and feel embarrassed and would not get multimillion-dollar bonuses, but if shane does not work, then i think one proposal that i put forward is to make sure at least shareholders of these companies know what their executives are being compensated, and that may force some reductions. for banks that are still receiving taxpayer assistance, we have a set of rules that give sessom control on reducing the

unwarranted compensation and in terms of the last point you made, which is the possibility of these four transactions that we want to discourage, that is one of the ideas that is going to be working its way through the process. i think it minimum, what we want to do is to make sure that, to the extent the federal government is going to have to be a backstop, just like the federal deposit insurance corp., everybody is familiar with the fdic, when you put your deposit in your bank you have confidence that they are insured, that is paid for by bank fees. we need to make sure that there's a similar mechanism in place for some of these other far out transactions, so if you guys want to do them, then you have got to put something into the kitty to make sure that if you screw up is not taxpayer dollars that have to pay for it, but dollars coming out of your

pockets. steve kaufman of the cleveland plain view. >> thank you. to follow up on jake's question earlier star. so many americans are concerned that this plan particularly the public option which lead to reduced benefits are reduced coverage, to questions. one, can you guarantee this legislation wheel lock again, so the government will never deny any services that will be decided by the doctor and patient, the government will then not deny coverage and secondarily can you as the symbolic gestures say that you and the congress will abide by the same benefits and the public option? >> well, number one, not only the public option but the insurance regulation that we want to put into place will largely matched up with what members of congress are getting through the federal employee plan. that is a good example of what we are trying to build for the american people. the same thing that congress

enjoys, which is they go, there is a marketplace of different plans that they can access, depending on what is best for their families. one of the plan that we have talked about is a public option in part of the reason we want to have a public option is to help keep the insurance companies on the speak with the insurance companies are providing good care and as it is they are going to be more regulated so they can't deny you care because of a preexisting condition or because you change jobs or they decided you were too sick and not a good risk. with regulation, there is already going to be improvement in the insurance industry. but, having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative cost that you can get an even better deal, that is going to incentivize the private sector to do even better and that is a good thing. that is a good thing. you know, there have been

reports in just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits right now, at a time when everyone is getting hammered. they are making record profits and premiums are going up. what is the constraint on them? how can you ensure that those costs aren't being passed on to employers or passed on to employees? the american people, ordinary middle-class families and the way that overtime is going to make them broke? part of the ways to make sure there is some competition now there's so that is the idea. now come to get your original question, can i guarantee that they are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? no. the whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the american people and make them healthier.

the government already is making some of these decisions. more importantly, insurance companies right now are making those decisions in part of what we want to do is make sure those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works because that is not how it is working right now. that is not have this working now. right now doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that is out there, so if they are looking and you come in and you have got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, i make a lot more money if i take this kids tonsils out. that may be the right thing to do. but, i would rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kids tonsils out whether it might make more sense

just to change, maybe they have allergies, and maybe they have something else that would make a difference. partum webley want to do is to free doctors, patients, hospitals to make decisions based on what is best for patient care and that is the whole idea behind mayo. that is the whole idea behind the cleveland clinic. i am going to be visiting your hometown's mall to go to the cleveland clinic, to show why their system works so well in part of the reason it works well is because they have set up a system where patient care is the number one concern, not bureaucracy, what forms have to be filled up, what do we get reimbursed for. those are changes i think the american people want to see. [inaudible] >> you know, i would be happy to abide by the same benefit package. i will be honest with you.

i am the president of the united states so i have a doctor following me every minute, which is why i say this is not about me. i have got the best health care in the world. i am trying to make sure that everybody has good health care and they don't right now. lynn sweet. [laughter] i said steve, but he just stood up. that is not fair. shame on you. gideon there real quick. >> i appreciate that. you cited the mayo clinic in the cleveland clinic's as models for the delivery of health care. the mayo clinic though has problems with house proposals, saying they don't focus enough on patients and results. what to expect to achieve tomorrow by going to the cleveland clinic and r.e. expecting some form of the endorsement from the cleveland clinic? >> i am not expecting an

endorsement. the cleveland clinic is simply a role model for some of the kinds of changes that we want to see. i think it is important to note that the mayo clinic was initially critical and concerned about whether there were and of changes in the delivery system and cost-saving measures in the original house bill. after they found out we had put forward very specific mechanisms for this medpac idea, this idea of experts getting the politics out of health care in making decisions based on the best evidence out there, they wrote in their blog the very next day that we actually think this would make a difference. alright, i try to make that short savitt lynn sweet would last question in. >> thank you mr. president a we usually professor henry jr. was arrested at his home in cambridge. what this that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in america?

>> i should say at the outset that skip gates is a friend, so i may be little biased here. i don't know all the facts. what has been reported though is that the guy forgot his keys. he jimmy his way to get into the house. there was a report called then to the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. so far, so good. if i was trying to-- i did guess this is my house now. [laughter] let's say my old house in chicago. here i would get shot. [laughter] but, so far so good. they are reporting, the police are doing what they should and there's a call in date investigate what happens. my understanding is, at that point, professor gates is already in his house.

the police officer comes then. i am sure there is some exchange of words, but my understanding is that professor gates then shows his id to showbiz is his house. let that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, the charges which are later dropped. now, i don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role phrase played in that, but i think it's fair to say no. one any of us would be pretty angry. number two, that the cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proved that they were in their own home. and number three, what i think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of african-americans and latinos

being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. that is just the fact. as you know liane, when i was in the state legislature in illinois we worked on the racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and hispanics were being stopped disproportionately, and that is a sign, an example of how you know, the race remains a factor in this society. that does not lessen the incredible progress that has been made. i am standing here as testimony to the progress that has been made and yet, the fact of the matter is that this still haunts us, and even when they are honest misunderstandings, the facts that blacks and hispanics are picked up more frequently and often time for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause and that is why i think the more we are working

with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we are eliminating potential bias, the safe for everybody is going to be. alright? thank you everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> president obama spending about 54 minutes with reporters tonight in the east room of the white house. questions from nine separate news organizations and lots of health care headlines out there tonight. on the web and elsewhere, we want to take your calls on the health care issue. just about the whole news conference was on health care. democrats, republicans 202-73-7001 independents 20262805. we will do this for maybe 50 minutes or so and then we will hear from the republican leaders of the house and senate on health care issue. ..

now on the news conference, carroll county maryland, you are up first. judith on the democrats' line. what did you think? >> caller: i think that president obama is right on. we desperately need health care

reform. i know i have a cobra plan right now i pay $600 a month, and i can not afford it because i am out of work. so all of my savings are going into keeping my health care coverage, and i need an alternative. >> host: caller, what about the debate to pay for this, whatever it is? what is your sense on that part of the debate? >> caller: having worked in mental health for many years i know if there is a tremendous amount of waste in the health care system now that should certainly be looked at closely. and i tend to favor the surcharge on people earning over $350,000 a year to help pay for it. >> host: let's hear from the republican line now. st. augustine, florida, is it to truit?

>> caller: that would be me. >> host: go ahead, sir. >> caller: i have been voting conservative ever since i've been born i think. however this is a time i'm going to have to be on the other side of the aisle. i have to be looking at the democratic side. president obama as health care reform and i have to say i'm very strongly in favor of it if for no other reason reading the other day we spend two and a half times as much as other industrialized nations on health care yet we are not getting any more longevity out of it and also we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have a nationalized health care program. i have too many friends and to many people who don't have health care coverage. i do, but i feel it is high time that somebody does what president obama is trying to do. >> host: continue on. omaha nebraska. jim, you are on the independent line. what did you think when you heard from the president

tonight? >> caller: yes, hi, my name is jim and i have a comment on the opening statement the president had regarding what he said about the coming into -- personal -- and [inaudible] >> host: caller, are you still there? i think you lost that caller. if you want to call back we will try to get you in. amy, democrats line, thanks for reading. >> caller: yes, i just want to say thank you to the president. once again he just speaks so easy for everybody to understand. i don't know what it is that they can't or don't want to listen to him. >> host: well, what did you hear? what was your take away from this? >> caller: just that he's trying to get health care for everybody. and, you know, retired, so i

have medicare and i love my medicare and i don't abuse it. and i think single-payer but truly wonderful for everyone. >> host: more of the headlines, new york times o obama defends the biggest driving force behind deficits and must be tamed as any legislation. that's from the la times and we will get a few more as we continue to take calls. you can also send your messages and via twitter, twitter.com/c-span is the place to go. obama didn't accomplish anything except reaffirming we will be losing all trees and power in our health care decisions. next call, harold, republican line. the president will be headed to cleveland tomorrow. what did you think of what the president said? >> caller: i thought it was

horrible to tell you the truth. first obviously we pay $6,000 more in health care cost in america. of course we have a population of 2 million with a gdp of 13 million versus cuba who has 11 million people and $45 trillion or canada has 30 million people and $1.2 trillion. why would we want to be like canada and cuba? we are not a socialist country. he also said we need to ration our health care. people need to listen to what he said. what sacrifice to people have to make? he said well, maybe when you go to the doctor you are taking too many tests. maybe you don't need those three or four tests. maybe you just need to take a pill. when i go to the doctor if i've got to get three, four, ten tests i would rather be tested. sometimes i go to the doctor and have to get three or four tests

or three or four specialists that's between me and my doctor. i don't need barack obama or anybody in government telling me what type of care or how many tests i need to get. that's not america. that's cuba. that's socialism. >> host: thank you for calling. colorado, you are on the line now. rich, what did you hear from the president? >> caller: what i didn't hear, and no questions were asked of course, about the council you have to go to after you are a certain age and who decides whether you are going to get an operation and whether you will not or whether you will be allowed to die and this is part of the bill which of course nobody asked about and nobody mentioned, but it's in and this is headed up of course by rahm

and manuel, who used to teach in eastern asia and he's part of this group that wants to reduce the population. and this is part of what they are doing and nobody mentioned that. of course obama certainly is not going to. >> host: thanks for calling. the house and senate republican leaders right after the phones. we will hear what they have to say about health care today. one more tweet, obama made clear case for health care reform. we have no other option. public option is common sense to insure millions of americans. rebecca on the line for democrats. hi. your thoughts? >> caller: well, i think it is fantastic. i work for the state and i pay $571 a month for my medical insurance, that's not counting deductibles. 454 hospital, $20 for a doctor's visit not counting prescriptions and you would not believe the

medical fraga that goes on the medicare program, and it's very upsetting to me when i see that and i think he's absolutely right. if we take some of that money and distribute that way everyone can have medical insurance, affordable, where it wouldn't kill one person to carry on a family medical plan. >> host: marrec is standing by, republican caller. what do you have to say? >> caller: i think that he's still blaming bush for the deficit. i don't like his version of the health care. he wants to give my mom a pill, for what did he call it, when you get older instead of the operation he wants to give you a pill and said u.s. side. that's still in the bill, and there's a bunch of things in that bill that he talked about, and it is going to cost me more

money. i am a veteran. i have been to the va hospital when i prefer to pay for my own health care even though it costs a lot i prefer to pay for my own health care and not depend on the government to support my health care. >> host: we are waiting for two of the five committees that have been out there. senate finance waiting to make their next move. they are behind closed doors as we have read about this week trying to proceed with their part of the legislation. the house side, energy and commerce committee, henry waxman's kennedy. we hear they will not be continuing with their session tomorrow. we will find out when and if they're going to continue. new jersey is on the line, and memory. what did you hear tonight? >> caller: hello, how are you? i want to say that since the obama and the democrats took over in january i personally cannot think of one promise

they've made that they have delivered on. the thought that these people would be making life-and-death decisions regarding the health care of my children, my mother, my father, myself i can't even imagine that. and by the way, included in the uninsured that obama wants to cover are millions of illegal aliens, who he sees as future democratic voters. i would encourage anyone, even if you have never contacted your representative before, call them, e-mail them, tell them you do not want this democratic party government takeover of our health care system. >> host: thanks for calling. here's the "the washington times" headline looks like on the web, obama makes a plea for health care plan seeking to regain momentum in the increasingly troubled bush and congress for health care reform. he told the audience their future is at stake in this debate. call from illinois.

angela, democrats line. hello. >> caller: my name is angela. i am an legislative advocate and a person of disability, 46 going on 47. today i went to see an acupuncturist who refused to see me unless i had $80 cash. i on medicaid. i raised my children. my husband divorced me. i've been chronically ill for 17 years and i cannot get the care i need, but i can go and spend $100 to see my primary care physician but i can't see an acupuncturist for $80. that is a $20 savings and i woke up from a coma seven years ago. i have a great reasoning of the mind and mouthpiece as you can hear and obama was absolutely correct when he said what will americans have to give up? they will have to give up things that don't work. well, seeing my primary care physician isn't going to give me

my arms back. they are not going to help me have nerve damage taken away and severe pain. i do not take me pain medication because it makes you more sick and he's absolutely correct. if i could have seen the acupuncturist today in my community and not see my primary care i would have saved $20 each visit. to me, using my arms and being able to be on the internet and reef legislation i can't get in print, because everything is on the internet -- i am the only woman in the whole world disconnected from the universe. >> host: thanks for calling. one more tweet. i think some of the provisions of this bill or an excusable get some are more than needed. this won't be done by august. we found this on political before the conference, they wrote minutes before the news conference the president could have been asked about the issue the white house released a list of visits by healthcare executives. the secret service recently

rejected a request for the same information asserting executive privilege. it could have been an embarrassment for the president tonight. the interest group that requested the record, citizens for ethics and responsibility in washington filed suit over the denial. that is in the politico if you want to read. a couple more calls before we wrap up. the whistle virginia, republican line. go right ahead. >> caller: yes, i am actually a new doctor in primary health care, a resident doctor in primary practice and a couple of points i would like to make that are not being addressed that i see as a problem across the board. one is giving doctors the ability to practice medicine without fear of the dictation. and that is a big point that i would save money across the board. he talks about testing. well, if you work in an er facility, you are -- as a doctor

you are in fear of missing something and not running the test when obviously we are trying to find some times and if it looks like a duck and? like a duck it is probably a duck but we have to run $10,000 worth of test because we are in fear of litigation. and i think, you know, if we worked on toward reform and gave more of an ability to allow our doctors who are educated in this field to, you know, make the decision that there's probably not a reason to run $10,000 worth of tests without fear of litigation that would save huge amounts of money. >> host: one last call, rock hill california independent line. kevin, what did you think? >> caller: yes, sir, i kind of want to reiterate on what the lady that called a few minutes ago said. one is they are doing the same thing. the other day they had a meeting

and an amendment was brought up -- none of the benefits or anything would go to illegal aliens. and the same way they shot down the sessions on e-verified for the stimulus package to make sure all of these jobs created would go to the american citizens and i agree. i think it is just than trying to hold off to get the illegal aliens legalized so they can vote. >> host: if you didn't get in during the segment you have another chance in the morning washington journal starts at 7:00 eastern time as it does every day and a good chunk of the show tomorrow will be on health care as well. guests include representative eric cantor, the chief whip on 7:30. also to freshmen members of the house on health care and other major issues congressman bill

capacity, republican of louisiana and congressman jim himes, a democrat from connecticut. other programming to marlo includes a new and even into a hearing by republicans and organization known as house republican health care solutions group. that's what they're calling themselves. noon eastern c-span3 converse and blunt, john been are the minority leader will be there. eric cantor the minority whip. they will also have several other folks speaking on health care issues including a canadian patient who sought treatment here in the united states and that is noon eastern on c-span3. and for now on this network, c-span2, we will hear from the republican side of the aisle for about 15 minutes today. mitch mcconnell and john banner talked about health care. held this midafternoon prior to the president and his conference. good night, and here is a look at that.

>> hello. good afternoon, everyone. obviously the subject seems like virtually every day is health care and it certainly should be the subject. i continue to hear suggestions that members of the republican congress and the senate are not for health care. i cannot find a single member who is not for trying to improve america's health care system. most all of us agree with the american people who overwhelmingly say in the polls that they like the quality, but they are concerned about the cost and access and of course cost and access or related issues. the administration does continue to mention these on named people who seem not to want to make

progress on this and i have been unable to find anyone, not a single solitary soul as i indicated in the senate as in favor of no action. what we need to think is we ought to target the problems and there are always what to do that that could be achieved i think on a large bipartisan basis, for example why should we any longer tolerate lawsuits against doctors and hospitals? example, why would we not want to incentivize plans like the safe way plan that has demonstrated you can count the cost of health insurance by incentivizing employees to go after the preventable cause of health care problems in this country. smoking, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, lack of exercise. they have demonstrated that by

incentivizing for employees to change their behavior they could have an impact. we know that one of the reasons we have such a large number of uninsured is because if you are an individual purchasing health care it's deductible on the corporate tax return. why would we not want to equalize the tax treatment for individuals and corporations? these are the kind of things that would have a positive impact on improving the cost issue and access. i noticed that the cbo director was kind of cult down to the white house yesterday. it strikes me as somewhat to the owner of the team asking the umpires to come to the box. if the cbo is to have credibility they are the umpire. they are not players in this game and i don't think we ought to be tampering with an

organization that is arguably controlled by the majority in congress but never the less tries to function as an independent arbiter and estimator of the cost of what we do. so we look forward to being able to move a health care proposal this year on a truly bipartisan basis. one that doesn't increase the deficit. one that doesn't put the government in charge of our health care. one that doesn't produce a system that in the end delays care and in many instances demise care, and of course in order to do that they would be rationing care. i don't think the american people want any of that more should we be trying to pass it. with that but we call on my friend and colleague, leader banner. >> thank you for your work in the senate and freely your work with republican colleagues in

the house on dealing with the issues that are coming out of like a machine gun. listen, the american people want us to work together to reform health care in america so that it costs less and we can then provide better access for more americans, but i think as americans look up today what they see as a big government takeover of health care that's on the table and a plan that frankly they will support. tonight we will hear the president likely say repeat some of the myths he's been repeating the last several months. first he will say if you like your plan you can keep it but clearly under the congressional budget office estimates 23 million americans will be forced out of their private health insurance into a government-run plan and a consulting firm, health care experts estimate the number could be as high as 114 million

people. he will say that the democrats' plan will reduce health care costs in america, but it's pretty clear the director of the congressional budget office says the health care kerf not only will not decrease, that the health care curve will increase and a time we are trying to get the cost out of the system there is nothing in the proposal will reduce cost in our health care system. i don't know how you can spend $1.6 trillion over the next ten years and say that we are going to spend less on health care. the president is likely to see any plan that passes will not add to the deficit. will the congressional budget office has made clear the plan that's on the table, in the house will increase the deficit by $239 billion the next ten years. and beyond all this, the white house chief of staff this morning said that the president,

he was reviewing the president's speech when he said the president is likely to say that we have rescued the economy. i would like to ask my friends in ohio where the unemployment rate is 11.2%, whether they've been rescued by their economy and if they try to fix our health care system like they've tried to rescue our economy i think we are in really big trouble. there's time for the president to stop the plan they've been working on in the house. it's time to bring both parties together to have real health care reform that will reduce the cost of the system, reduce the cost of health insurance for americans and provide better access. >> we can take questions if there are any. >> [inaudible]

>> well, as i said earlier i am not aware of a single member of the conference, not one, who is not in favor of doing health care reform and a very positive way. and number four, one plan or another of various plans that are out so we want to do the right thing here. this isn't about the president. i think there are some who think everything is about the president. this is about the country and about a huge issue that affects all of our lives, our health and is 16% of our economy in a country of 300 million people obviously the representatives might have different points of view how to best fix the problem but this isn't about any individual. this is about the issue and taking the time to get it right

as leader boehner indicated. we had the experience with rushing a major bill this year. they said we had to get the stimulus through yesterday. with interest that's going to be about a trillion dollars. we are spending $100 million in interest a day and it was sold to those who enthusiastically embraced it as a way to keep unemployment from going about 8% now it's headed to ten and in kentucky is 10.9%. we don't need a do over of that kind of procedure. this is too important to be rushed we need to take our time and to write. >> [inaudible] >> i hate to repeat what i just said that this is about getting the policy right. this is about getting the policy right. we don't wish anyone ill. we want to get the policy right.

>> mr. boehner has frustrations that -- [inaudible] you must be satisfied -- [inaudible] >> yeah, we have plenty of discussions, but in the end the question will be how bipartisan is the product? we've had plenty of interaction with the president. i like him. he is a good man. but the test of whether or not this is a bipartisan product will be the product itself. >> leader boehner we heard speaker pelosi say today -- [inaudible] that contradicts something congressman kantor said yesterday. >> i don't know whether she has the votes or not and i am not sure she is sure if she has the votes or not but it is clear they are going to rush ahead and put this scheme on the floor as early as next week. and we need to get to look up the pieces of this puzzle. i didn't bring my chart with me, but this is a giant government

bureaucracy. yesterday i pointed out this little section in the bill requires after five years all employer provided health care plans are going to have to be approved by the department of labor and the health care choices so czar and will depend if they meet federal standards for high quality plans. are you kidding me? i mean, most employers in america are going to look up and go whoa, whoa, i will pay the 8% tax included in this bill. my employees will have to fend for themselves. this will push tens of millions of americans right out of there and we are provided health care plan. >> [inaudible]

>> listen, i don't fault the cbo director from accepting an invitation from the president of the united states to attend a meeting. i'm not sure what the purpose of the meeting or the invitation was, and so you will have to ask the white house that question but you bring up a very important point. the 249 billion-dollar deficit really is only for about five years. because it is going to take five years for this plan to be put into affect and so when you look at the cost of this plan it is not just the $1.6 trillion. it is going to be a whole lot more than that over a ten year period because as the cbo pointed out when you get into the seven, eight, nine years you get annual costs over $200 billion a year as a matter of fact i think in the year nine or tenet is $230 billion per year and that is in today's dollars and government

estimates. can you imagine what it's really going to cost when we get out ten years? you're talking about 300 billion in additional outlays and clearly the tax increases they have our bad enough but will not be anywhere close enough to cover the cost. >> [inaudible] >> what to do what? >> [inaudible] >> well, before we get to the issue have to pay for it we need to see what we are doing and as far as i know, other than the help committee bill, which was on paid for they just structured the bill and left the pay to the senate on am not prepared to

strike out the pay-fors. >> thanks. ..

the the senate judiciary committee is scheduled to vote next week on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the u.s. supreme court. to republican senators announced wednesday how they will vote on the nomination. lindsay graham said he will support the nomination. jon kyl says he will oppose it. this is a half-hour. >> mr. president every american should be proud that an hispanic

woman, one with a very impressive background has been nominated for the supreme court. in evaluating and nominee it is important is that they beat them all aspects of the individual's career and his or her merits as the judge should not make judgments on the basis of gender or ethnicity. it starts with the judge's decisions and opinions. also important to understanding what an individual really thinks about things are speeches, writings and associations. judge sotomayor's most widely known speeches of course are wise latina woman speech, given the various-- over the years. it is clear that the coffin quoted phrase is not the comment out of context but the essence of those speeches. her's central theme of these beaches was to examine whether gender and ethnicity judges a decision. judge sotomayor concludes that they do, that it is unavoidable. to develop this theme throughout her speech, including extending

opposing arguments and examining evidence that suggests that the and gender makes a difference. she then quotes former justice unsent standard the o'connors statement and in effect saying that she is not so sure. that is when she says that-- >> this senate will be in order. the senator from arizona. >> that is when she says she thinks it wise latino would reach a better decision. her attempt to recharacterize these speeches of the committee hearing strained credulity. i will address this issue at greater length during the confirmation debate. suffice it to say i remain unconvinced judge sotomayor believes judges said set aside these places including those based on race and gender and render the law the impartial and neutral. judge sotomayor's address to the peurto rican aco untitle hell federal judges look to law than under article vi of the constitution also raises red

flags. in this beach judge sotomayor inferred law should be used but then later testified it should not. i will also discuss the blank my concerns related to this matter during the confirmation debate. the problems i have squaring her testimony with the contents of this speech. the central point of course it is a completely irrelevant to consider for a lot in u.s. courts. i don't believe judge sotomayor is sufficiently committed to this principle. judge sotomayor's supporters argue we should not focus on her speech is better mainstream judicial record. they claim judge sotomayor agreed with their colleagues including republican appointees the vast majority of the time. that may be true but as president obama has reminded us most judges will agree and 95% of the cases. the hard cases are were differences in judicial philosophy become apparent. i have judge sotomayor's record and these are cases in a cause

for concern. the supreme court is review directly ten heifer decisions, eight of those decisions have been reversed or vacated. and others sharply criticized and one of health and a 5-4 decision. demoss resort barrasso was ricci versus these that bono, cason which judge sotomayor dismissed before trial the discrimination claims of 20 new haven firefighters and supreme court reversed 5-4 with all nine justices rejecting key reasoning of judge sotomayor's court. in my view the most astounding thing about the case was not being correct outcome reached by judge sotomayor's court. it was that she rejected the firefighters claim in a mere one paragraph opinion and that she continue to maintain the hearings that she was bound by precedent that the supreme court said it not exist. as the supreme court noted in ricci, ricci presented an publisher regarding, regarding two provisions of title vii to be interpreted and reconciled

with you at vinnie precedence and the court of appeals discussing the issue. one with think this would be precisely the kind of case that deserve a thorough and thoughtful analysis by an appellate court. judge sotomayor's korff disposed of the case in an unsigned and unpublished opinion that contains the wrote and i mean zero analysis. some have speculated that judge sotomayor's panel intent julie disposed of the case in an unsigned and unpublished opinion in an effort to hide from scrutiny. was the case intentionally kept off the colleagues radar? the g.i. personal views on racial quotas that prevented her from seeing the merit in the firefighters klemz? judge sotomayor was asked about her reaching decision at length during the confirmation hearing. her defense that she was following a stabber supreme court executive circuit precedent as i said is belied by the supreme court's noting few if any circuit court opinions addressing the issue. when i press judge sotomayor to

identify the controlling supreme court in second circuit precedent that allegedly dictated the outcome of ricci she ran off the clock. are answers answered nothing and my opinion violated her obligation to be forthcoming with the judiciary committee. i am also concerned about judge sotomayor's analysis in maloney versus cuomo effect in amendment case that could find its way to the supreme court next year. maloney was decided after the supreme court's ruling and district of columbia versus heller which held the right to bear arms was an individual right they could not be taken away by the federal government. in maloney judge sotomayor had the opportunity to consider whether that individual rights could also be in force against the states. a question that was not before the heller court in yet another unsigned opinion judge sotomayor into judges held that it was not a right to enforceable against the state. what are the legal implications of this holding?

state regulations limiting or prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms would be subject only to the rational basis review review with sandy froman a respected lawyer and former rifle association president said in her testimony this is a very, very low threshold that can easily be met by a city that wishes to prohibit all gun ownership, even in the home. thus, if judge sotomayor decision were allowed to stand as precedence states with all i have chronically be able to do with the district of columbia cannot, please see the that the prohibition on the ownership of guns and other arms. as we have seen judge sotomayor's testimony about previous speeches and some of her decisions is difficult to reconcile with her record. similarly hear testimony about the extent of her role with prldef is the intention with the evidence that we have. "the new york times" is detailed iraq to the involvement as

recounted by former prldef colleagues you describer judge sotomayor's at the top policymaker who played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stance is. what were the litigation positions advanced by the peurto rican legal defense fund during judge sotomayor is tenure there? in court briefs that restrictions on abortion are analogist to slavery in the repeatedly represented challenging the validity of employment and proportional tests, tests similar to the one issued in ricci. a importantly madam president i have not been persuaded that judge sotomayor is committed to setting aside your biases and impartially deciding cases based on the rule of law and i cannot ignore her unwillingness to answer centers questions straightforward. for these reasons, i oppose her nomination.

>> thank you madam president. i take the floor today to inform the senate and my colleagues about how i intend to vote on the pending nomination of supreme court nominee, judge sotomayor. i understand the path of least resistance for me personally would be to vote no, and i feel compelled to vote yes and i feel that this is the right vote for me and quite frankly for the country in this case. white dui say that? elections have consequences. i told judge sotomayor in the hearing that if i had won the election even though i wasn't running for senator mccain she would probably not have been chosen by a republican. we would have chosen someone with a more conservative background, someone like judge roberts or miguel estrada. she is definitely more liberal than a republican would have

chosen, but i do believe that elections have consequences and it is not likely hid from the american people during the campaign that the supreme court's elections corrette stake. both sides openly campaigned on the idea that the next president would be able to pick some judges for the supreme court. that was known to the american people and the american people spoke. now, in that regard, having been one of the chief's supporters of senator mccain and one of the chief opponents of then senator obama, i feel that he deserves some deference on my part when it comes to his first selection to the supreme court. i say that the understanding that under our constitution, i or no other senator would be bound by the pick of the president, but when you look at the history of this country

generally speaking, great deference has been given to that selection by the united states senate. while i am not bound to vote for judge sotomayor, it would be the path of least political resistance for me. i choose to vote for judge sotomayor because i believe she is well qualified. we are talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the supreme court in decades. she has 17 years of judicial experience, 12 of those years she was on the second circuit court of appeals. i have looked at her record closely. i believe that she follows precedence, that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified in my view. within the mainstream. she has an outstanding background as a lawyer. she was a prosecutor for four years in new york.

her record of academic achievement is extraordinary. coming up from a tough circumstance, being raised by a single mother, going to princeton, being picked as the top student there during an extraordinary job in law school, has a strong work ethic. that all matter to me. it is not just my view that her legal reasoning was within the mainstream. she received the aba, american bar association's highest rating as well qualified. the reason i mention that is that i don't feel bound by the rating, but during the alito roberts confirmation hearings for supreme court under president bush, i use that as a positive for both of those nominees and i feel as the republican i can't use it one time and ignored the other, so the fact that she received the

highest rating from the american bar association made a difference to me. her life story as i indicated before, it's something that every american should be proud of. it is the first election to the supreme court will inspire young women come up particularly latino women, to seek a career in law, that is a good thing and i hope it will. on balance, i do believe that the court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology with her selection. justice souter, who were respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than i prefer in a judge and i think justice sotomayor will not be any more liberal than him and on some issues quite frankly may be more balanced in her approach particularly when it comes to the war on terror, the use of international law and potentially the 2nd amendment, but time will tell.

i am not voting for her, believing i know how she will decide the case. i am voting for her because i find her to be well qualified. elections matter and the people who have served on her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in judge sotomayor, and i confirm their findings. now, what standard did i use? every senator and his buddy at the end of the day has to decide how to give their advice and consent. one of the things i chose not to do was use senator obama's standard when it came to selecting or casting my vote for judge sotomayor. if those who followed senate will recall, senator obama of all-- voted against alito and roberts and he is the rationale that they were well qualified, that they were extraordinarily gifted when it came to being able to intellectually gifted,

but when it came to judge roberts, what is the hard because the 5% of controversial cases that kind of change society, you have to look and see what is in a judge as part. then and now i totally reject that. if the united states senate tries to the confirmation process before we explore another person's heart i think we are going to chill of people wanting to become members of the judiciary. who would want to come before a senate and have us try to figure out what is in your heart? can you imagine the questions we would be allowed to ask? it will have a tremendous chilling effect of the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges and let me say this. judge sotomayor agreed with me and senator kyl, trying to find out what is in the judge's part is probably not a good idea. he also indicated that philosophy, judicial philosophy

and ideology or determine if gwinnett came to judge alito. if i used a standard knowing our philosophy is different than mine, her ideology is different than mine she would have no hope of getting my bode and i would dare say not one republican uses the obama standard would provide her with a confirmation vote, so i decided to reject that because i believe it is not in the long-term interests of the senate or the judiciary. i went back to a standard that i think it stood the test of time. the qualification standard. is this person qualified to sit on the court? are the person of good character? do they present an extraordinary circumstance, having something about their life that would make them extraordinary to the point that they would be unqualified? there was a time in this country where a justice like judge this grants bird who has clearly left the center received 90 something goes from this body. there was a time in this country not long ago where a

conservative judge like justice scalia received over 95 votes from this body. every democrat who voted for justice scalia could not have been full that's what they were getting. they were getting an extremely qualified, intellectual man who was qualified for the job to lead a different philosophy than most democrats. for somebody that voted for justice ginsburg on our side, you had to know what you were getting. you were getting somebody he was very talented, extremely well qualified, incredibly smart he was general counsel for the aclu. you have to know what you were getting but you understand president clinton in that case have the right to make that decision. what happened to those days? i would argue to my democratic colleagues that i am sure republicans have made our fair share of mistakes when it comes to judges but this effort, not too far in the past, a filibuster judge declaring war on the judiciary has really hurt this body and in my opinion the

politicization of our judiciary has got to stop for the good of this country, for the good of the senate and for the good of the rule of law in america. now, what am i trying to do today? i am trying to start over. the political golden rule is the one to you as they did to you. the actual golden rule is the one to weathers says he would have them do unto you. i hope we can get back to a more traditional sense of what the senate has been all about. that brings me back to the recent past. this body was on the verge of blowing up. our democratic colleagues for filibustering presidential-- president bush's nominees for the appellate court in even the supreme court in a fashion never known by the body. there was an effort by a frustrated republicans to change the rules so that all you needed was a majority vote to get on the bench, the supreme court. this body for a couple hundred years has not gone down that

road. seven republicans and seven democrats that tried to find a better way. tried to get the senate back to a more reasonable position and what we did, seven democrats and seven republicans we said the filibustering judges should all-- in an extraordinary circumstance. then we left that up to the member of the body, members of the body but we were focusing on someone who was clearly out of the mainstream when it came to judging. if you likud judge sotomayor's record for 17 years it has let the senate but not a record of someone who is wearing their rove but under the robe as an activist. an extraordinary circumstance would be somebody clearly not qualified, a picc political in nature alone. i am glad to say that my colleagues on the democratic side and the republican side who were part of that group that are still here did not see an

extraordinary circumstance and i would like to complement senators sessions idid a fine job in this hearing. diaza acknowledged there is nothing extraordinary about this nominee for the republican party to try to block or two filibuster. i think that is a correct assessment of then it comes down to your individual vote. i have tried to indicate the best i can that i desire as a senator to find a new way to start over and get back to a senate that is more rational in its approach when it comes to confirmation. having said that, to my colleagues to vote no idea understand your concerns and their things about this dominque that are troubling. these beaches, the speeches that she has given in the past are troubling because i think they embraced identity politics. something i don't embrace. the wise latino comment has become now famous that she believes more often than not that it wise latina woman would

reach a better conclusion that a white male. we have a long discussion about how that does not sit well with most americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become supreme court nominees. but, having said that do we want to exclude the consideration people with bowl bless, that are edgy, the do we want milktoast nominees who are afraid to speak their mind in to disagree with their fellow citizens? i think not. hers speeches, while troubling, have to be looked at in terms of her record. when you look at this 17 year record, you will find someone who was-- and i will take her at her word. she rejected this idea of picking winners and losers and was very mainstream in her understanding of the role of a judge. understood the difference between a policymaker and a judge. i will take her at her word.

i cannot understand her heart anymore than she can understand mine. these speeches are troubling but i guarantee i have made speeches that are probably troubling to people on the other side. i hope they would look at everything i have done, not just the speeches i have given. her time as a lawyer, this is very important to me. during the ledo and roberts hearings, they were really pushed hard about some legal memos the road for ronald reagan espousing conservative thought and how that made them dangerous, hug dear do you write a memo about the civil-rights act that somebody on the other side may disagree with. moyer syllabicate physicians should not feel chilled in terms of picking their clients that they hope to be a judge. the worst thing we can do is take a lawyer's advocacy position, their clientele and hold that against them for being a judge.

she was a board member of the peurto rican legal defense fund. some people say we should not talk about her time as a lawyer. i do not believe that at all. because when i look at this nominee i look it every aspect of their life and during her time as a board member, the board and the organization abdicated positions i think that are out of the mainstream but i don't agree with, but certainly are legitimate positions to take, like taxpayer funded abortion. i could not disagree with her more. i don't think most americans want their taxpayers to be of dollars to be used to fund abortions. if you do not allow taxpayer funded abortion for poor women, it is a form of dred scott kind of oppression. why couldn't-- i couldn't disagree more but that is not the point. disagreeing with me is okay. what i hope will happen in the

future is that the conservative tickets in the white house and we pick someone that was on the other side of the case. he will have the same understanding i do. being aggressive for cause i disagree with this not disqualified you from being a judge if otherwise and you have demonstrated capability. the abbot is the role of a lawyer is unique. i have represented people who i disagree with. i have represented people accused of child molesting. i have been a criminal defense lawyer. there is nothing more noble in our system than making the government prove their case regardless of how you feel about the defendant. so the fact that she was an advocate, choosing cause i disagree with does not in my opinion disqualify her. because when i look at her record, i did not see a judge who was continuing to be a

lawyer. i saw a judge who felt bound by the law. temperament. those members who have practicing chord, i don't like a bully judge and i know it when i see it. i don't mind being pressed, i don't mind being challenged. i don't mind being interrupted. i just want to be belittled in front of my clients for no good reason. there were things said about judge sotomayor, anonymous cummins from lawyers who were asked by the federal almanac how you great temperament and judge sotomayor had something said that were quite frankly disturbing. but i looked at the other part of the record, the people who served with her as a prosecutor, the defense attorneys who wrote on her behalf, people lose their on the court and i found calm belen stoddard temperament does not disqualify her and quite frankly i found somebody that a lot of people from different backgrounds admire.

can start, one of the strongest conservative in the country found her to be a qualified person who would do a good job. lilly freeh, a former director of the fbi, someone who bought for her character and her qualities as a person, so when i look at the record, the anonymous comments by lawyers who were asked about federal legal service did not win the day of north thank, nor should they have. now, i don't know what is ahead for this country when it comes to picking supreme court judges. i don't know what openings may occur and when they will occur. i know this. elections have to matter. that i don't want to invalidate elections by disagreeing with someone who iran against oar

zero posed politically because when the election is over, everything has to change to some extent. i am not bound to agree with every pick a president obama, but when it comes to trying to show some deference, i will. i will try to do better for him then he was able to do for president bush. i don't want to turn over the confirmation of judges to special-interest groups on the left or the right. and that is where we are headed if we don't watch. special-interest groups are important. they have their say. they have every right to have their say but we can't make every supreme court vacancy a battle over our culture. i am trying to start over.

i have only been here one term, plus a few months but since i have been here i have been worried about what this country is going when it comes to judges. i happen to be here at a time when we are about to change the rules of the senate in a way that they have never done in 200 years. i was new to the body but i was understanding of the lot and how our system works well enough to know that i did not want to be part of that. i hadn't been here long, but i enders dead what would happen to this country if we change the rules of the senate, even though people felt frustrated and justified to do so. now, is a member of the minority, i promised president obama that i will work hard with his nominees, i will try to help them where i can but i will not abandon the right to say no and

to stop and an extraordinary circumstance a nominee that i think would be bad for the country and would dramatically change the power of a branch of the government, the supreme court. that is very important to every american. as to my colleagues, who find a different decision on the republican side, i can understand and appreciate what you did not feel comfortable giving your confirmation vote to judge sotomayor. but, i am trying to look beyond this moment, look to the future and come up with they reason to support her that will create a different way of doing business, that will help the judiciary, the senate and the country as a whole. senator sessions did an outstanding job. center leahy did a very, very good job. people wanted to know more about her at the hearings, but she is

limited like every nominee in terms of what she can say, and one last comment a budget-- about judge sotomayor. she is one year older than i am. i grew up in the deep south. i am the first person in my family to go to college, and i lost my parents when i was in college and had a 13-year-old sister to raise. she grew up in the bronx, came to this country from puerto rico. her mother joined the army. she lost her dad when she was very young. her mother raised judge sotomayor and her brother under difficult circumstances. her brother is a doctor. she has been able, judge sotomayor, to excel academically and reached the highest rung of america's legal system, and that

to me is a hell of a story. nobody in my family ever expected me to be a united states senator, including myself. only in america can these things happen. so, i choose to vote for judge sotomayor, looking at her from the most optimistic perspective, understanding i could be wrong, but proud of the fact that my country is moving in the right direction. when anybody and everybody can hit it out of the park. i would not have chosen her if i hadn't made this choice as president, but i understand why president obama did chooser and i am happy to vote for her. i yield back.

>> next, a hearing on the troubled asset relief program known as the t.a.r.p.. witnesses include the treasury department official in charge of the program and special inspector general, neil barofsky. this is two and a half hours. >> this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight investigations of the house financial services committee will come to order. i hearing this afternoon is entitled, t.a.r.p. oversight protecting taxpayers. we will begin soon with members opening statements up to ten minutes per side and hear testimony from our first witness. after that members will each have up to five minutes to question our witnesses. i will then excuse there with this and by the second panel to give their testimony and we will continue with members' questions. the chair advises members that

given the busy afternoon schedule will be keeping everyone including myself to five minutes and an answer questions can be followed up and running for the record. without objection member's opening statements will be made part of the record. i now recognize myself for a five minutes for an opening statement. depass mother to have been nice to see some good news regarding the t.a.r.p.. after some upbeat results from the stress tests on the largest financial firms, ten of the largest banks companies were authorized to pay back $60.2 billion in t.a.r.p. funds. if you include smaller banks the total over $70 billion rebates u.s. taxpayers. this is coming after the treasury department use more than $200 billion for more than 600 banks to stabilize the financial sector. when congress enacted t.a.r.p. less to reauthorize the treasury department to request firms receiving t.a.r.p. funds issue warrants. this provides an opportunity for taxpayers to share in the upside for their investments. these warrants give us the right to buy shares of the company to set prices at some point in the

future much like an employee stock option. as you might imagine when the governor tashman coven there are a number of other policy issues and concerns that we have to be deal with it and that have to be late. even so, i am firmly committed to doing all we can to ensure taxpayers are fully repaid. on my eight the old national bancorp became the first recipient bang to repay its start funding and repurchase their warrants held by treasury. the bank paid $1.2 million to buy back its warns but what concerned me was the professor from the university louisiana, analyzed this transaction very closely. he determine that the warrants were worth at a minimum $1.5 million as much as $6.9 million so at the low-end treasury was off by three and a thousand dollars and in the worse case treasury miss the return of an additional $5.4 million. $5 million might not sound like a lot of money when we are talking about billions of dollars in financial rescue aid but if he considered the 600

banks that will need to repurchase their warns this money quickly adds up to a big potential return for u.s. taxpayers. i wrote a letter to secretary geithner urging him in no uncertain terms that the act to protect the taxpayers' investment in these firms by maximizing the returns on these warrants. i carbon copy sig top nga owen received a joint letter general barofsky and professor one expressing their commitment to transparency. they noted a coordinated effort between compend and sigtarp to review whether those repurchasing procedures provide sayer-- fair value. earlier this month i was glad to see comp focus son tarbert payments including the repurchase of stock warrants. similar to the analysis done by professor lion in the 11 banks that purchased their once treasury received only 66% of what they could receive for taxpayers. comp nets that these small banks represent a fraction of 1% of

all issues but it this trend continues taxpayers could miss out on additional $2.7 billion for the returns. on the same day the report was released we received good news on "wall street journal" writ pure did that jpmorgan chase had repurchased warrants. there were frustrated with the treasury department for demanding too high a price. i'm glad treasury department is holding its line especially cancel largest of the t.a.r.p. recipients into the goldman sachs announced it will pay $1.1 billion to redeem their warrants representing a return of 23% for u.s. taxpayers. that sounds pretty good but it isn't enough. i will keep pushing to make sure everything will t.a.r.p. dollar that help stabilize the financial sector is fully repaid so that our children and grandchildren are not left with the tapper guy look 40 king for more witnesses. he has one of the toughest jobs in the country now look forward to treasurys viewpoint on how the way the difficult decisions

to stabilize the financial sector while protecting taxpayers. the strong oversight congressman created t.a.r.p. continues to publish what amounts to thousands of pages of oversight reports all free and available on line examining every ankle an aspect of t.a.r.p.. justice league sigtarp publish their quarterly report. i look forward to hearing mr. barofsky, professor warren and mr. mccool's tessman. recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee in my colleague from illinois ranking member judy baker. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing today. the hearing in which is intended to focus on a specific aspect of the t.a.r.p. program, warned repurchases and protecting taxpayers. it is in the taxpayers best interest that as an as possible the federal government gets out of the trillion dollar bailout business and out of the practice of loading and running private businesses. this is something the administration also support. husson came in with jot taxpayer

money and in the practice of taxpayers? the vet and fdic must communicate to the markets and taxpayers the exit strategy and timeline. we need to put an end to the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace which has facilitated the unfair competition competitive it damages for some businesses and completely abandoned others. it is also in the taxpayer's interest that treasures secure the best possible return on its investment. i think we will hear criticism from some of our witnesses today that treasury is shorting taxpayers on the investment. from what i understand this may or may not be true. the accusations may be more for headlines then true and is based on differences of opinion as to what is the best model and methodology to value warrants. whatever the case, taxpayers must be insured, assured the treasury's using the best means to recapture taxpayers' money and i hope that mr. allison will provide us with those assurances

today. i agree with many witnesses today the taxpayers deserve transparency with regard to warrants and with regard to what t.a.r.p. recipients are doing with taxpayer money. at the same time i want assurances from today's witnesses that is the work to improve t.a.r.p. transparency and we'll t.a.r.p. is still active, they will not jeopardize treasury and taxpayers negotiating position to secure the best return on their investment. it is also vital that we prevent any individual and the your business about than the t.a.r.p. for making a profit based on insider information especially when it is at the expense of the taxpayer. that is unacceptable and i want to know what is being done. fee mandez appoint abutt legislation that would site t.a.r.p. returns when we still on have a guarantee that carbal ultimately produce a return or a loss for taxpayer. at a time of record deficits and unemployment reaching 10% nationwide in a profit on this tremendous risk should first and

foremost go towards paying down the deficit. with that i would like to yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. baucus. >> thank you and thank you mr. moore for convening today's important subcommittee hearing. on the oversight of the t.a.r.p. program and i would also like to recognize ranking member biggert's fine service. shiastan particularly i think helpful on the issues involving the sec and the cftc. and i thank you. last fall, congress required recipients of assistance under the capital purchase program to issue warrants to the treasury. i have a particular interest in this program because i first proposed it, or something like get on september 18th, and felt

like a setting, a dividend or at least a repayment of a certain percent, i felt like we would be best assured of receiving a fair return, as opposed to a more fluid definition. for instance when you buy toxic assets, and i said that in the very first meeting with secretary paulsen and chairman bernanke. what do we price these that? if you price them too low, it does not have the capital. ricky price it, if you pay too much for them it is a bad deal for the taxpayer, so i have always felt that this is our best opportunity of safeguarding the taxpayers and yet coming to the aid of the banks and i think time has shown that to be correct.

and chairman frank and i and others worked on a bipartisan way along with representative roy blunt. this was done so that the american taxpayer would have the opportunity to benefit, the warrens particularly from any upside is these companies return to financial health. and, although we would hope that was the case now some of them had a spectacular return and you saw today with goldman sachs thing back the money, that was the 23% annualized return. now that is going to be unusual i think but it certainly was good news for the taxpayers. however many questions still remain about how to properly value these warns to ensure that the taxpayers receive a proper return on their investment and i

know ms. warren, a professor warren or dr. warren, you have proposed that they be placed on the open market for sale to the highest bidder, and certainly that is one option that has some appeal, particularly of the treasury and the party cannot come to some agreement. i think that is probably the only valid option. normally i would be in favor of letting the market decide asset values in all cases. i do think that the oversight panel's formula for setting the price could result in the government having to hold the warrants for extended periods of time but then you have the risk of another economic downturn, so if you knew that the economy was going to continue to recover or

the company's prospects, i would say yes but you look at the commercial mortgage market and others, and it is really, it is is somewhat speculation. i have advocated trying to particularly of the treasury sets a price, and it is accepted let the taxpayers get their money back. we will go ahead and get that money back in the treasury, where it can be used to pay down the deficit. in the july report on additional views, my colleague mr. hansen explained then valley wish nav winds is the highly complex analysis and a one-size-fits-all approach may not yield the best results for the american taxpayer. i have greed that that is true. while the july report seems to paint a picture that some money baby left on the table, it fits the ululation formula is not used, i believe the fair results

of the american taxpayers as i said is to go ahead and as soon as possible get the federal government out of the business of holding stocks and warrants. the financial institutions, and treasury has indicated that is also their policy so to get the government's investment back as soon as possible. let me conclude by saying mr. chairman as institutions began to pay back their t.a.r.p. assistance and really capital purchases program monies, we need to end bailouts, return the money to the taxpayers, not recycle the funds back into bailout. part of that will be regulatory reform, to ensure that we don't have any more bailout and i think protection of consumers is a part of that. and although my approach differs from chairman frank, i believe that "we ought to be doing is

saying to the regulatory agencies, which have the skill and the means and the resources to enforce consumer protection, that we give them the charge to do with the ends tell us how they are going to do with. and, if over the period of six month delay year we see that is not working then we can address that in a more novel way. but, let's be clear about another fact. although the capital purchase program may earn a profit, the t.a.r.p. program overall will not, so for that reason i believe that all these dividend payments ought to be given back to the treasury as soon as possible. mr. chairman thank you for your indulgence and i yield back. >> thank you as will mr. chairman. i now recognize mr. kline for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this important hearing and we should have a lot more press coverage and a lot more

attention to the fact we are having a pleasant discussion about the t.a.r.p. in this scenario where not only are large banks that were probably putting a more solid position after what happened in september, but the consideration now is not only thing that the initial capital, but what is going to happen with the bonuses. if those people aren't familiar with warrants that is obviously the outside we have been talking about all along so there is a very positive discussion going on here today and i'm glad that members of both sides of the aisle can recognize that. that does not mean things are moot for everyone but this is a silver lining to the fact that the taxpayers of the united states to put all this money on the table are not only going to get the money paid back but will share the upside. in my opinion and i appreciate the witnesses today and it had a chance to meet with many of you and talk to you about some of the specifics and i thank you for your service. a very important part of the

oversight is making sure the taxpayers receive the maximum a turn for the risk that the took. not everybody went to go along with this but we did what we had to do and those people who've said we did not need to do this, that is a matter of history to judge but at the present time we want to which all of our businesses and banks in the united states success. we want them to succeed. we want them to lend or any strong message that want to deliver to the banks that are t.a.r.p. recipients is start lending, start moving along. we have the liquidity issue in the united states that still is out there whether or not you are paying back the money or the ones will be exchanged and some former fashion we need to be a part of our recovery. that being said the fairness part is making sure we get the maximum bang for the buck and whether it is an auction or whether there is a weight or not the weight again i believe that to some of the professionals who can help us realize that we get the maximum bid a value back from the banks that and up taking this money.

some of them are now recording historic profits which again we wish them all well. we want that success to filter out to others as well, but we want to make sure that the taxpayers in this country who literally went on the line to make sure the recovery was going to begin and it seems to be beginning now, that we can put some of this money back in the till and those banks that may need additional help and others around the united states may get that help but other than that we get the maximum dollars back. thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes ms. mary jo kilroy for ten minutes. >> thank you for conducting this hearing. although i was not part of the 110th congress and voting no on the house plan to release more money from the troubled asset relief program, i understand that the american taxpayers took on some rest when we work to bail out the banks. many of komen made decisions that have hurt ohio's families

at heard ohio's economy. and that they heard our country's economy. now main street awaits the economic recovery and the jobs that it deserves because some banks are making record profits again after receiving our help and i think that it is appropriate that the american public receives a return on investment that they made with the t.a.r.p. money. i find it unacceptable that the downturn on main street, get the recovery seems to be benefiting corporate america first. this issue, the repayment of the taxpayers and the upside is one situation where the taxpayers deserve to reap the full benefits and an open and transparent process. according to the reports that we have received from dr. warren, from mr. barofsky, the banks and treasury are negotiating their repayment of this that, the

purchase and sale of these warrants behind closed doors. instead of allowing the transfer in the trading to happen on the open market and allow the market to set the price. we do not know what the current process is producing the benefits we are owed however dr-- found we are getting 60 cents cents on the dollar and the total shortfall for constituents could be as much as $2.7 billion. a market-based approach would remove the secrecy in special-interest and maximize the return on taxpayers investments. that is why i introduced with six of my colleagues what we call the profit act. this logic and common sense bill would maximize profits for taxpayers and ensure transparency requiring an open process, eliminating the loophole that allows banks to negotiate behind closed doors with treasury. the public option would be such a transparent open market and i think that's one of our

witnesses, secretary allyson, stated earlier this year in his testimony that in relation to toxic assets on bank balance sheets quote we have our theories but the last analysis, that is why do you have financial markets. you have to have liquid interchanges and then the truth will come out as to what assets are actually worth. i look forward to today's testimony and i suggest to the panel and to my colleagues that now was the time to act to close this loophole. according to the congressional oversight panel which dr. warren head, less than 1% from of the stock options for the american people have been sold. this is the time to push treasury, to open the process with transparency and to make sure americans get the deal that they deserve. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you ms. kilroy for your

statement and it is now my pleasure to introduce our first witness mr. herbert allison jr., the secretary for financial stability of the u.s. department treasury. is secretary for financial stability mr. wilson is responsible for developing and coordinating treasury's policies on legislative and regulatory issues affecting financial stability including administrative t.a.r.p.. mr. allison most recently served as president ceo of fannie mae as well as the chairman presidency eo of t i a graph. he is held senior positions at merrill lynch, time warner and the new york stock exchange. mr. allison also spent four years as an officer in the united states navy including a year in vietnam. without objection your written statement will be made part of the record mr. olsen. mr. secretary and assistant secretary you are recognized to provide a brief summary of your statement. >> german moore and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to discuss treasury's efforts to stabilize

and repair the nation's financial system. in response to the major crisis in our nation's financial system and housing markets, congress passed the emergency economic stabilization act or eesa establishing the troubled asset relief program or t.a.r.p. in giving treasury the tools and flexibility to stabilize the financial system and restore the flow of credit to consumers and business. our mandate and eesa is too full to stabilize the financial system while protecting the taxpayers. today want to update you on our progress. in simmons treasury has invested more than $200,000,000,000.657 financial institutions of all sizes and 48 states. including over three iterance mullen committee banks to the capital purchase program. we reopen the capital purchase program recently for a small community banks recognizing the critical role these banks play in our communities.

we provided support to three systemically significant institutions. we loans and the i'm president hosting plan. wees sits it with restructuring general motors and chrysler to the bankruptcy process and as a result of companies are better able to compete today. we help to restore the securitization markets, a key source of credit to consumers and businesses. we launched a public and private investment program to help remove legacy assets from the balance sheets of financial institutions so they can redeploy their capital to support lending. we should regulations guiding executive compensation and all firms receiving t.a.r.p. funds. we have allocated about $643 billion to our eesa programs. we have invested three and $62.6 billion of that amount to date. we have also received over $70 billion in cpp payments from 34 institutions and 6 billion in

dividend repayments. from participants in all bitar programs. finally we are beginning to receive proceeds from the sale of warrants to the ccp end as was noted today we received $1.1 billion from goldman sachs representing the return of 23.15% of the taxpayers' money. as he can see treasury has accomplished a great deal. however, we have much more to do. as described later in my testimony. i would like to briefly discuss treasury's process for selling the warrants it has received to the ccp. i have attached our policy statement and are frequently asked questions on the subject with my testimony for the record. treasury as communicated this consistent and clear process corvelli wing warrants in a matter that protects taxpayers. we applied the same process consistently for all banks, large and small.

treasury is committed to giving fair value for the taxpayers for these warrants and we have made that process public on our web site. for the publicly traded institution repays treasures investment under the cpp it has the contractual right to repurchase its warrants at fair market value through an independent valuation process directly from treasury. one source of complexity in value in warrants is that the warns do not trade on any market so they don't have observable market prices. models by themselves cannot give us reliable estimates of the realizable price in the marketplace. so we are using a comprehensive approach to estimating these values. which involves the braded inputs including a set of weldon financial models. and developing our valuation in repurchase process we counseled with numerous experts market makers and industry participants. treasury also consults with third-party market participants as to what they would be pulling to pay for the warrants and we

attain full independent family wishes from outside investment managers. treasury decided to sell the warrants within several months after the eligible for sale rather than hold them for a substantial period. our guiding principle is the president's belief that the extraordinary government intervention necessitated by the crisis should be unwound as quickly as it is consistent with treasurys mandate under eesa to restore liquidity to financial systems while protecting the interests of taxpayers. as with all aspects of our financial stability programs, the treasury welcomes the recommendations and comments of others as we continually strive for improvement, transparency and accountability in all of our programs. earlier this month, the treasury announced the selection of nine asset managers for the legacies securities public/private investment program, also known as-- to remove assets from the

balance sheets of institutions. it is a critical element of treasurys financial stability plan and is designed to support market functioning and facilitate price discovery. in the important asset-backed securities markets allowing banks and other financial institutions to redeploy capital and extended credit to households and businesses. treasury ticket number of comprehensive measures to enhance the potential of this program and protect the taxpayer. we consulted closely with the sigtarp as we develop a robust framework for governance and controlling conflicts of interest. treasury also ensured it includes a spectrum of minority, women and veteran own businesses that represent our communities. the t.a.r.p. has been key to stabilizing the financial system and preventing greater deterioration in the availability of credit to households, businesses and communities. ets in the first half we've

seen improvement in spreads, that is the measure of risk in the financial system, we've also seen the issuance of corporate debt and signs that the economy is beginning to mend. consumer confidence increased significantly. housing starts moved higher and housing purchases are picking up but the economy remains vulnerable. even with the modest improvement in conditions, unemployment and the level of home foreclosures remains high. strains in the commercial real estate market continue to build. this is why treasury must remain vigilant and press ahead with the efforts. upon creased transparency, accountability and oversight and our government approach to stabilizing financial system. secretary geithner further underscoring the transparency and all our programs. one of secretary geithner and my

priority is to enhance transparency as our activities default. i will regularly update congress on our progress. we have productive working relationships with the oversight bodies with special inspector general of the t.a.r.p., sigtarp, government accountability office, gao, congressional oversight panel and financial stability oversight board. treasury has accepted a great majority of the recommendations of those bodies. where we conclude a recommendation is in practical we find other means to achieve the same goal. treasury shares the concerns of congress and oversight bodies that we see increased in lending by banks and we've required banks receiving treasury investment to report their lending activities regularly. in jail where they released banks participating in the cbp. starting with the top 21 banks

since the account for over 50% of lending in the communities. in march we expanded the survey to include all banks and the cp and have published data with over 500 banks. because we believe these reports are critical to help the public understand the lending environment during this crisis we've asked ten large banks that have repaid treasury cpp investment to continue participating in the survey through the end of this year and they agreed and we appreciate their voluntary cooperation. treasury is working urgently to maximize the impact of our programs on financial stability but we must allow some time for these programs to have their full of fact. we recognize that we have much work ahead to restore the flow of credit to consumers and businesses and alleviate the real hardships that americans face every day. as my colleagues and i work on this important financial stability effort we will strive to be prudent investors on

behalf of the american people and protect the taxpayers who have entrusted us with so much of their money. here are the top priorities of the office of financial stability. first we will carefully review the controls over taxpayer money giving special attention to compliance with all and directives governing risk and internal audits and in this regard we will work closely with congress and oversight bodies. second we will strive to maximize the effectiveness of the financial stability programs restoring soundness to financial institutions and liquidity to the markets. finally, we will emphasize transparency and interaction with congress so that the american people will know what we are doing with their money, why we are doing it and how it's helping the financial system, the economy and their lives. thank you very much and i look forward to answering questions. seabeck thank you for the testimony, mr. allison. i recognize myself for five

minutes. as you know goldman sachs are buying back their warrants for $1.1 million directly from the treasury and jpmorgan chase is going to a public option because news reports there's a feeling you are driving too hard a bargain which led to hear. would tax payers have received more if they went to a public auction? >> thank you, chairman, for your question. it is a question we ask ourselves all the time. even though we are contractually obligated to go through this process of independent valuation with the bank of it chooses to do so if the bank decides it would rather auction the warrants, we are willing to go that route. we have modeled growth approaches of course as i mentioned in my earlier testimony a month or so ago we can't tell for sure how the market will end up about leaving warrants. we try our best if the process

is going to be the independent evaluation approach mandated by contracts to get market based information nonetheless, and so that is why we go out and ask market participants to get quotes on these warrants. we are satisfied based on those quotes and analysis by independent asset managers and our own use of valuation models similar to that used by for although i still can't tell you that we would do better or worse out in the open market nonetheless based on the system we use for every bank and have since the beginning we are pleased with this outcome. >> thank you. mr. allison, what is your response told national as well as the cops report saying the treasury could miss out on the potentially $2.7 billion worth of returns for taxpayers? what issues does treasury consider when reviewing these purchases and also i've heard

some auctions should be held shortly after their earning season providing transparency to the potential buyers. when will the treasury told these auctions? >> in response to our view of the process of the top first of all, we use a similar model. we respect their approach. we've had discussions with the cop about hours and there's. as the copper report pointed out, small differences in the assumptions that go into a model especially when you were value and warrants as long as ten years can have a major impact on the result of the valuation, and in this case one of the assumptions has to do with whether there should be a discount to the price baked into the model because small banks have much smaller important positions we hold and when they are sold there is likely to be less demand, less liquidity in the market and therefore a lower

price. we factor in her four small banks a discount for the lack of liquidity of those warrants. so that is one reason there could be a difference between the model outcome of the cop and hours. i would also ask you look at the comments of the various members attended to the cop who report where they point out some of these issues i think we have to be -- while we are trying to do our best to value these warrants we have to respect the uncertainty of a model and that is why we use alternative approach is going into the market and asking participants what they think the wardens are worth. >> my final question mr. allison i know you've only been on the job, but have you given any thought to a t.a.r.p. exit strategy and how long we should expect t.a.r.p. running? the law requires after t.a.r.p. the president must submit a

letter of the financial service industry will pay for remaining losses on the program. since we are nearing the one-year anniversary of the law to you expect we will have losses on the program and for years? >> yes, sir. the eesa legislation provides at the end of the year we might and making investments in companies however the treasury can make a determination as to whether the program should be extended that is for making investments until october of next year. the secretary will be elaborating that matter in the fall and will reach a decision. i should point out that the features of these investments, either contained expiry dates for the containment or increasing the cost to the bank in which we are investing so there are incentives built into the program for banks to repay

treasury as rapidly as their financial condition of laos. >> thank you, sir. my time is up and at this point i recognize ms. bigger for any questions she might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is sort of similar. but mr. allison, the treasury is being criticized for not securing the best possible return on its investment, in fact i think in the congressional oversight panel's the call but recent report the accused the treasury of reselling the were inspected the bank at two-thirds of their actual value. is this true? >> thank you for the question, congresswoman biggert. this is a question many people are asking as a result of that report. we have as i sit taken various approaches to valuing these warrants. they are the same approach as we

took and valuing goldman sachs and we determined based on this approach that we were receiving a very fair value from the smaller banks and that's why we accepted the bids and we will eventually be disclosing more information that laid behind those bids and our decision, and we look forward to making that information available down the road. >> is there a difference because the small banks have probably less liquidity than the larger banks? >> yes, that is true. in fact we did as i mentioned apply a liquidity discount in the model. that was also by the way reflected in the market indications we've received. we did not apply liquidity discount in the case of goldman sachs and in the case of the larger banks because given the value they are more likely to endure liquid market if they were auctioned.

>> okay. can you give the taxpayer, the american tax payer assurances that treasury is using the very best means to recapture the taxpayers' money? >> i can assure you that we are making every effort and this is our obligation to the american public to receive an appropriate and ample return for the taxpayer. they are the ones that put their money at risk and we feel great obligation as responsible stewards of their money. >> you received a fair value, but is there a difference in the best value? >> we believe that in each of these cases these were ample values and we have applied the same standards to all. so we examine each method and the results it produces and then we determine what is an appropriate price that we should demand from each bank, and we stick to the price.

>> as i mentioned in my opening statement it is vital we prevent any individual or fiduciary entity or business involved in t.a.r.p. for making profit based on insider information especially when it is at the expense of the tax payer. what is the treasury doing to prevent and to track this? >> we have had many close consultations with the sigtarp. we have also invited the sigtarp's staff to meet with loss and the candidates to be managers on the pipp. we have had meetings with inspector barofsky and his team about this. we are charged with promoting financial stability while protecting the taxpayers. our mandate and the reason for

law is to build and implement programs are going to eventually help the american public and the financial system. so with that in mind, we have decided on an approach where we and the sigtarp will have the access to trading data across each of the fund managers that we are hiring daily so that we and the sigtarp can check trading in the various funds there are any questionable trades that might cause us to wonder whether we are getting full value for the taxpayer money and whether a manager is trying to take advantage of our investments at the benefit of one of their other investments. so we have almost real-time ability to intervene and we are also getting certification from the managements of these funds. we are prohibiting complexes from having one fund trade with

our fund as another control. so we have we think very robust control to protect the tax payer. >> and mr. barofsky's quarterly report, which was released yesterday, key highlights the fact that treasury is declined to institute barriers to prevent the conflict of interest with the management of the program. maybe this was before you worked something out with him, but he thinks this could have serious consequences related to money-laundering or could lead to increase in government exposure to losses but no corresponding increase in potential profits. is this accurate? >> well, we carefully considered sigtarp's recommendation and we welcome sigtarp's ideas. i must say that the sigtarp has suggested dozens of ideas and we look back and we have accepted in a way very similar accepted

the sigtarp's recommendations about three-fourths of the time. there are some cases where we have determined that in the interest of financial stability and because we can find other ways of protecting the taxpayer that we declined to implement. and one of these cases has been the creation of a wall. not in many cases and here i draw upon 35 years experience in the financial industry. in many cases it makes great sense to have a wall to separate asset managers in one area from asset managers and another and in the case of the asset managers we are hiring on behalf of the taxpayer, we want to have their best talent working for the american tax payer in the ppip fund. but these managers in these fund complexes are already committed to other funds that they manage. the fund cannot take them away from those in order to focus on

hours conversely if we allow the best managers to stay with the other funds we would have to have been higher other managers without the track records of the reason we hired those complexes. so, we have instead of having a wall we provide transparency. the ultimate test. and i have worked with walls. a wall can be defeated by people that are determined to collude. they can leave the workplace. they can go out in the street and talk to each other. they can use cell phones to talk to each other. even if you have a wall you have to make sure the wall is working that is why we are insisting on these managers making available their trades across the fund complex everyday's we have the ability to get total transparency on what they are doing, pin them down right then and there if we see suspicious trading activity in order to protect the taxpayer. >> thank you. with all respect i'm going to have to advise the members and

the witnesses that we've just been advised we have the votes being called in the next 15 to 30 minutes. there are six votes which i anticipate will take about an hour, so i would like to move on here and i would advise members and the witness, too, they will have the opportunity to submit additional information for the record, written responses if you would please. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. sherman. mr. allison, thank you for being here this afternoon. it is my understanding that the t.a.r.p. statutes initially prevented the treasury to prevent a warrant to cash or exercise when treasury decided that doing so would allow public reasonable gain and that the market was optimal for such assets, and that the goal was to maximize the value for tax payers. is that correct? is that your understanding? >> diaz, congresswoman. in fact, the law has changed

several times since the eesa law was enacted, and recently we've been given the ability, again the flexibility to sell the warrants at a time of our choosing when we think it is in the best interest of the tax payers. >> and you believe that is still despite the changes in the goal to maximize return for the taxpayer? >> we believe that selling the warrants relatively soon after we are repaid by the bank for its preferred stock investment that it is appropriate for us to sell the warrants in a way that will benefit the taxpayers and the reason for this, one of the reasons is a war in the value is based on a stock value that incorporates the market's expectations regarding the future performance of the stock so even if we sell the warrants over the near-term we are not forfeiting the upside potential of the warrant.

we also find if we hold the board for a longer period of time and here it gets technical the option value declines. we also would engage in market timing if we hold the war and for a long period of time and we are not in the business of the and long term investors conducting market time to find the right time to sell the stock and frankly there never will be an agreement on when is the right time to sell. >> separate and apart from the timing issue is there an issue in terms of protecting the taxpayer and taxpayer confidence from the process of the methodology by which the warrants are sold or converted to cash? >> well, again, where we are going to be disposing of warrants we have to follow a contract will process where the bank that issued the warrant has the ability to bid to buy back its warrants. we don't have to accept their bid and in fact in most cases we

have not. we will let them read it if they wish. if they decide to launder bid than we have the ability to go out and auction those warrants in the open market. >> the contract will process -- would you agree is more one-sided and gives the banks more authority in setting the methodology for the sale of the warden's? >> actually, congresswoman, i think it puts the treasury in a very good position to represent the taxpayers. we do not communicate what to us is the price that we require in order to sell in that process. the bank has to bid. we will not accept until there is a bid that reaches our considered price, and at that point if they reach the price,

and some don't, we will sell at that point we are capturing ample value for the taxpayer. let me also add i know there is concern, and you've wasted, about whether we are doing this in a closed room. we are going to be disclosing information about the methodology and the actual calculations that we use and of writing at the appropriate war on price and i mentioned that the appropriate time right now we are engaged in discussions with a number of large banks we think is in the taxpayer's interest that we defer the disclosure on till a later date. >> you do understand -- would it be your understanding that the treasury would have no authority to enter into contracts with the banks regarding the t.a.r.p. money other than that from the statute that set up the program in the first place?

>> i am aware all of our actions on behalf of the financial stability and office of financial stability are carrying out all, the eesa law. >> and that would include the obligation to protect the taxpayer interest first and to use the phrase from eesa to maximize the return for the taxpayer? >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the ranking member is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to allow members from the financial services committee but not the subcommittee to participate today, that's brad sherman of california and mr. kenny marchant of texas. >> without objection so ordered. mr. bachus, congressman box bachus, excuse me, you're recognized. >> i've been called a lot worse than that. [laughter]

mr. allison, the act we passed back october 1st, the allison that includes the t.a.r.p. and the capitol purchase plan, it states explicitly that proceeds from the sale of troubled assets and revenues from dividends and the surrender on warrants shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt in passing that act. the treasury has interpreted that, and this is according to mr. barofsky's recent report you interpret the maximum amount of funding is 299 billion. so as long as you don't have that much funding out that you can replenish the fund as opposed to returning it to the general fund, is that correct?

>> the limit that was set on the amount of investments outstanding at any one time is $700 billion. as i mentioned currently that number is a little over $360 billion. we have budgeted to spend about $643 billion to date. however, we have also received repayments as you know of over $70 billion so far and that together creates head room under the 700 billion at one time of about $128 billion today to. >> so you have interpreted that as when you get the dividend payments that they don't have to be returned in the general fund? >> all the money we receive are returned to the general fund and then under the eesa law we may

make additional investments so long as we do not exceed $700 billion outstanding at any one time. >> savitt deposits in the fund. >> than there is a new decision and a new allocation. >> i'm sure you are aware, chairman frank has introduced t.a.r.p. for main street. >> yes, sir. >> which is the legislation to use the dividend payment and the warrant payments, too i am not sure, to fund several public housing initiatives instead of the money being returned to the treasury. was this type of use of t.a.r.p. in your opinion ever envisioned by the treasury department? >> let me first state to the, say that the treasury is carefully looking at chairman frank's proposals, and we also

however believe that it's important to maintain the head room that we have today keeping in mind while conditions have improved they are still strains in the financial system banks are still facing pressures. but let me go back and say that we are carefully analyzing chairman francs proposals and we will be coming back to chairman frank with our thoughts. >> you have initial concerns with the legislation that draws out of the fund for purposes other than what was authorized in the eesa? >> if we need more conversations what form that would take before i could draw a conclusion. >> it sounds to me like you haven't taken any hard approach that you're not going to reach into that fund for all sorts of new ideas. >> i wouldn't presume at this

point to speak on whether we might or might not be funding some of those initiatives out of the t.a.r.p. funds but we are considering very carefully. >> would you have conversation with the minority as you move forward? >> let me say, congressman, that all i look forward to meeting with each member of the committee and i would be glad to discuss and respond to any questions or suggestions you may have. >> one last quick question. rahm emanuel has said that the obama administration has rescued the economy. do you agree with that assessment? >> i would say that eesa law has played a very important role in improving the financial markets and soundness of the financial industry and the united states which has already had measurable benefits for the public.

>> i do agree the act passed last september has had benefits. i am not sure we can pronounced victory of the former president did that in a foreign policy matter and it came back to bite him. >> as this president has said, it's going to take time to heal this economy and the financial system. >> ms. speier, and you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. allison for joining us this afternoon. i have been listening to the discussion although i haven't been present in the room but i do have a couple of questions for you. the inspector general for sigtarp was before another committee yesterday and he was very clear no one in treasury has come over to review of the

surveys that he has received from every one of the banks in terms of how they are using t.a.r.p. money. i find that absolutely unbelievable and irresponsible that one agency of government has been able to access information, has the information and nobody from treasury has looked at it. no one from your shop has looked at it and i want to know why not. >> thank you for the question, congressman. let me complement the inspector general barofsky for his initiative. i look forward to seeing the information as to my colleagues and we will be happy to meet with him about this. >> so you're committing to the committee that you are going to meet with the inspector general and review the material he has developed in the survey of 360 banks? >> i will be very p