tv Today in Washington CSPAN September 11, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EDT
2:00 am
nevada, washington, illinois, new york, all over the country, some 14,000 americans will lose their health insurance. i was confused with the number from nevada, which is 220. that's as it all. 14,000 people from 50 states and to the 20 from nevada. we will continue working on the last 20% of the health care proposal that has come before the american people, and we have a schedule now, announced by the chairman of finance committee, and we will move forward to get this done as quickly as it can. senator durbin? >> there were questions asked of congress and the senators that are here today. the first question is, will the president be specific? he did. he spelled at exactly that those who have insurance, and stability, so they know that interest will be there when they need it and they can afford a trip how about those who do not have it?
2:01 am
the president said we will give you the same option that members of congress have. you will choose from an exchange that will offer private health-insurance that can be something you can count on. he said we have to bring down the cost of this. if you are concerned about the deficit, then we have to do something about health care. if you are concerned about what this means the families and businesses we have to do something about health care. he was specific. he said -- he called for the joint session and his commitment is to get this job done. he said he wants to be the last president to bring this up. the final question is, is he willing to be bipartisan? all the president said he was. for those who can sit down and come out at idea, his phone is there and the door was apparent that has been his approach from the start. it was a great moment.
2:02 am
how i sat next to senator reid and i hope that you watched it and sense what happened as the chamber was filled with emotion and then reached a point at the end of the speech when he was referring to senator kennedy tossed letter. it was an amazing performance, and an amazing message from the president about this amazing opportunity. .
2:03 am
he even spoke about four or have felt is very necessary in the bill and democrats feel is not. people and to independents in particular to get a good health care bill, i am willing to reach out. the bill -- the ball is now in the court of the republican party. are they going to continue to just say no? or will they beat us part of the way? that is the question. and the president, again, he laid it out exquisitely, and i will say this, he was not speaking to the senators as much as he was to the american people. that independents who had been clearly questioning whether we
2:04 am
needed health care are going to move in the president's reaching out in a bipartisan republican party, with perhaps the exception of olympia snowe, is just say no. this was a final moment for the democratic party, a vital moment moment for america, but also a final moment for the republican party, but the question is, will with us, and come up with a strong bipartisan bill so that medicare, private insurance, and health care will not go broke 10 years from now. >> last night the president forcefully told us as leaders of this nation, as the adults in the room, it is time for the struggling to be over, it is time to move on, the status quo is not sustainable. this is exactly what i heard
2:05 am
from my state in august when i went home, when i talked to a young boy, who lost his mom because she had a job, lost her job because she was sick, and it ended up not being able to get a doctor appointment because she lost her health care and ended up dying. it was a woman who owned a restaurant on capitol hill in my neighborhood in seattle, he told me that she was trying really hard to get health care insurance for her 35 employes, wanted to do the right thing, knew what was the responsible thing to do, both for her business and for community, but was denied health insurance coverage over and over by you cannot get health insurance. it was a woman who came to me with a pilot papers two feet sick, she had been paid her insurance, all the sudden every claim she filed was denied and
2:06 am
she had to fight it, and a pile of papers she had sitting in front of me was the correspondence that she had had to have with her insurance company over the last year and half to get paid what she was due for all the insurance coverage that she had been the status quo. every day more and more americans are facing those kinds of obstacles. we have responsibility to move forward and to pay -- to get health care reform done in a wry wit, and that is what the president challenged us to do last night. the house committee i sit on sat through weeks of bipartisan amendments, 161 of them, and got a bill after the finance committee is moving forward now. the house is moving forward. we cannot say the status quo is ok. we have a responsibility. now as leaders of the country, it is up to us to solve this problem.
2:07 am
and that is what the president asked us to do. >> if you cannot pick up any republican votes, what does it do to help reform? >> we are working on very narrow margins here. you pundits have said we have not had successful legislation in the six months. each of the measures we past we had enough republicans to get itthat is what we're working on. the president understands that. we look forward to a bipartisan bill. everyone knows we are going to the reform now. the president made that clear. wheat will continue on the road of bipartisanship that we have traveled on so far, and republicans that are out there that are willing to help us, we're confident of that. we can always go to
2:08 am
reconciliation, but that is of the we did not want to do. that is our second choice. proposal that they put out? >> he has put out an outline, and i have not read it. it was distributed over the weekend to the six, and the members of the finance committee, it earlier this week. it is and at one -- it is an outline. i am satisfied with the progress. the finance committee has gotten 90% of the work done. they have 10% to do in the next week. [inaudible] >> you think that is appropriate in the future? >> it is not a public policy at all. that is in the eye of the
2:09 am
2:10 am
emily, if he did not have your hand up, it is a rare occasion. [inaudible] well, today -- i am sorry. this week is a typical week in the senate, if you have the republicans doing to the american people what they have done. they are doing everything they can to stall and get as little done as possible. this week they finished the travel promotion act, but we have wasted dozens of hours on that waiting for the republicans. we had a cloture vote where we
2:11 am
got 80 votes. they use up the entire 30 hours on that. we got 63 or 64 votes on another. the richest wasting time. we have a lot of work to do that takes time. we have finished four appropriation bills. the next one is chairman murray's. we should be working on that one right now. we should have been able to start on that on wednesday, or maybe even tuesday, because we have literally not gotten -- we have not had the opportunity because of their stalling tactics to get things done. they say, ok, senator murray's bill, if he did not file and a motor to proceed, we will let you go to that. they are stalling for time. that is what they've done all year. i hope the american people can see this. they do not want us to get
2:12 am
things done. in spite of that, which have been able to get things done, but it is -- it has been hard and is taking a lot more time than it should. we will have to have a cr because they have stalled on everything. remember the 100 filibuster's last congress? [inaudible] i hope we can get it done before thanksgiving. senator biden has spent more time in the senate and i have appeared i would hope we can beat the thanksgiving date. >> russ feingold has proposed a flexible timeline for getting troops out of afghanistan. [inaudible] >> the speaker and i met with him on tuesday.
2:13 am
as far as i'm concerned, the thing i am going to do, let's just take it easy. we have a new commander over there, general mcchrystal, he has gotten his feet on the ground. he has made recommendations to the president. the president said he has spoken to the defense secretary. i'm going to recommend to wait until the president makes up his mind, and then we will have the opportunity to do that. in the meantime, i do not think we need 100 secretaries of state. we should give the president the opportunity to see what he recommends and then we can accept that. final question. [inaudible] the purpose of a public option
2:14 am
is this -- to create competition, which is still important, and create quality health care. as you have heard me say, if there were ever industry that needs competition, it is the insurance industry, because it is the only industry that is not subject to the antitrust laws in this country except baseball. that is what we're talking about. we're keeping the insurance companies honest because they can conspire to fix prices, and they're not subject to penalties. if we can come up with the concept of a cooperative -- it makes more competition, makes insurance companies on this, yes, i think that would fill the bill. >> that's it.
2:15 am
>> for more details, we talked to a capitol hill reporter. it is had a mixed reaction. some of the more liberal democrats and the committee, such as senator jay rockefeller, have expressed concerns they have on it. it does not have a public auction. -- option. instead it has a co-op system. they have a hard time accepting that that might not be included
2:16 am
in the bill at all. >> the gang of six has been meeting for several weeks for it was the timetable for senator baucus getting the bill to his committee? >> he said yesterday that he was going to move forward and have a german's mark of the bill read the next week, and this is with or without republican support. they have been trying for several months to get republican support. >> it'll be tough for him to move forward.
2:17 am
olympia snowe will support the bill. that will help bring the government once they get to the senate's if they can keep their caucus and lime. then they would have the 60 votes needed. q. like the number of republicans to be higher because it makes their job easier. >> how did president obama's speech -- how was it received by the senate's tax cut is the impact these discussions that they are having? >> senator baucus said he met with a group of six that have been negotiating this bipartisan proposal and said that they gave them a ton of confidence but. he said there are so many similarities because so much of
2:18 am
what had been -- president obama talked about, a deficit neutral bill, and the list goes on. it is very similar to what the finance group is looking at the felt there efforts were bolstered by the similarities. >> he mentioned there likely will be a willoption -- there will be a public option that might not sit well with the president. >> the president did leave the door open some for the proposals. there is also something called the trigger option which would kick in if the private insurers should not seem to be offering affordable insurance. the president did seem to leave a little leeway when he might be able to sign a bill that did not have the public option in it.
2:19 am
senator baucus seemed confident of that today. >> how is the house going to get moving forward on their three versions of health care legislation? >> i am not exactly sure when the house is going to move. we have not heard exactly when they will be moving to vote on the bill. it does seem they have wanted to wait and see with the finance committee comes up with bett. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> up next, and began a campaign to a campaign -- a lick and a campaign finance issue.
2:20 am
the house approved a resolution commemorating september 11. treasury secretary timothy geithner testifies about the tarp program to eight financial institutions. -- to aid financial institutions. >> tomorrow the american enterprise institute host a discussion of health care policy. a panel of key players over the clinton administration health care plan will talk about the politics of health care and what congress is likely to cheat. live coverage begins at 9:15 a.m. eastern. >> 1.7 million in new immigrants each year are followers of islam. reflections on the revolution in the year, immigration, and islam and the you west.
2:21 am
-- and the west. journal" continues. host: yesterday was the unusual will be arguing of the case in supreme court and also marked two firsts. here is sonia sotomayor's first question asked in the oral argument. >> are you giving up on your earlier argument that there are ways to resolve this case? we ask for further briefing on this particular issue overturning two presidents, but are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are statutory and traditions to
2:22 am
avoid the constitutional question? host: on your screen is david savage, a longtime reporter for the "los angeles times" and a seceded peepers. he was listening to this in a press box in the court yesterday. the minister without asking you about the atmosphere. guest: it was unusual for new justice and the first case of the term to be such a big deal. the case was carried over from the spring. it looked like a minor, fun case concerning "hillary: the movie" made by a small, conservative group which have a little bit of corporate funding. the federal election laws are as complicated as the health care ones. it says if you get some corporate money you can be regulated by the agency.
2:23 am
it got tied up in a big legal case and came to the supreme court which decided to ready argued the case in focus on the question of overturning past decisions to ruled that corporations have a free-speech right to advertise and seek to elect or defeat federal candidates? for 100 years federal law has said that corporations can i get too involved in politics. suddenly this has become a very big deal on whether the court will overturn a series of decisions to allow corporations to get into politics big time. host: here are the phone numbers so you can join the conversation. it seems in all the reporting that everyone is looking at two
2:24 am
justices. the chief, john roberts, and justice alito. >> what happened to the doctrine? i thought the doctrine was that if you read it too broadly we will not apre it back to the point here it is constitutional. -- we wanill not pare it back. >> to sit that it does not apply -- to say it does not apply is to take on nothing. >> we do not put our first and minarets in the hands of bureaucrats. if you say will not apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet? >> a pamphlet would be different.
2:25 am
this is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video, not print. why was that widely quoted? guest: it is a pithy line. roberts was frustrated that this law is so complicated that you cannot tell people in advance -- if i'm a corporation can we put out a video or movie? is michael moore's movie ago because of lamb bested george bush in 2004? what about a corporate-funded book? what if it attacks a certain candidate? could the government regulate that? this got into a heated debate in march and yesterday. the principle is no corporate money in politics, but how does that play out?
2:26 am
justice roberts asked a series of questions. he is skeptical of whether the government can regulate speech in politics. host: this is a clip from senator john mccain. i understand he and another were listening yesterday. after word state approached reporters in the plaza to comment. >> it is apparent to me that the questioning shows a strong disconnect between the justices and the reality of politics when corporate and union leaders were able to take calls from powerful committee chairmen who would say "i went to check in six- figures, soft money and by the way your legislation is up
2:27 am
before the committee." we saw the corruption in the telecommunications reform act, and in other legislative activities and results as the influence of special interests and corporate and union money in washington which credit out the right of the average citizen who does not have the amount of money that these do. i wish one of the justices who were so strongly standing up for first amendment rights had never run for a county sheriff. host: what is your reaction to that? guest: several -- i heard john mccain several weeks ago stand up to say what he was voting against sonia sotomayor. he said he is worry that she would be a judicial activist. he had supported conservative
2:28 am
justices that he was very fond of. he goes to the court yesterday and who were the justices likely to strike down what congress has done? the very ones he had voted for. sonia sotomayor will uphold the law. in the first question she was asking why we are arguing this big issue in this small case. couldn't you win it merely by saying this is a dvd by a very small group, not even a corporation. but we should not get into the business of striking down the laws against corporate funding. i'm intrigued by the fact -- i was wondering whether john mccain might have had an epiphany yesterday wondering if he had backed the wrong people. host: pardon me if you know all this about the supreme court. you're listening to the audio because the supreme court does not permit tv cameras.
2:29 am
it is unusual to hear the audio recordings immediately after the case is are giving go news organizations must petition the court for same-state police in the chief justice decides on it. yesterday he agreed to immediate release of the oral argument just after it was finished. that is why you have this opportunity to hear them and the response. that changes things, don't you think? rather than just reading about it. guest: i am in a small group who gets to hear them all the time. i do wish their release the more often. it does not harm the court, but gives the public a chance to hear. if there is enough interest from the press they will release the audiotape immediately, otherwise not. host: iowa, on the line for democrats. democrats. caller:
2:30 am
i am just an old person from watching this for years. i believe it with 8096% and when congress with balloon -- bullied by the big boys to pass a law that said that corporations were the same as a person. the same thing with labor unions. i do not understand why they ever came up with that law. it has been going on. then teddy roosevelt had passed the big bill where the cafes were correct did and the antitrust laws. you have to convince me why the supreme court is nothing more
2:31 am
than saying this is constitutional or it is not. why did they need to have a voice. i do not get it. can you explain that? guest: you have the right issue. right issue. is a corporation like an individual? going back to teddy roosevelt federal law has said corporations can be barred from giving money to candidates. since 1947 they may not spend money directly to elect or defeat candidates. the argument is being made now that corporations are like persons and have free speech rights. if a corporation wants to defeat nancy pelosi, it could have
2:32 am
them. the court could rule that corporations have a free-speech right to get involved in politics. you can imagine many in 2010 could choose to spend billions to run ads for or against members of congress. the supreme court is being asked to divide and is closely divided on in deciding whether corporations have these full speech rights. if i had to $9 to spend as an individual i have a free-speech right to run ads. -- if i had $9 million to spend as an individual i could do that. host: this case is guaranteed to be a landmark case? some suggest the justices could decide to roll merrily. guest: it could end up being a
2:33 am
very minor case. it is hard to tell. this conservative group will win this case. the only question is whether they will win narrowly. host: but it leaves the corporate situation intact. guest: yes, or they could say that the federal government will not allow it concerning campaign speech. host: iowa city, on the republican line. caller: this concerns me. is an individual and corporation, the relationship
2:34 am
-- how does that relate to what exists now as loll in the constitution? is this even an issue? how we revisited this in the john mccain-feingold passage as far as what can be said at a certain time prior to a federal election? my specific question is this. where would the judges' stand on this? would they ignore the political situation and good to the constitution to dig out for the freedom of speech stands? guest: the supreme court justices are very divided.
2:35 am
they do not even agree on history regarding this point. scalia and stevens refer to the r ailroads who could challenge things because they had rights just as a person me know justice stevens said they have never said that. justice scalia says yes, we have. they're famous cases regarding "the new york times." so, the justices do not agree. i do not think there will agree in this case, but the fundamental issue is, do they want to treat corporations -- and i presume unions -- as individuals who have a free- speech right. the john mccain-feingold law
2:36 am
plugged loopholes. john mccain said that soft money was a term coming into vogue because it got around limits on. on you could give it to a party for schenectady's. congress is always trying to plug those. -- begin a two-party for certain activities. corporate money was one of the moneys limited. host: i was city was just on air. caller: then would you agree that the issue here for would be to define corporation? host: hostguest: it is an artifl
2:37 am
entity. corporations are not like people. you did not bump into them on the street. it is a legal entity whose job is to make money. they are not voters. they have a variety of ventures. corporations job is to make money. justice scalia says it is just an association of people and there are a lot of small corporations. he kept saying that the local hairdresser could be incorporated. the answer is we do not want to keep them out of politics, but they can give money as individuals. they are going to define the first amendment rights of a corporation. the first moment says congress will make no law restricting the freedom of speech.
2:38 am
ted olsen says that no law means such and you should strike it down. host: this morning, independent line. caller: i believe in freedom of. speech of many corporations have ripped off us taxpayers for years. i have a hard time dealing with that when a look at with the pharmaceutical corporations have done to us. even what the fda allowed to happen. i have a hard problem supporting corporations now. their main goal is to make money, but it is off the expense of american taxpayers. guest: you do not sound like a vote for the corporations in this case. right now corporations have a fair amount of influence in politics.
2:39 am
there are corporate pacs. they are lobbyists. this potentially could ramp that up quite a bit. corporations can find issue ads. if pharmaceuticals or one of the healthcare companies ran ads to say that health care is good or bad for the following reasons -- what they cannot do is run an ad that says do not vote for nancy pelosi, or so and so because they have the wrong position on -- host: you were asked this by twitter. the second question is, who has the most to lose from this case?
2:40 am
guest: there are whole series of cases that involve corporations coming up in different contexts. so, i don't think there is any way to say that corporations usually win or lose. plus, there is a whole variety of corporations. there are cases involving the ncaap which is technically a corporation. host: here is another question. guest: as to who loses, this one has a partisan cast. a lot of the republicans including the republican national committee have been strong supporters of that this notion of free speech rights for corporations. the obama administration has been strongly opposed to the notion of more corporate money
2:41 am
in politics. for what ever it is worth, this would be more applauded by the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and opposed by democrats and liberals. host: this question is related. guest: let me see. there are some similarities. the difference between a religious group or some other social group as kagan tried to explain, most people don't know when they have a mutual fund. you do not by those stocks or do it because you are interested in the company's political views. you are doing it because you think the stock will go up and you will make money.
2:42 am
i do think there is a difference between interest group that comes together supporting a particular idea or cause and a corporation coming together as a particular legal form. its only real goal is to make money. host: speaking of the supreme court, on october 4 c-span will debut its new series. there's a documentary on the night of october 4 which will tell you more about the building and the justices. the following weekend we will have in their entirety each of the one-on-one interviews conducted with the sitting justices and justice o'connor for the talk about their role and the view of the court in society. it is very rare that these justices sit in front of tv cameras.
2:43 am
we invite you to watch and you can also find it on the website after the series airs. baltimore is up next. caller: good morning, when it comes down to campaign contributions to these governments when running for offices all these corporations, insurance companies that give these campaign contributions to these government running offices, then later on when the big scandals to mount and the corporations have given -- it seems to me they get better protections in court to help them once they have been decided of fraud. it seems these insurance
2:44 am
companies are giving away with fraud. there's nothing in the core system to safeguard the citizens -- in the court system. they make big contributions to those running for office. it seems to me the average citizen is losing out to these big corporations and insurance companies when they battle fraud and schemes. the average citizen cannot defend itself against them. we wanted to know where you can take these complaints to a higher floor to get campaign contributions? host: i do nothing good can and to the second question. we are with the second point come in? guest: the fact that they are
2:45 am
have a lot of influence. elena kagan, her job is to defend the law and defend the reason why congress passed the law mr. waxman was represented him. they made the same point. if you go back a hundred years, one of the consistent themes -- corporations have enormous power because of their money and wealth your coat -- there would have some role. we did not want him to have to metro. today have them -- we do not want them to have too much control. the danger is you get lawmakers who basically right all the laws to protect corporations and make the problem wars. host: we have a clip of elena kagan.
2:46 am
let's listen to that. >> we are suspicious of congressional action in the first amendment area precisely because -- i felt that one can expect a body of doubt that we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. is that excessively cynical of me? i do not think so. >> i think justice scalia, it is wrong. in fact corporate money goes overwhelmingly to incumbents. if you look at the last election cycle and corporate back money, it goes 10 times more to incumbents than to challengers. in the prior cycle even more than that. for an obvious reason.
2:47 am
when they play in the political process they want winners, people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get those is to invest in incumbents. in double-digits more than they invest in challengers. the rationale which is undoubtedly true in many contexts is simply not the case -- host: 0 was a light in the room watching her with her first oral argument? guest: i thought she was very impressive, very good for any argument, particularly a first one in a complicated case. the first idea is to have a conversational tone with them. she was not shy at all about taking on scalia and roberts and
2:48 am
sang the premise of the question is wrong. she said if there were truly self-interested they would lift all the ban on corporate and union spending because corporations would then give the money to them. she basically said several times, and joan rivers said what are we supposed to do with a case like this? she said you ought to do what you normally do it and decide it narrowed. -- that is what she said when john roberts asked what to do with a case like this. i thought she was very quick and well-prepared and. she handled it exceedingly well. you know you're going up against five justices who probably disagree from the start. he will probably not convince them, but she was very good -- you will probably not convince them.
2:49 am
but she turned it around and made a strong point. host: was her goal not to win, but to narrow the scope of the loss? guest: yes, her goal was to lose neararrowly. she said if we have to lose we would rather lose on these grounds than on the other. it is ok too narrow the law to say and ideological groups, non- profit baby should not be covered by the law, but do not go to next step to say all corporations have the same free- speech rights. host: the next call is from michigan on the republican line. caller: yes, i would like to ask the man this question me know if you do not want these
2:50 am
corporations -- we want to restrict their freedom of speech, but why are we doing that when the left democrats are continually assaulting them? don't they have the right to defend themselves? another thing, your comment about john mccain. that is one of the reasons he lost support from us republicans is his very opinion about campaign finance reform. it was very much to the left. so that logic does not apply to us conservatives. why do you restrict the corporations' speech so much when the leftist assaulting them so much? they should have the right to
2:51 am
defend themselves and make a statement of who they would like to have an office. guest: let me split it down the middle. they have a right to defend themselves. for example, if the insurance companies' having heard president obama's speech last night say they're being unfairly bashed on this and when to run a public campaign to say it is not their fault, they are free to do so and spend a lot of money. they do that. granted, there is one restriction in the law which is that they cannot give money directly to a candidate for congress or presidency and the cannot run an ad saying specifically to defeat smith and elect jones. host: the next call is from wisconsin on the independent
2:52 am
line. caller: the reason i'm calling is, during this last presidential election i was listening to a couple of cable channels and a they were talking about on the money that was being donated to candidates from foreign countries. many people supposedly gave a $20 donation. the foreign countries would bundle all these donations they got and send one large check to whichever. whichever i thought that was against law -- to whichever candidate they wanted. why isn't anyone investigating this? i remember when al gore was running and the big scandal -- some nuns or with some asian group and he should not have
2:53 am
expected that many. why it are they allowing people from foreign countries to donate money so they can determine our elections? host: ok. guest: yes, it is illegal for foreigners or foreign companies to contribute election money. i do not know the facts as you are referring to from the 2008 election. it should be investigated. the federal election commission should look into it. host: this is related from of your by e-mail. -- this is related to her question. guest: it is a terrific question which was also asked by justice ginsburg yesterday.
2:54 am
if you are arguing there's no distinction between corporations and individuals, what do we do with the megacorporations some of whom are foreign-owned? can they put money into campaign ads? there was no answer. it is a big problem if you go down this road. host: this view were poses this question. -- by this viewer comes this question. guest: this came from a case in the mid 1970's right after watergate where the court created a division that has stayed with us ever since. it basically said the government can restrict contributions. if i have millions of dollars
2:55 am
the government can restrict how much i can give. only 25 -- only $2,500 or whatever. but if i want to spend money on my own, i have the money to do so. that is what funded candidates like ross perot or mayor bloomberg from new york. that is still at issue. even conservative justices agreed the government can forbid corporations from giving money directly to congressional candidates, but they say the government cannot forbid corporations from running campaign ads that say to elect or defeat congressman jones. that division between expenditures and contributions is still around. host: steve, on the line for
2:56 am
democrats. caller: i was born in 1943, so there are many people my age do not know what was passed. but i understand back in 1945 the massey-ferguson act was enacted to exempt insurance companies' from the antitrust laws it means they are exempt from paying taxes. wouldn't you say that is true of why we have the mess in healthcare? guest: i'm not familiar with that law. insurance is a state-ready. -- is state-regulated.
2:57 am
host: go ahead, james. caller: if the white house can call pharmaceutical corporations up to capitol hill and shake them down for $80 billion, i would think that john mccain's naive comment was over the top. i strongly believe corporations can do this lobbying and should also have the right to run advertisements before an election. guest: fair enough. that is the argument that they are into lobbying, so why not go all the way? that is what the court will decide. host: we're going into an election year and this case could have a big effect on the process of elections.
2:58 am
when will we know? guest: i think it is one of the reasons they scheduled it early, before the election in your kicks in. december is a good guess. my guess is two or three months. someone w writes an >> this saturday the can hear the supreme court argument at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> up next on c-span, the defense department general counsel discusses the legal issues involved in closing the
2:59 am
guantanamo bay detention center. the house approved a resolution commemorating september 11 and treasury secretary timothy kucinich testifies about the tarp program to ease financial institutions. -- timothy geithner testifies about the tarp program to ease financial institutions. >> on today's "washington journal" a look at poverty institute. we will talk to the president, matt kibbe. it begins tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. cups is there more than one definition of conservative? saturday, the new york times book review editor on the death
3:00 am
3:47 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. towns: for the purpose tore recognize national day of service and remembrance. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 718, resolution recognizing september 11 as a national day of service and remembrance. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. towns and the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: i move that the house, suspend the rules and
3:48 am
agree to house resolution 718. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes. mr. towns: i now yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. towns: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks. i now yield myself -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. towns: i now yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. towns: as we take time today to remember the tragic events of september 11, 2001, let us also remember the great compassion the americans showed each other following the attacks. they donated blood, searched through wreckage and sat to
3:49 am
comfort one another. the service of volunteers helped our country through its time of crisis as it has so often done during our history. this is the spirit that we observe the anniversary of the attacks by not only remembering those lost and injured on september 11, 2001, but by serving our fellow americans in their honor. this is the proper tribute to those who served those in need on that day. i am proud that we are taking time today to recognize these heroic volunteers. i would like to thank the leadership for allowing us to bring this bill to the floor today. i also would like to thank the ranking member of the committee on governor oversight and reform, mr. issa of california, for his support of the bill and
3:50 am
i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. unanimous consent, the gentleman from california -- without objection, the gentleman from california will control 20 minutes. . >> the resolution before us is a commitment to reaffirm a sense of urgency of reminding all of us of the crisis that occurred not so long ago in the crumbling towers and the -- in new york, and the crisis in the pentagon and in pennsylvania. i appreciate the chairman bringing this item before us and as a representative of the minority on the committee, i want to strongly urge its support. i appreciate the fact that the gentleman has worked bipartisan. i think this is one committee where the chairman and the
3:51 am
ranking member have proven that washington, especially the house of representatives, can work in a cooperative manner. i think if there is any place the american people not only expect but demand that we find that bipartisan ground, i think we have found it in this resolution and on this issue. at this time i will -- i reserve my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from new york, congressman engel, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman and my good friend from new york for yielding to me. mr. speaker, september 11 will always have a special meaning in our hearts and in our lives. i guess the previous generation when you said december 7, pearl harbor day, that was something that stuck in their minds. but for us september 11 is a date that will live as president
3:52 am
roosevelt said, in infamy. september 11 showed us the worst in people, the terrorists that killed approximately 2,000 people in new york, at the pentagon, and pennsylvania. but it also showed the best in people. new yorkers and others who came to try to save people, certainly at the world trade center. every week when i go back to new york i look at this skyline of new york and something's missing. it always feels to me empty. it always feels wrong. of course the twin to youers of the world trade center are miss missing. as much as i have pain in my heart for the missing towers, it's nothing like the pain in my heart and grief i have for the thousands of people killed and their families. i was very proud to be a new
3:53 am
yorker that day. i said it on the floor of this house soon afterwards eight years ago. i'm still very, very proud to be a new yorker. but there's still much more work to be done. we have been fighting for years for a health care bill that would enable first responders and good samaritans who came to the world trade center day in and day out, digging sometimes with their bare hands to try to find victims and very often did. now who are suffering from ir represent prabble injuries to their -- irreparable injuries to their lungs and health. we need a bill, and the new york delegation has been fighting for a bill, who take care of these people who by the way come from all 50 states. this congress needs to do that. but we also, as mr. towns said, need to remember those people. the people who perished and the thousands of people who came to
3:54 am
aid and help the victims, to save their lives, to escort them to safety, to come and try to find people in the rubble. and that again showed the best of humanity, the best of americans, the best of new yorkers, the best of what this country has to offer. again, mr. speaker, september 11 will obviously never be the same and will hold a special meaning. i generally have not attended meetings or any kind of things on that day in the eight years because for me it's day of reflection, but i am very, very proud that this congress is taking up this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. engel: i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. bilbray: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished member from new york, the ranking member on homeland security, mr. king.
3:55 am
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to commend chairman towns and ranking member issa for bringing this bill to the floor. i want to thank congresswoman matsui for the tremendous work that she has done in leading the way on this legislation. i am proud to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. mr. speaker, i listened carefully to my good friend from new york, mr. engel, and he really articulated the way all new yorkers feel. september 11 will be a day that none of us will ever forget. it's a day that will be embedded into us because of the terrible horror, the tragedy, all that occurred on that day, but also because of the tremendous valor, tremendous dedication, and the tremendous sense of courage which was also demonstrated on that day. i lost probably 150 constituents, friends, neighbors that day, and that is just all throughout downstate new york,
3:56 am
almost every member of congress can say the same thing about the large numbers of deaths in their districts, friends, neighbors, who were murdered that day. it's really important as we go forward that september 11 never just be a day, never just be a who day, never be a day where some people get off or some don't, or a day used to go shopping, it should be a day where we find a way to remind ourselves of the sacrifice of that day, of the police officers and firefighters and the e.m.t.'s and construction workers who actually ran into the burning towers and suffered incalculable deaths, 343 firefighters, 60 police officers, number of e.m.t.'s, construction workers all of whom were killed rescuing people that day. mr. speaker, just as an historical note, this legislation initiated from an organization called my good deed, and this organization, one of the founders of it was jay,
3:57 am
his brother, glenn, was a constituent of mine. glenn was actually working in manhattan that day as lawyer. he's also a volunteer firefighter. after he evacuated his own building he ran into the world trade center and was killed. this past week he was finally awarded the 9/11 med a.f.l. valor. but the family in honor of glenn personafide september 11 in that he was both a civilian and firefighter who in both capacities performed so brilliantly that day that he was -- his family thought of this organization which is the genesis of this legislation. could i have additional time? is there a time problem? mr. bilbray: i yield an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for additional two minutes. mr. king: also, for instance, tomorrow throughout my district there will be various types of service being carried out. for instance, in my own office, we have a blood drive, run by my sister, patricia.
3:58 am
we'll have people lined up giving blood in honor of those killed on september 11. in my own school district, there will be a large commemoration and the coordinator, ken has cal, a firefighter who lost two brothers, he's coordinating where the students will show the good works that they did in honor of those who died on september 11. mr. speaker, this is a day which again as tragic as it was, as horrible as it was, it's also a day from which tremendous good came from that. let's go forward. let's adopt this legislation in the spirit of what happened on september 11, both in memory of those who were murdered and honor of those who gave their lives and honor of those who in the days afterwards, con man engel said, not just from new york but all over the country, came to lower manhattan, the world trade center, came to the pentagon, went to pennsylvania to try to do what they could to
3:59 am
help those and take part in the rescue operation, recovery operation, and really showed the unity of the nation maybe as never before. with that again i thank the chairman, i thank the ranking member, i certainly thank congresswoman matsui. i urge the adoption of the resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: i would like to yield five mints to the gentlewoman who really -- five minutes to the gentlewoman who is really responsible for us being here today. i want to thank her for her insight and making it possible for us to recognize the people who really contributed so much on september 11. congresswoman matsui from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. matsui: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 718, which recognize september 11 as a national day of service and remembrance. on april 21 of this year, with senator ted kennedy standing by
4:00 am
his side, president obama signed into law the edward m. kennedy service america act. this landmark legislation makes this landmark legislation makes historic investments in both resolution calls upon all americans to engage in community service and contribute to local projects and their neighborhood on september 11. in tribute to those who selflessly serve their communities during the attacks. on that day as was mentioned by
4:01 am
our new yorkers here, and people throughout the country, on that day and the days following, first responders, rescue and recovery workers, and perfect strangers came together to help those in need. their sense of patriotism and service truly made our nation great. this year we'll honor them not only by remembering their heroism, but by recommitting ourselves to bettering our communities and our country. this friday we'll join with americans across the country and give back to our communities by volunteering to build houses, participate in literacy programs, lead neighbor cleanups, collect food and clothing for the coming winter. and really much, much more. as a result, extraordinary things will be happening all through this country. the service events taking place will hip address some of our nation's -- help address some of our nation's toughest problems from poverty and unmet education needs to preparing for natural
4:02 am
disasters. as co-chair of the national service caucus, it's a pleasure to call attention to the tremendous work of volunteers participating in osh first ever national day of service and remembrance and partner with my colleague, peter king of new york, on this legislation. i also want to thank my good deed.org and the families of 9/11 who help make this a reality. and for promoting volunteerism and service in every corner of our country. i'm really proud that this body has come together and has been a leader in recognizing the importance of volunteerism and community service. please join me in honoring the spirit of service by voting in support of this resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from california. mr. bilbray: at this time i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
4:03 am
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding. i have to say that i'm rather struck as i listen to my california colleague mr. matsui, and mr. bilbray, we have had three new yorkers and now three californians who have stood here to recognize the significance of what unfortunately is one of the most tragic days in the history of the 220-year history of the united states of america. and all of the remarks have been extraordinarily thoughtful and they have focused on why it is that we are here. and it is to remember those thousands of lives that were lost, but as was said by mr. engel, mr. towns, and mr. king as well, and mrs. matsui, i know mr. bilbray, the good that has come from one of the most tragic days in our nation's history is that we saw a solidarity the likes of which we have not seen in a long period of time. and we saw so many great things
4:04 am
done by courageous people. now, we have heard about the new yorkers and no one sacrificed more than new yorkers as we for literally months watched the cleanup take place at the world trade center. but i'm reminded of the fire department in southern california. it was so moved they came together and provide add fire truck to the new york city police department. and we have had three new yorkers and three californians i know we speak for everyone across this country when we underscore how important it is to recognize this one of the most tragic days in our nation's history. . there are other things that have come from this. representative king is the former chairman of the homeland security committee which was
4:05 am
established in the aftermath of september 11. as we sit here prepared to mark the 8th anniversary, i think it's important to note that another good thing has emerged and that is the fact that while most predicted that within a matter of months and certainly years, we would have another terrorist attack on u.s. soil. and it's due to the work of peter king and lots of other people in this institution in the executive branch and around the country that has ensured that we have not to this point and we hope and pray that this rig lance will continue and we will never have another attack like we saw on september 11, 2001. and we also need to use this resolution, mr. speaker, to remind ourselves that we still live in a very, very dangerous world. there are people who would like to do us in.
4:06 am
we know that. we find it out on a daily basis and we see it in tragic terrorist attacks that take place in other parts of the globe. and so i join, mr. speaker, with my colleagues in strong support of the efforts that ms. matsui and mr. king and others have put forth on this resolution in hopes that this will be a learning experience and as mr. engel mentioned the fact that december 7, 1941 was a date for past generations, we all remember the history of december 7, 1941 and similarly we hope that this resolution will ensure that future generations will never forget what happened on september 11 of 2001. and i thank my friend for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: let me, mr. speaker, i would like to join my colleagues in saying that this was a day that i will never ever
4:07 am
forget. as i stood and i watched the second plane hit and then i realized that this was a day that we would never ever forget. i also want to recognize those firefighters and those police officers and people who came from all over the nation to help us at that time, i mean new yorkers. and that's something we cannot forget. people just packed up, came to help us clean up. and i never seen people work together the way they worked during the crisis of september 11. so i think it's only fitting that we stop and we recognize the great work of those volunteers. and i want to thank
4:08 am
congresswoman matsui and congressman peter king for sponsoring this resolution. i remember a gentleman by the name of al walden who served in the congress with us who was a judge and his office was in the building that caught on fire, the first building. and i recall standing out here talking to him as we are looking at the problems and the smoke coming from the building. and as we heard the fire trucks and the volunteers running to help each other and that's the day i will never ever forget. i remember getting a call indicating that fireman glassco, who was a very good friend was a good friend. i mean i can just go down the list calling the roll of all these people that lost their
4:09 am
lives on that day. but i can't help from thinking about the togetherness that came from this and how people said let's do everything we can to assist the people in new york. i want to thank from all over this land for doing that. and of course, i have no other speakers. if the gentleman from california is prepared to yield back, i'm prepared to do so as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.? mr. towns: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. bilbray: mr. speaker, i appreciate the chairman's words and let me just say, december 7, 1941 was brought up earlier. and my father's birthday was december, 1941 -- was in december 7 and he was stationed at pearl harbor in 1941. and i think the big slogan we
4:10 am
have heard about december 7 is never again shall we not be prepared to avoid this. i guess the goal we need to say is never again with 9/11. how many of us around this country, especially if you ask those in new york, how many thought that flight schools in florida or california was going to affect their lives. most new yorkers would probably say, it doesn't affect me. i guess how many people around this country would think that if virginia gave drivers' licenses to people who were not legally in the country would think, does it matter? no, it doesn't matter. 9/11 has proven anything that happens in the united states would have a major impact at corners across this country. i have to say that we do talk about what happened in new york.
4:11 am
we can identify where the pentagon was hit. sadly, i don't think most of us could point out where in a field in pennsylvania the heroes of that flight perished. in that field, somewhere in pennsylvania, there were the heroes who chose to stop an act of terrorism dead in its tracks. and i think every member of congress, when we tour the capitol and walk into the capitol, every member of congress should remember those heroes who perished in that field in pennsylvania because, mr. speaker, we stand here today and we have the privilege of showing our constituents this structure to representative government, the capitol. we stand today proudly because these heroes were willing to give it all to protect the
4:12 am
capitol of the united states. as far as i know, we were the next one on-line. and so as we stand here today in recognizing the sacrifice of the heroes and loss of 9/11, we should remember every day that a member of congress or the president has the privilege of serving the public in this building, in this temple of representative government that we ought to thank those heroes for preserving for us the rights for us to be able to represent them here in this structure. without that heroism, not only would this structure not be here, but many of us who will vote on this resolution today. so i ask that we support this resolution. i ask that we remember what it's about and that we remember that the only way to make sure that it doesn't happen again is to
4:13 am
take the time to do the right thing, learn from the mistakes of 9/11 and make sure we don't forget the mistakes of 9/11 so that we never repeat the tragedy of 9/11. i reserve -- gentleman ready? i would yield back. at this time, i'm ready to yield my time back to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 minutes. mr. towns: let me make a statement and i would be prepared to yield back. again, i want the gentleman from california, peter king, the gentlewoman matsui and congressman engel for his participation. and i would like to your knowledge my colleagues to join me in remembering september 11 as the ideal opportunity to
4:14 am
going to giving back to our nation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 718. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. towns: i ask for the yeas and nays -- no, don't worry about it. i withdraw it. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and ask the house to agree to h.res. 722. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 722, resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding the
4:15 am
terrorist attacks launched against the united states on september 11, 2001. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. berman, and the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: mr. speaker, this resolution pays homage to the lives lost on september 11, 2001, and recognize the -- recognizes the anniversary as not only a time of solemn commemoration but also a demonstration of america's great resolve in combating terrorism. it extends our enduring and
4:16 am
deepest condolences to the friends, families and loved ones of the innocent victims. and recognizes the heroism of u.s. service men and women who defend our country today. it honors the nation's first responders and others whose valiant efforts did credit to their country on that horrible day and who continue to help keep us safe. and it expresses gratitude to the leaders and citizens of other countries who assisted, supported and stood by the united states in the aftermath of the attacks. in america's modern and fragmented society, collective memories are few. but each of us remembers where we were on 9/11 when we heard the news. we remember the days of unity that followed when we acted together to protect this country from those who were determined to bring us to our knees. we remember the efforts that congress, the executive branch
4:17 am
and the american people have made since then to protect our nation from a real and an ongoing threat. and even though eight years have passed, we must remember that al qaeda, while under pressure everywhere, remains a serious threat to the united states. the very al qaeda leadership responsible for ordering the attacks on september 11 continues to rally those who would do us harm and along with its taliban allies seeks to defeat our troops in afghanistan. . this is when we must stand together to recall a moment when trarts targeted america's strengths. our very foundations were under attack and we will carry on the fight against extremists who seek to do us harm. in this battle, the global realities of the 21st century require that we use not only our military, but all of the tools
4:18 am
available to us, economic, financial, diplomatic and cultural resources to promote a better alternative to extremism and to protect our national security. mr. speaker, none of us will forget what happened eight years ago. we will always remember the victims of 9/11 and the loved ones who survived them. we will always honor the first responders who lost their lives that day and those in uniform at home and abroad who risk their lives today and every day to defend america. we will continue to promote our founding principles of freedom and aqult and ensure that the lives lost in pursuit of our ideals are never forgotten. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.
4:19 am
ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, it has been eight years since our country and the entire world stopped and looked on helplessly as the slaughter of innocence at the hands of al qaeda unfolded before our eyes. although we watched in safety, our fears and hopes were without warning forced to fight for our lives. it is a true miracle that so many escaped destruction, but we will forever mourn the thousands who perished on that terrible day. our sorrow, however deep, cannot match those -- cannot match those whose loved ones were taken away on 9/11. we will always share a part of it. the passage of years has not smoothed the deep impressions that we will bear for the rest of our lives. but as americans, it is not in our nature to resign ourselves to helplessness, even when facing seemingly impossible
4:20 am
challenges. instead, we rally and focus our minds and efforts on meeting and overcoming the threats that we face. we have always done so and we have always won. if there's anything useful that we can take away from this tragedy, it is the unmistakeable warning we have been given of the unseen dangers that we face in this new century. from that, a clarity of vision and a new understanding of the world has emerged. over the past eight years, we have come to know our enemies. we have learned that their hatred of us, success and freedom is too deep to be changed by concessions and appeals to reason. we now grasp the magnitude of the threat and it is a global one. other countries have come under attack and so can no longer deceive themselves that once again this is a men ace for the united states to handle alone
4:21 am
while they stand safely on the sidelines. we have uncovered their hiding places in caves, in villages, in deserts, in cities, in jungles, in back alies, in nations far away, as well as right here in our own homeland. but it would be a mistake if our successes lead us to believe that the danger has passed. we have seen destruction descend from clear and sunny skies and know that it can happen again. to hope that our enemies will abandon their mission, to relax our watch is to invite destruction. president lincoln said that those who are responsible for our nation's course, which includes the members of this body, cannot escape history. we have a responsibility to do all in our power to ensure that our country is secure and that america's promise for the world that generations have labored and fought for and died to
4:22 am
protect remain whole and unbounded. how we meet this reality will repeatedly test our national character. we are right to remember and mourn those men, women and children who died on that day so sharply eached in our minds that it seems like yesterday. but this tragedy must be redeemed by a new understanding of our duty to our beloved country and to our fellow citizens. and what it is to be an american. as long as we draw breath, we will remember those who asking nothing other than to live their lives in peace were brutally murdered by men without conscience or mercy. let those who remain be steadfast, be courageous and live lives worthy of their great sacrifice and thereby honor their memory.
4:23 am
with that, mr. speaker, i would like to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house armed services committee, mr. skeleton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. cancel cancel -- mr. skelton: >> mr. speaker, eight years ago on september 11, 2001, this chairman beer was empty, the capitol was evacuated, the pentagon was burning, the twin towers in new york lay crumbled and almost 3,000 of our citizens were dead. we can never forget them and we should never forget what we owe them. today, we will once again mourn the families and those who have fallen and we express our
4:24 am
deepest sympathy to their friends and loved ones. this is only right. but it's not enough. we owe it to the victims, to their loved ones, to the survivors, to ourselves to make sure who carried out this awful attack are brought to justice and ensure that they can never again attack and kill our people here at home. for too long, the war in afghanistan was the forgotten war. only recently have we refocused our attention on the war on al qaeda and the taliban who shelter them as they carried out their plot to murder thousands of americans. we cannot -- we can debate the best way to prosecute the fight against al qaeda and taliban. for our part, the president has proposed a strategy on afghanistan, with which i gee. we cannot walk away from the fight and allow the memory of this horrific event to be
4:25 am
forgotten and can't forget how important it is to bring those to justice. afghanistan brings clear and compelling dangers. the taliban will once control afghanistan and permit their al qaeda terrorist allies to operate from there. failure means we let down those who died on 9/11. we can and we should consider how best to prosecute the war in afghanistan. it's not a simple war. it's not an easy war, but for the first time, we have a real strategy and for the first time, we are providing the resources needed for the fight. we have a new commander who is breathing new life into our effort and we must show that we have resolve. together, our men and women in uniform, the time and resources they need to show progress in the fight against enemies who carried this and supported the
4:26 am
attacks of 9/11. america was attacked on 9/11 by a ruthless, callous enemy and we cannot forget that and walk away from the war in afghanistan against them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield one minute to mr. boehner, our respected republican leader. mr. boehner: let me thank my colleagues for yielding and for this resolution that's on the floor. all of us will remember, i think quite clearly where we were on the morning of september 11, 2001. i think all of us will remember the victims of this heinous act that occurred that day.
4:27 am
while we today remember those victims and remember their families and we remember the first responders who put their lives in danger as well, i think we need to resolve that we will never forget of those who perpetrated that attack. and vow that we will continue to go after them. i want to associate myself with the remarks of the the gentleman from missouri, chairman of the armed services committee, who understands quite clearly that if we walk away from our efforts in afghanistan, the taliban will once again be in control, providing safe haven for those who perpetrated these attacks. and while it's been now eight years since that attack, our
4:28 am
enemies are still out there, still attempting to injury americans, kill americans both here and abroad. and i think it's critically important that we as a nation never forget what happened on 9/11 and vow what many of us believe is important that our number one job is to provide safety and security to the american people. and so i thank my colleagues for their resolution that's on the floor and honor those who gave their lives on 9/11 and think of their families and the first responders who continue to suffer today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of our committee, the distinguished member from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman
4:29 am
for yielding to me and i rise in strong support of his resolution and i want to reiterate some of the things i said before with mr. towns. when i go back to new york every week and look at the skyline of new york, it will never be the same. the world trade center is no longer there. as much as that pains me, it pales in comparison that we lost 3,000 people that day and each and every one of those lives is precious and what september 11 means to me, it means to me what the previous generation talked about on december 7. president roosevelt said during december 7, 1941, pearl harbor that that was a day of infamiliary. to us, september 11, 2001 will always be a day of infammy. it showed the best in people as well as the worst of people, the terrorists who attacked us
4:30 am
showed the worst. but the first responders and the people from all parts of the country who came to save people's lives, that's the best in people. i want to mention that the new york delegation has been fighting for a health bill, which would ensure that those who were first responders and who were first responders and others who came as volunteers a .
4:31 am
the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, chairman of our republican conference. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: let me rise in gratitude to the majority leader, mr. hoyer and minority leader, mr. boehner, for bringing this important resolution to the floor, bringing a bipartisan resolution to the floor is perhaps the best way to commemorate the bipartisanship that followed the extraordinary event of eight years ago this friday. i was here on capitol hill that day, as my colleagues were.
4:32 am
it was just as pretty a day as it is today. and the shock and horror of the images on the television screens, the smoke rising from the pentagon still is with me today and informs my service in this building, as it does all of our colleagues. but let me say, today's resolution is important because as the old book says, we are to mourn with those who mourn and grieve with those who grieve and we are to pave the debts of honor and gratitude that are owed. this resolution remembers those that were lost that day. and this nation should never forget the lives that were lost at the pentagon, in the heart of our great city of new york or in a field in pennsylvania. so we remember them today. and we think of their families. but we rise to pay a debt of
4:33 am
gratitude to all those who rushed in when others were rushing out, who filled recruiting offices, who put on the uniform of the united states and went in and confronted this terror where it all began. and let us, as we grieve and as we mourn and remember and pay debts of gratitude, let us also resolve to continue to do all we can to maintain that bipartisan commitment that began on that very day and continues to this day to make sure that our nation and our soldiers and those who protect us at home and abroad have the resources that they need to get the job done and come home safe. with that, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york, mr. ackerman, will control the remainder of the time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. ackerman: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure to yield to the majority leader of the house.
4:34 am
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the distinguished chairman and gentleman from new york. i thank mr. pence for his remarks. on many days on this floor we -- it's a place for heated debate. and that is, of course, as it should be. that's what our founders intended. but at this moment, as mr. pence, the chairman of the republican conference pointed out, and as i will point out as the majority leader on democratic side, there are no democrats or republicans on this floor because we joined to remember and mourn the attack on america. not on democrats or republicans but on america and on its values and on what it stands for throughout the world, freedom and justice. september 11, 2001, was a day of grief and of shock, of fear, of anger, but today it can and must be something more. a day to rededicate ourselves with memory and with service to the ideals that make our nation
4:35 am
great. as i said earlier, freedom, pluralism, quality, rule of law, justice. those no less than our buildings and our citizens were the targets of the 9/11 terrorists. and though buildings crumbled and the dead are lost to us, it's in our power to see our ideals remain strong and unscathed. so on this eighth anniversary, along with the republican leader, mr. boehner, i was proud to introduce the resolution marking september 11 as a day of remembrance but also a day of resolve. so many conflicting emotions marked this day. grief for nearly 3,000 men and women and children murdered. heart felt sympathy for those who loved and lost them.
4:36 am
an unspeakable pride in the first responders, firemen, policemen, medical personnel who served and indeed sacrificed on that day. among the 3,000, 343 firefighters, 37 port authority officers and 23 police officers who died serving their fellow citizens as they ran into dangers. jaws not away from them. alongside them i understand the passengers of the united flight 93, ordinary americans who discovered their extraordinary heroism at a moment of crisis and who quite possibly saved this building, this chamber and the capitol dome from ruins. it is my own view that that was the target of this third plane, to strike down that dome which here in america and throughout the world is a symbol of
4:37 am
freedom and pleuralism and and, yes, democracy. we also remember the cyst sacrifices of our troops -- remember the sacrifices of our troops, not only those who lost their lives under our flag, but those who make the everyday sacrifice of separation from family and home. not all of us is called to serve as heroically, but in a number of small acts to our community, we can emulate our services in both ways large and small. that -- that is our resolve today. and along with it we take the lesson of our vulnerability to heart. we commit ourselves to defending america from whatever threats may confront it. with all of our military force, all of our diplomatic skill and all of the power of our moral example. our lives are limited, but we have in our keeping the ideals
4:38 am
and truths that have animated our nation since its founding. and that we trust will outlive us. outlive all of us to light the lives of our children and grandchildren and as a great grandfather, let me say for generations to come. they have lived through war, through economic crisis and through the gravest attacks. now while they are in our keeping let us defend them, serve them, live for them and pass them down unharmed and undamaged. all that, my fellow colleagues, on behalf of the 300 million people who have sent 435 of us here to represent their views and their aspirations, their courage and their commitment, let us again resolve today.
4:39 am
may we hold it for tomorrow and every day thereafter. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. king, the ranking member of the committee on homeland security who lost so many of his constituents that day on 9/11. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady from florida for yielding, mr. speaker. i am proud to rise in support of this resolution. at the outset will he me commend leader hoyer and minority leader boehner and showing the bipartisan that is so essential. mr. speaker, september 11 is not just history. it's real. it's with us every day. as the ranking member, ms. ros-lehtinen said, i lost approximately 150 friends, constituents and neighbors on september 11. that's true of almost the downstate delegation from new
4:40 am
york. in fact, i can't drive throughout my district without seeing sign after sign, street signs commemorating the police officers and firefighters who were killed on that day. it's a tragedy that continues today in those families, with their friends and their neighbors. but it's also an ongoing threat against the united states of america. the attack on september 11 did not end on september 11. the fact is we have an enemy of islamic terrorism, al qaeda, which threatens us throughout the world and indeed here in our own country. in new york alone, there was going to be attacks against the brooklyn bridge, against the synagogues in riverdale, in the north bronx. so these are issues -- these are tsh this is a threat which is ongoing and it's real. we always have to keep our defenses up and we have to thank the men and women of our armed forces who are fighting throughout the world, the men and women of our intelligence agencies, the men and women of the state and local police departments in new york, the new york city police
4:41 am
department, nassau county police department, suffolk county police department, there are more than 1,000 police officers dedicated to fighting terrorism in counterterrorism units. again, it's daily, daily effort. as the ranking member of the homeland security committee, i'm aware of many of the threats we have stopped. and we -- and realize again how the enemy is never going to stop and we can't let our guard down. also, in the interest of bipartisanship, i believe we should give president bush credit for setting up the international level of cooperation with so many countries throughout the world and also breaking down bare areas within our own intelligence agencies and requiring them to share information with local police departments. it's not -- it's not because of luck that we have not been attacked in eight years. on september 12, 2001, no one would have thought we would have gone eight years without being attacked the way we were on that horrible day on september 11. and also in the interest of bipartisanship, it's important for us as republicans to stay with president obama and his policy in afghanistan which is the continuation which we began against the taliban and al
4:42 am
qaeda after the attacks on september 11. this issue of international terrorism is too important to allow us to be divided by partisan politics. we came together as a nation on september 11 and the days after. it's important that we stay together. this, as president kennedy said in 1961, it's going to be a long twilight struggle. we won that cold war and we are going to win this war. we are going to prevail if we stand together as one, stand together as a nation and realize that our enemy steampting to destroy us. if we stand together as one with our allies and our forces here in this country we can never be defeated. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ackerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the resolution and commend the majority leader and the minority leader for their good work. we have before us an excellent memorial resolution.
4:43 am
it's succinct, strong and truly expresses what i truly believe to be the position of the entire house. as we consider this resolution, i'd suggest that every member take a minute to close their eyes, if they're in their offices, turn off the chattering of the television or the -- their staff and try to think back to september, 2001. it really was eight years ago. remember how beautiful a day that that was. perfect. clear, crisp september day with a cloudless sky. remember where you were when you heard that our nation was under attack, when you first saw those awful images of the towers gushing black smoke and the pentagon in flames. remember the thousands of our fellow americans who perished in the world trade center and at the pentagon. remember the inconceivable heroism of the first responders who rushed into the flames and the chaos in order to save others.
4:44 am
remember the defiant courage of the passengers on united flight 93 who lost their lives but probably saved the most glorious symbol of our democracy in the world, the u.s. capitol, and many, many who were working here on that day. remember our shock and fury. remember our national unity and the feeling of common purpose. remember how the whole world stood with us and shared our outrage and our agony. these memories are available to all of us if we take but that one moment. we all experienced these events and all that is needed is to take the moment, to set aside a little bit of time and let it all come back. why? is it a morbid fascination with catastrophe? is it merely to justify some policy or expenditure? i would suggest two other reasons. first, the memory is what we owe to those who were so unjustly murdered.
4:45 am
4:46 am
mr. ackerman: and this great nation which gives each person complete freedom, thought, belief and expression in which the govern choose who will govern them, the meaning of 9/11 and the consequences of that terrible, terrible, terrible day remain for us to decide each man and woman for themselves. all it takes is that moment to remember. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. ackerman: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member of the committee on the middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i'd like to say to my colleague from mr. ackerman, i really appreciate your remarks and they were right on the money. i heard a lot of my colleagues say we should remember those who sacrificed their lives on september 11. and i think that's fitting and proper. but one of the things i don't want to ever happen again is a
4:47 am
repeat of 9/11. and for the past eight years we have had not had another attack due in very large part to the homeland security people and to the c.i.a. and to the f.b.i. we have intercepted information from terrorists, and we've been able to prevent additional attacks because of the work they've done. and i think it's improper for us today while we're remembering those who sacrificed their lives on that day, the firemen, the people in those planes, i think it's -- we'd be remiss if we didn't think about the future and be concerned about that never happening again. and right now the justice department of the united states is investigating the c.i.a. and those people have been involved in stopping terrorist activity by going after the terrorists and making them give us information that would stop an additional terrorist attack. and today, they are under scrutiny, and some of them may be prosecuted for doing their job. and i think that's improper.
4:48 am
everybody in america owes our intelligence agencies a debt of gratitude and homeland security a debt of gratitude for protecting this country for the last eight years. and if we don't want to see another 9/11 and none of us do and there have been some prevented like the one in california that was going to take place, if we don't want to ever see that again, we must support the intelligence agencies who are stopping the terrorists. and right now with the attack that's taking place by the justice department on the c.i.a., only discourages those who do their job to protect this country from doing their job. if you're a c.i.a. agent today and you know the justice department is watching every single thing you do in trying to stop a terrorist attack, are you going to want to -- can i have 30 seconds? ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burton: are you going to want to take the risk of being prosecuted because you're going after a terrorist to make him give you information that will
4:49 am
stop another terrorist attack? we're demoralizing our intelligence agencies by doing this right now. it may be unintentional. i don't know. but we certainly should not be doing it. they were doing their job. if you don't agree with waterboarding or whatever it was, ok. but that's something that's in the past. we shouldn't discourage our intelligence agencies from doing their job now. we want to protect every single american from another terrorist attack. and the way to do it is certainly not by attacking our intelligence people. . mr. ackerman: i yield a minute to the gentleman, mr. sires. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the resolution expressing the sense of the house regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the united states on september 11, 2001. as the district i represent sits across from downtown manhattan, my constituents and i faced with constant visual reminder of that day's tragic event.
4:50 am
as time passes we must continue to commemorate this sad day. we will remember the innocent lives that were lost, the heroes that emerge interested this disaster, and we'll remember how this day will forever change our lives. as new generations grow older, we must pass on the lessons of this day and the significance to our country. for eight years we have mourned the lives lost. we have worked at home and abroad to protect our great nation, its people, and the ideals it represents. i am pleased to join my colleagues in remembering this significant day and recognize how it continues to affect all our lives. i thank my colleagues for introducing this resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the
4:51 am
gentlelady. mr. speaker, today we rise as americans first and foremost to remember, to remember the victims of 9/11, 3,000 americans were killed on that day, to remember the fallen heroes, the firefighters, police officers who rescued so many lives and some gave the ultimate sacrifice. i remember watching on the television on 9/11 with my daughter as a second airplane flew into the building, she said, daddy, why did that airplane fly into the building? by the time the second one hit we all knew that this was no accident. this was an intentional act of terrorism, an act of war against the united states. i was a counterterrorism prosecutor in the justice department. we saw many warning signs. the embassies in africa, u.s.s. cole, 1993 world trade center, ramzi yousef who almost brought the world trade center down that day. when they arrested him, many of you may not know this, they
4:52 am
found baby dolls stuffed with chemical explosives he continue end to take on airplanes, part of the plot to blow up 12 airplanes simultaneously. the evil genius, his uncle, sikh muhammad, master mind of 9/11, who to this day the information we obtained from him saved american lives. the most chilling experience hi as a member of congress was to see muhammad in prison down in guantanamo. the man who was responsible for killing 3,000 americans. as a 9/11 commission said, the only way we will ultimately only way we will ultimately s twilight struggle is through good intelligence. we cannot tie the hands of the intelligence community. we cannot threaten them with prosecution. we cannot have a global justice policy that marne dieses terrorists -- ma randizes terrorists when the first words you say to them is you have the
4:53 am
right to remain silent. how in the world will we get good intelligence with that policy? if i could close with a f.b.i. agent's quote before 9/11, someday someone will die and the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource -- 15 more seconds. ms. ros-lehtinen: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mccaul: thank you. he said someday someone will die and the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems, especially since the biggest threat to us now, osama bin laden, is now getting the most protection. we will never forget that day. we can never make the same mistake again. we owe that to the victims and heroes of 9/11. it is our most solemn obligation to first and foremost protect and defend the american people w that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute.
4:54 am
mr. mcmahon: thank you. i rise today in strong support of house resolution 722, and to honor all those who were murdered or injured in the terrorist attacks of september 11. as we honor that day, we are reminded on that day we saw the worst in humanity and the best in humanity. let us focus on the best. because when i think of that day i think of people like one of the more than 300 people from my district who lost their life that day, like steven, a devoted husband and father of five who served as a member of the new york city fire department. steven was on his way home from a tour of duty that ended at 9:00 that morning when he was on the bridge and heard the call what had happened. he turned his private vehicle around and drove back to the brooklyn battery tunnel, took all his gear out, put it on, because of traffic he couldn't get through, ran back through that tunnel to the world trade center where he joined his brothers from the fire department and others. rescued tens of thousands but
4:55 am
lost their lives. each september since that day steven's family anti-people of new york city honor his memory and bravery with a 5-k race nonal known as the tunnel to tower race honoring their lives. we honor them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, an esteemed member of the committee on appropriations who also lost constituents that day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. i rise in support of the resolution and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. frelinghuysen: eight years ago have passed since tragedy struck our nation. in lower manhattan, pennsylvania, and across the river at the pentagon. more than 3,000 of our fellow americans lost their lives. the events that have day remain etched in our memory. of that loss 700 victims came from new jersey, many from my
4:56 am
congressional district, many more from new york, other states, and 80 nations. for those of us who had this tragedy hit so close close to home, i know that each september 11 brings with it a great deal of sorrow. later this week all of us will have the honor of attending a number of 9/11 remembrances. especially in new jersey the home of so many good people who died. as well as to honor those who sought to save them, our first responders. my constituents remember that day every day, that day dawned like most days in new jersey bright and clear. crowded train stations in the morning taking people across the hudson to lower manhattan. parking lots packed with cars as they are most mornings. that evening, however, the scene was far different. trains weren't full, cars remained your honor claimed in parking lots, and many families were left wondering what had happened to their loved ones. a single day that changed how each of us would think for the rest of our lives. at one of those small train
4:57 am
stations there is a tree at whose base is a plaque inscribed, we shall never forget our friends and neighbors who road the rails with us that morning but did not return with us that night. that remarkable, pointian quotation. we will never forget those victims, we will never forget those who sought to save them. at the pentagon, in pennsylvania and in lower manhattan. their bravery will never be forgotten. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished gentleman from new
4:58 am
york and the distinguished gentlelady from florida. this is a duty that we do not relish but that we obligate ourselves to be able to be reminded of the lost souls of september 11, 2001. it changed the innocence of america but yet we stood tall as we mourned with these families from far and wide that we are america that believes in justice and civil liberties and, yes, the bill of rights. the homeland security effort was born during that time. i began to serve on the select committee and now the homeland security committee. the work we do every day should be silent work, but it is work to ensure that the nation's airlines and airports, train stations and railroads and mass transit and everywhere we go protects the american people. it is a world that stands up against terrorism but understands that america can be a friend. so today as we come together as a congress, as we did those few years ago, and stood on the
4:59 am
front steps singing god bless america, i rise today to tell those families we will never forget them, and it is our obligation to be diligent, to be responsive, and to be remembered. god bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has >> mr. speaker, i am plan to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i will ask for consent to be entered without -- entered into the record. it is important that we remember 9/11, the innocent people lost their lives and those who put their lives at risk as they were saving lives, we have a responsibility to remember 9/11. it will be good to remember the course of action that the nation embarked upon as a consequence
5:00 am
of 9/11. we have the duty to defend ourselves, but war was waged against the people of iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. over 1 million innocent casualties everywhere, who also pay a price because of 9/11. we should never forget the soldiers. in our grief, we know that the truth is the ultimate defense, and this is the security. this is what sets us free, and the truth is what keeps us free. god bless america. >> the gentleman from florida continues to reserve the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york? >> can i request to the gentleman from florida, if she would be willing to give us one of her minutes? >> we would be more than happy to do this.
5:01 am
we were waiting to see some of the speakers who have reserved time to show up, but because they're not there yet, we would be happy to give you some of our time. so much. if someone shows up and you need the time i would be happy to make a unanimous consent request. it's my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized -- the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute and 45 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, madam chair lady. . i rise as this congress commemorates one of the most horrific day in our nation's history, that day being september 11, 2001. so many of us in new jersey and new york lost our friends, our loved ones, acquaintanses and
5:02 am
people we never met before. it's difficult to believe that it was almost eight years to the day when our nation was attacked by foreign terrorists who claimed almost 3,000 lives, including 411 of our nation's bravest first responders. as a member of the homeland security committee, i am proud of the steps that we've taken since that faithful day to make the american people safer, but or work is far from complete. this is a mission we as public servants can never stop striving to achieve. i'm also proud that earlier this year we passed the aptly named edward m. kennedy serve america act which will designate september 11 as the first annual national day of service and remembrance. on september 11, more so than any other day of the year, we should come together as
5:03 am
americans and find new ways to save our nation and hopely that will spill over to the days after. so as i say to all of you that many of the wounds of that faithful day will heal over time, that we will never forget the heroism we witnessed, the lessons we learned, the redemption the american people earned for their own strength. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: and so we pray this never happens again. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida continues to reserve the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york's recognized for 10 seconds. mr. ackerman: we have no further additional members, so if the gentlewoman would like to close, we'll wait on the speaker if she chooses to close as well. ms. ros-lehtinen: you need an additional minute? how much time do we have, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the
5:04 am
gentlewoman from florida has two minutes remaining. and the gentleman from new york has three minutes remaining. mr. ackerman: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york's recognized for two minutes. mr. ackerman: mr. speaker, the day after that horrific event, i was back in new york. i went to the piers where the people were waiting to claim bodies and hear of missing loved ones. there was a gentleman before this huge wall where people had posted pictures of relatives that were missing, and there was one gentleman standing there, was close to midnight, all by himself in traditional orthodox jewish gash with a long black -- garb with a long black coat standing in front of a picture that looked remarkably like him and he just stood there stoned face and i just went over and stood next to him as one of the firemen called him to my attention. and he said without turning
5:05 am
away from the picture that he was looking at on the wall of the missing person, he said, that was my brother. he's gone. he called me moments before the building collapsed. he said he knew what was happening but he would not leave his workplace. he worked in a station next to a young man from puerto rico who was sitting in a wheelchair and who was frightened. and he said, my brother told me i will not let him stay here to die alone. and they were holding hands when his brother hung up the phone. that was the kind of bravery we saw from americans, all kinds of americans on that faithful day. let us remember them and the sacrifice they made. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the speaker of the house, ms. pelosi. i would yield back first to the distinguished gentlewoman from
5:06 am
florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. i thank my good friend from new york and the chairman, mr. berman, and hoyer, and mr. boehner for this resolution before. mr. speaker, before we talk about -- when we talk about the 9/11 attacks on our nation, we must also recall that it was an attack on our way of life. it was an attack on what we stand for, on what we represent. what is it we represent? freedom, democracy, liberty. these are the values that distinguish our nation, our people from our attackers, the belief in freedom, the belief in democracy, the belief in liberty. and as we recall this somber anniversary and this resolution before us, let us honor the memory of those whom we lost,
5:07 am
the murdered, for it was a crime, and the heroism of our public servants, our first responders, our ordinary fellow citizens who were so extraordinary that day who discovered the extraordinary courage of self-sacrifice on behalf of their fellow citizens. some of whom they had never met, including many of us in this building. and let us resolve that 9/11 will not just be an anniversary that we commemorate with an interesting and touching ceremony, but that 9/11 is really a symbol of what america is about, how we dealt with that struggle, how we dealt with that devastation, how we dealt with that sorrow and what we said we would do as a people, that we would not let this attack go unanswered.
5:08 am
and to frame the events of that day as they should be framed, as freedom versus oppression, as tolerance versus hatred, as incitement versus understanding. and this is what we fight for to this day, for freedom, for tolerance, to make sure that we can -- not just recall the days of 9/11 but also honor the memory and what they stood for. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york's recognized for 30 seconds. ms. clarke: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise today to add my voice to those who have spoken in support of this bipartisan 9/11 resolution, h.res. 722, and i'd ask unanimous consent that my
5:09 am
remarks be added to the record, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. clarke: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. ackerman: i thank the speaker and i thank the distinguished the gentlelady from new york for -- the distinguished gentlelady from florida and yield the balance of our time to the distinguished speaker of the house to close the debate, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, the speaker of the house, is recognized. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank congressman ackerman and congresswoman ros-lehtinen for bringing this bill to the floor. when we talk about this subject, mr. speaker, we are treading on sacred ground, a ground we never thaw we would see in our country. but as congresswoman ros-lehtinen said, it has defined us, how we dealt with
5:10 am
it and how we carry on after it. one of the goals of terrorists is to instill fear. so not only do they take lives and destroy a community, try to destroy a community, they also instill fear as to how we will act upon the challenges that we have as we go forward. that did not happen with 9/11. the american people rallied in a way that moved all doubt that we would not suffer that consequence. but it's the families of 9/11 who made the biggest sacrifice that's self-evident. but when they turned their grief into action, working with the 9/11 commission to help ensure that this doesn't happen again, they did a great service to our country.
5:11 am
in just a few moments in the capitol we will unveil a marker of bravery to recall the sacrifice, in particular, of the men and women on flight 93 who died in rural pennsylvania to honor -- we gather to honor their families who will be with us. and this is the day that they have chosen for that, and to ensure that we never forget their heroic deeds, their bravery and the sacrifices of those individuals. they made a decision in that flight not to fly into washington, d.c. perhaps into this capitol. again, it is to those families that we owe so much, whether it was in rural pennsylvania, in the pentagon, or in new york at the twin towers. following that ceremony, we will go to staff wear hall where leaders of both parties and both sides of congress will
5:12 am
recognize the heroes of 9/11, the firefighters and first responders, the rescue workers and all who perished on flight 93, in the pentagon and the world trade center on that terrible morning. it is in their names that we mark this day. it is in the memory of those who died that we in the words of this resolution renew our devotion to the you universal ideals that make this -- to the universal ideals that make this nation great, freedom, pluralism, equality and the rule of law. it is in their voices -- it is their voices that remind us not just of the images of destruction and dispair but of the unity we all felt in the wake of the attacks and of our common humanity and shared strength, of our potential to move forward as one community, one nation. when we take inspiration from the memories of the heroes of 9/11, may this resolution rekindle the spirit of service
5:13 am
and sacrifice among all americans. may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 722. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. ackerman: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the rules are suspended -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. ackerman: mr. speaker, i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to cl >> today marks the eighth anniversary of the september 11 attacks. we will have live coverage of
5:14 am
the pentagon's memorial ceremony, and remarks from mike mullen, robert gates, and president obama. that begins at 9:30 today eastern. >> coming up on c-span, treasury secretary tim geithner testifies about the program to aid the financial institutions. and in today's "washington journal." that will cover the -- and in the pentagon 9/11 ceremony is live at 9:30 eastern. -- and then the pentagon 9/11 ceremony is live at 9:30 eastern. >> this morning, the american enterprise institute will have a discussion about health care policy. the key players in the debate over the clinton health-care plan will talk about the politics of health care and what
5:15 am
congress is likely to achieve this time. live coverage begins at 9:15 eastern on c-span2. this weekend, the role of conspiracy theories in american history and politics, with the author of "real enemies." on "after words" on book tv. then an update on the $700 billion of the trumpet -- troubled asset relief program. tim geithner testified today before a congressional oversight panel on the use of this finding and this last one hour and 45 minutes. -- this will last one hour and 45 minutes. >> this hearing is called to order. thank you for being here today, mr. secretary. i want to start by saying, thank
5:16 am
you for being here. we welcome you. i also want to welcome paul atkins, the newest member of the congressional oversight panel. we are glad to have you here today. thank you. i also wanted to say that the panel has agreed to keep their opening statements very short so we can focus on the questions and we appreciate that you have agreed to do the same, mr. secretary. thank you for being here. this hearing offers an important opportunity to hear from you about the $700 billion investment that taxpayers have made in the financial system. almost a year ago, secretary paulson it told congress that the country was in a dire state. americans were alarmed. congress quickly passed the laws that created tarp. since that time, public fear has turned into anger.
5:17 am
savings have evaporated, jobs have disappeared, and mortgage foreclosures are measured in the billions of dollars. taxpayers question what tarp accomplished when it on an individual level their circumstances seemed more precarious than ever. they feel like they got stuck with the bill for this bailout but they did not get the benefits. such enormous discretion with a tarp money, congress expected in equal measure of accountability. taxpayers have the right to understand clearly what treasury is doing and why it is doing it. each month, the panel has issued a detailed report. we evaluated the stress tests in june. we examined the repayment of tarp funds in july. after we reported that the first 11 banks repurchased their warrants from the treasury at a price which was 66% of the estimated value, the next round
5:18 am
of banks repurchased their warrants which were much closer to our estimated value. the panel to examine the impact to leave troubled assets on the books of the banks and how much risk that leaves in the banking system in august. yesterday, the panel released a report using tarp funds in the domestic auto industry and recommended that taxpayers who now own substantial amounts of both chrysler and gm might be better protected if treasury would put its shares in a trust so someone not in government can actively manage them and make the best decisions. taxpayers are now stakeholders in hundreds of financial institutions as well. taxpayers still want to know how the money has been used and what difference their investment has made. have these companies been cleansed of toxic assets? are these companies better run today than they were a year ago?
5:19 am
do they treat consumers better now than they did last year? the fear that no one has to think about -- what are the chances these financial institutions will stumble again? are we going to change the rules that got us into this mess before it happens again? ben, thank you for coming. >> [inaudible] i expect we will disagree in the future but i do want to thank you for your public service at a time of great challenge in our nation's history. i would note that this is your second appearance before the congressional oversight panel. since the president was sworn in in january, it is now september and that believe you have to agree to appear before this panel at least on a quarterly basis. i would ask you once again to
5:20 am
consider appearing on a monthly basis given that president has made the commitment that his administration would be the most transparent and accountable administration ever. i think it would comport with that goal a little better we are clearly coming up on the one- year anniversary of the legislation. tarp has never really been as advertised as we know it. toxic asset removal program became a capital infusion program. i am not here to continue the debate on whether or not it was wise legislation at the time. i think there are smart people on both sides of that debate. i must admit that almost one year later, i continue to be concerned and am curious as to what tarp has evolved into as of today. i think many americans share the
5:21 am
fear that i have, that an emergency piece of legislation that was meant for economic stability has now morphed into a $700 billion revolving bailout fund for the administration. i am concerned that the previous administration crossed a line in investing in gm and chrysler, something that this administration continued to do. i fear this penetration crossed another statutory line favoring members of the uaw in those organizations of similar situated creditors. i feel like the administration crossed another statutory line in giving fiat up to 35% of chrysler. they will receive this if they produce a car capable of making 40 miles a gallon. i am having trouble somehow
5:22 am
rectifying this with the charge of taxpayer protection and of financial stability. i continue to be concerned about the issue of taxpayer protection. although certainly not all loved it, i need not tell you that we have the first trillion dollars deficit in our nation's history. i don't have to tell you that recently oab missed their figure by about one-third. now they are looking at $9 trillion of debt. part of this is tarp. the cbo expects $40 million worth of loss in the although program so there continues to be a concern. i look forward to hearing from you, mr. secretary, particularly after the president announced last night that your administration has saved us from the brink of economic ruin. i paraphrase.
5:23 am
if that is true, why do we continue to need this tarp statued that many of us believe it is no longer about financial stability? i look forward to your testimony and i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. mr. silvers? >> thank you. good afternoon, mr. secretary. i very much appreciate your presence here today. this is the second time you have appeared in we are grateful. i appreciate the support that you have given to the office of financial stability. i believe congress and the american people should ask three basic questions about the program. first, is tarp and the associated programs of the fed and the fdic preventing and or, in the acute crisis in our financial markets?
5:24 am
secondly, is tarp playing it the proper role as a provider of capital to the real economy? finally, is the public providing funds receiving fair terms? when you last appeared before us, i focused on the question of whether the public was being treated fairly. i remain deeply concerned about whether inappropriate subsidies are being extended. credit enhancements and the repurchases of warrants from banks that have repeled -- that have repaid investments i believe you have made progress in these areas around the issue of fairness. today, i hope to discuss with you the question of whether tarp's strategies with particular reference to the
5:25 am
continued weakness of three of our four largest banks, is subject addressed in the august report. this question is tied to the important question of what the fed and the fdic's strategy is to withdraw public support for the financial system. you address these matters today in your written testimony. looming over this situation is japan's lost decade which you are quite expert. despite optimistic statements of the kind that we saw from the regional fed banks yesterday, the numbers that we see tell a tale of rising unemployment, rising foreclosures, a growing crisis in commercial real estate, which has been addressed in this panel, rising small bank failures and failing bank business lending. the danger of a vicious circle could overwhelm the strategy of helping the banks earned themselves back to health.
5:26 am
i believe the treasury, the federal reserve, and the fdic can take credit for calming the crisis of last fall, another matter that you addressed in your written remarks. i believe the decision to infuse capital rather than to buy troubled assets that secretary paulson made and that you have largely carried ford was the correct decision and has borne substantial food for our country and in the world. i think the stimulus package is also an important part of this plan and is intertwined in these matters. are we addressing the fundamental weakness in our banking system or are we hoping that if we close our eyes it will go away? i look forward to your thoughts. >> good afternoon and i join my colleagues on the panel in welcoming secretary geithner. thank you very much for appearing today.
5:27 am
it is a privilege for me to be here today to serve the american taxpayers on this panel with our oversight role on the troubled asset relief program. tarp size of $700 billion seems almost quaint. since we are in the building named after him, i am reminded about the senator's line about federal spending habits. a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you are talking about real money. congress has set out this robust oversight framework with a special inspector general, a special audit, government accounting rules, and this panel. i take this accountability and transparency mandate from congress very seriously. press reports indicate that you have resolved in the ambiguities
5:28 am
of the report in relationship to the treasury in favor of independence. i think that is an import result of the unusual nature of the program. the information sharing relationship between treasury and this panel has been problematic in the past and perhaps can be improved. there is a special liaison in treasury assigned to work with this panel so i look forward to working with you all and experiencing this state of interaction. we are approaching the one-year anniversary of the passage of the legislation that set up tarp. treasury has created an alphabet soup of programs under tarp and that does not include the other programs of the other banking agencies. how effective have each of these programs ben? has some been more effective than others? has tarp achieve its original purpose and mission? what other costs such as moral
5:29 am
hazard? the authority expires on the 31st of this year. the treasury secretary in the past has the authority to extend tarp until october 2010. has that decision already been made? what criteria will be used for this decision and what are the criteria by which she will make this decision? there are only vague guidelines, with the cost to taxpayers and the extension. this cannot be quantified without the economic analysis, including the direct and indirect costs. with that, i will yield my time, and i look forward to the testimony of the secretary. >> the superintendent for the bank of new york? >> thank you very much for being here today. i will keep my comments brief to
5:30 am
maximize the time and the question. i want to a knowledge the responsiveness of the treasury to the inquiries on behalf of the taxpayers. when we first met with you nine months ago, he said that your staff would be available to us and would maintain open lines of communication. during the public hearings over the summer, to the many conference calls, and the committees that we have had with the other members of your staff, we thank you for your cooperation and the oversight. you also spoke about some of the questions that were very tough and candid. these are now on the internet for a resource for all concerned americans. financial stability has not yet been fully achieved, that you deserve credit for substantial progress. we are not out of the crisis but there are positive signs, such
5:31 am
as the decrease in credits spread in the area of securitization markets. our gains in financial stability remain fragile. addressing homeowners who face foreclosure is key to breaking down the downward cycle and achieving sustainable results. the home of affordable modification program is integral in this effort but initial results have been mixed. i intend to explore several of these issues with my time here including issues around the service participation and uneven service performance, bar were frustrations around eligibility standards and access to account information, and the need to complement the program with additional initiatives to address foreclosures stemming from job loss and the recession. finally, with congress returning this week, it is expected that your regulatory reform proposals will experience significant movement and debate. i will ask you about a provision
5:32 am
for developing an architecture that best supports consumer protection and long-term financial stability. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, commissioner. [inaudible] >> mr. secretary, we received your remarks this morning. thank you very much. they will be part of the record so that we will have more time to be able to question you and your answers. i am going to ask to keep your oral remarks to five minutes. anything else you wish can be entered into the record. >> it is a pleasure to be here. this is my 16th time testifying before the congress of the united states and in front of the oversight panel i am happy to see you want more of me. the executive branch was not given -- it provided oversight
5:33 am
with the establishment of the tarp and giving hte gao its usual mandate for oversight. we take the process seriously. we have examined everything you have written, adopted many of the recommendations of the oversight panels, and that think they have made our programs more effective than it would have been. the complement your thoughtfulness and the seriousness of your approach. i also want to thank you what you said about herb allison. i have the opportunity to work with very dedicated and talented people in the treasury. you want to have people with the greatest sophistication about financial markets so they can drive a hard bargain in the interest of the taxpayer. i think that team is doing a good job of that.
5:34 am
last september, of course, we face the risk of catastrophic financial failure and the risk of the great depression. because of a comprehensive policy actions put in place since then, we are back from the edge of the abyss. the consensus is that the u.s. economy is now growing again. the financial system is showing very important signs of repair. cost of credit has fallen dramatically, not just for homeowners for households but for businesses as well. because of the signs of early progress, we are in a position to adjust our strategy, moving from a crisis response to recovery, from rescuing the economy to repairing and rebuilding the financial system, to repairing and rebuilding the foundation for future growth. we have to begin winding down programs that are no longer necessary and that by design are
5:35 am
not as important. let me highlight a few things that _ this transition we put a reserve fund in the budget that recognize the possibility that we would need an additional $700 billion of authority to fix this problem. we believe that money is unlikely to be necessary and have removed it from projections. we are borrowing less already them what we expected to resolve this crisis. the money market guarantee fund will be allowed to expire, earning more than a billion dollars in income, no cost to the taxpayer. the fdic program to guarantee senior debt has generated more than $9 billion and has seen very dramatic declines in usage. the facilities that the federal reserve put in place to provide liquidity and broad support to credit markets have seen dramatic reduction in usage.
5:36 am
we are now at the point where lines of these facilities is down 80% to 90% from its peak. the commercial paper market, etc., the details are in my testimony. when i took this job, the government made outstanding commitments in the range of $240 billion. today, we have $180 billion outstanding. that is a dramatic reduction in the scale of our direct exposure in terms of capital to the financial system. in large part because of the successful efforts of making it more possible for private capital to come in and recapitalized this system. the dividends paid on those investments and the warrants we received a total $12 billion. for the 23 banks, treasury has earned a return of roughly 17%.
5:37 am
all of these steps underscroe our commitment to unwind these programs as soon as conditions permit. at the same time, though, we have to continue to reinforce this process of repair and recovery until it is truly self sustaining led by private demand. the problems of government acting too late and putting on the brake too early -- we are not going to repeat those mistakes. it would increase the cost of this crisis in terms of the damage it causes to the fabric of the american economy. millions of americans are still suffering deeply from this crisis, still facing the most challenging financial market we have seen in generations. unemployment is still high. the mortgage market outside what supported directly by fannie mae and freddie mac, fha, is still significantly paried. small
5:38 am
businesses and part because they are more dependent on banks have less options to access credit in this difficult environment. >> you are at 5 minutes. >> i am winding it up. foreclosures are rising significantly because the high rate of unemployment we are seeing as a country. because of those challenges, we need to make it clear that we are going to keep those programs that are necessary for a recovery in place as long as the conditions required. there is a lot of concern that as conditions improve, we are going to let the market to go back to the conditions that were enjoyed before the crisis. we are not going to let that happen. if you look at the list of the top 20 firms in the country two years ago, a substantial fraction of those firms no longer exist today as independent entities. the contras system is going to be smaller but it is going to be stronger. for that to happen, economists
5:39 am
have to come join with us to pass comprehensive financial reform so we have much stronger rules of the road and constraints in place from preventing this happening again. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> that was only about 6 minutes. >> and 19 seconds. a year ago, secretary paulson told us that we were in its financial crisis because of toxic assets on the bank's books. he explained, is needed to give $700 billion to the treasury department's to deploy in order to remove this toxic assets. we have had one year to get rid of them. does treasury know how many toxic assets remain on the books of the banks? do you have a dollar figure? >> we put the u.s. banking system to stress tests so you now have an unprecedented disclosure of exactly what loans
5:40 am
and securities they hold with a pretty careful estimate of the potential losses on those exposures that you would face in the worst economic environment. the critical thing to recognize is, and the reason we care about these toxic assets and the losses, is because they require capital. we came into this crisis with the banking system that did not have enough capital to cover losses in a deep recession and that is what helped produce the worst and into crisis in generations. because we put the system to this incredibly exacting set of stress tests, with much more exposure, the banking system has much more capital in it and that makes it much less likely that the financial system is going to be a source of headwinds. if they had not been able to raise private capital, if they were still left with too little
5:41 am
capital against losses, we would be facing a much greater challenge. the problems posed by this assets are addressed by the dramatic improvement. >> let me see if i can pin this down. for the 20 largest banks for which we have the stress tests, you believe we have a sense of how much is left in the wake of toxic assets? >> absolutely. >> do you have a dollar figure? >> i would be happy to have the fed decal that for you. >> for all the banks for which a stress test was not run, but we know how many toxic assets? >> we are a country of 9000 banks, not just 20. >> although fewer every day. >> fewer every day but that is a necessary process of repair and reconstruction. many of this bank's came into this crisis with more capital but many also had more exposure
5:42 am
to real estate. we chose not to put the rest of the u.s. banking system through the kind of existing stress we applied to the biggest institutions. a lot of complicated judgments went into that. you are right to point out today that we have less disclosure. the supervisors of the country are spending a lot of care and attention looking at those risks in those institutions, helping them move through that. it is important to recognize that those banks together, those remaining 9000 banks together account for between a quarter and a third of the u.s. banking system. we are probably unlikely, as a country, to be able to manage through and withstand those remaining pressures. we can do with more confidence because of the actions we talk. >> when the washington post
5:43 am
summarized yesterday's report, they summarized it by saying the banking sector remains a mess. would you take issue with that characterization? >> i would say it this way. i think the u.s. financial system today is in substantially stronger shape than it was months ago. there is a greater recognition of losses and we are in a better position remember, this is just the first quarter. we are just getting to see signs of growth. it is very early and we did a lot of damage to the financial system of this country. it is going to take longer to do it because we are going to do it right. i would not want anyone to be left with the impression that we are not still facing really substantial and enormous challenges in the financial system. where there has been
5:44 am
improvement, it has been dramatic. but a lot of that has come to the direct effects of policy, policy that put capital in banks, policy to provide support to the markets that were the most damaged. we have a lot of challenges ahead. ahead. >> thank >> thank you. mr. secretary, under this statute, how do you define this institution? >> i was looking forward to this discussion. i think i understand where you are going. the statute was written as you implied, as you say in the opening statement, my predecessor in the previous administration made a judgment, to provide for the automobile industry. this was legal and appropriate to do so.
5:45 am
>> and you concurred in this opinion. >> we would not have spent a penny of taxpayer money if we have not incurred these judgments. >> clearly you believe that chrysler and general motors are financial institutions. is at&t a financial institution? >> i understand, i understand why this would appear. if you look at the basic plan facts of what i inherited to the judgments like this, it would be hard to describe why this is a financial institution. there was the decision made by my predecessor. >> you continued with the bracket, and you have your legal interpretation of the statute. clearly, you do not believe that you are breaking the law. you believe that chrysler meets
5:46 am
the level of a financial institution. course. the question is, is at&t a financial institution? is american airlines a financial institution? >> no and no. >> no and no? >> i think it is important to recognize two important things. i did not design this statute. i was not in office what it was designed. it gave the executive branch of the united states broad authority and discretion to fix this. the fact that we waited so long to make that authority available made this crisis more damaging. one important fact and reality. in a crisis of this severity, a recession this deep, we have to be prepared to do things that we would never want to do. >> i understand that.
5:47 am
congress had the house that had legislation that dealt specifically with the automobile industry so there were some members of the house who clearly did not believe that chrysler and gm came within that statutory limit. chrysler and gm, yes, they are financial institutions. at&t and american airlines are not, so is there any additional clarity? one of the things that markets demand is clarity of public policy. who will be bailed out, who will not bail out? i again ask you for some clarity on what is a financial institution? >> congressmen, i don't think we are going to be able to take this further. i do not believe you can read this statute today. things might be different in the future. i don't think you can read the
5:48 am
statute today to justify action beyond the scope of the actions we have taken in this context. >> i am personally hoping that the legal interpretation of a statute does not change in the passing of a handful of months. >> we have to pass two tests to use this authority. does the law gives us the authority to act proved the other is, are those actions necessary and prudent in the interest of fixing this mass, restored to financial stability? it is not the simple test -- >> forgive me because our time is constrained. leaving the question of the definition of a financial institution, there are roughly six or eight major programs under tarp.
5:49 am
i am curious for having been serving on this panel for a year, i am having trouble discovering where treasury has identified only particular metrics of success beyond financial stability. >> i would be happy to help you. >> the capital purchase program is to stabilize and prevent the destruction of the automobile industry. >> i am going to have to stop you there. >> can i -- >> i will give you 20 seconds. >> you can look at each of these programs, and this is the great virtue of the markets that we live in today. you concede evidence of whether it is having an effect on lowering borrowing costs, improving confidence in the system. one of the great things you can see today, you can look at the
5:50 am
cost of borrowing for businesses and families, the costs of mortgages, confidence in financial institutions -- those are good indications of how our programs are having an effect. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we all have to be quiet here or else we will have to clear the room. mr. silvers? >> i went to pick up on the threads of your testimony -- i want to pick up on the threads of your testimony. a couple of weeks ago, it in it two parallel stories in the washington post, the following statement was made. "the wounded u.s. economy has shown signs of improvement in recent weeks but many economists are is enjoying the negative,
5:51 am
bracing for headwinds that could cause the economy -- the recovery to be weak. huge swaths of the financial system have been damaged which could lock consumers and businesses out of loans for years to come." there was another story about asia. you probably read the same paper as i do. that story said the asian recovery has been far more robust than ours and a key factor in that has been the relative strength of asian banks. do you agree with this characterization? >> in the best of times, we grow roughly at an average of 2.5% a year. for an emerging market economy -- >> japan was the comparative. >> i doubt you are going to seek
5:52 am
a more robust recovery there. he need to think about that relative comparison. -- you need to think about the relative comparison. i think we are in a position that it is much more less likely today that weakness in the financial system proves to be a substantial constraint on the pace of recovery. the dominant pace of recovery is the basic reality that as a country, we borrowed too much, saved too little, lived within our means, and the process of correcting that pattern of behavior is going to necessarily produce a slow recovery for the united states. >> why is it that the weakness of the banking system -- in light of your comments that the mortgage market is a creature right now of your efforts. secondly, as you noted in your written testimony, business
5:53 am
lending by banks is going in the wrong direction quite seriously. why is that not a problem? >> i think it is a problem. we are in a much position today than we have been or we could give expected to be. it is less likely today that it would be a constraint. bank lending is declining but it is declining much less than it has in past recessions. in part because we have been relatively affective in restoring confidence and stability. the decline has been more than offset by the increase in borrowing in the securities markets. overall, in a situation now where mostly we are seeing a reduction in demand for credit, as people improve their balance sheets, spend more, save less, but it is still early largely because of the forceful actions
5:54 am
we took and the support we will continue to provide. it would not be prudent for us to infer from that sign of progress that we art at the point where we could wind this stuff back completely. >> one sentence i found very interesting. is it really a good thing that essentially credit provision has moved away from the banking system to the extent that it is going on? most creators of jobs can't access the bond market. >> it is an interesting question. remember, our banking system took on too much leverage. >> unquestionably. >> inevitably, the banking system's leverage had to come down. it is the strength of our system that there are
5:55 am
alternatives to banks and the capital markets that actually work. if there is a weakness in banks, there is an offset. part of the process that we are committed to is that the securities markets and others have a stronger, more robust from work because that will make our system more stable in the future. >> my time has expired. >> i wanted to start out by looking ahead. as i said before, the authority under the statute expires at the end of the year and you have the authority to certify that it can be extended. no one would be happier than i to see if it meet its end. according to the statue, your certification should include justification of why the
5:56 am
extension is necessary to assist families, stabilize markets, as well as the expected cost to the taxpayers. my first question is, have you made a decision yet? >> i have not yet. >> that is what i wanted to explore. no offense to their congressmen, but this is very squishy and it is really questionable to me. to stabilize financial markets, he said it has been relatively effective in restoring stability. are you comparing it to a year ago, in which case they are much more stable? three years ago? what kind of market would you look at? the u.s. stock market? commodities? the dollar? i think all of these things need to be carefully looked at but i am not sure if you started this process.
5:57 am
>> you want to look at, again, what is the capacity of the financial system to live on the town without these exceptional supports? how likely is it that you are going to see enough repair and strength in the securities markets for us to withdraw that support? some of these programs, realistically, are going to take a longer time. the expected path of foreclosures in the u.s. is going to last for a long time so it is very unlikely we will be at the point in the next humans to say that the housing market is at a point where we can be confident that we can withdraw these exceptional actions. there are parts of the credit markets with there has been substantial improvements but a lot of it has come on the strength of the basic backstop we have provided. we want to look at a broad set of measures and make sure that
5:58 am
people are confident that we are going to get this thing on a strong foundation. the classic mistake that people make is, they declare victory too soon and withdraw these things. the system has to go back and build more insurance and that could intensify the recession. >> you could also make the mistake of leaving the crutch on too long. we are talking about moral hazard. i hope you have to take that into account because i think that is a huge, usually undermining factor, of our financial system. >> let me point out one thing that is helpful on that front. largely, these programs are designed so that they will be expensive when things normalize. that is why you have seen the use of these programs dramatically decline as these conditions improve, helping to mitigate the risk that people
5:59 am
depend on them too much. >> i think you could argue that -- for example, the warrants. i am sure the taxpayer is making profit. >> was this commiserate to the risk that was taken? >> yoon look at two things to measure the effect of these programs. what was the direct benefit to the -- you look at two things to measure the effect of these programs. what was the direct benefit to the taxpayers? and you have a broad view of what you did to get the economy out of a crisis, and that is a hard thing to measure. if you let any measure of cost or credit, the confidence -- if you look at any measure of cost ordi
303 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on