insurance plan or set of plans that federal employees get their health insurance with. >> a chance for them to lay it out before the democratic caucus, have you picked up any reaction from members ahead of this meeting? .

>> cost in this bill has always bin been a major issue. it's worth keeping in mind, though, that in the past with these types of policies, the changes haven't applied to huge, huge parts of the population so you haven't seen either cost or savings. so it's unlikely something like this could throw the bill out of balance. we will see a few billion dollars up or down from previous estimates, but this busteror maker either way. >> comments from president obama that he seems to be in favor of this compromised earlier today. how important is that. >> i think president obama is in favor of just getting and getting the senate through. 60 votes in the senate has been the hurdle and everybody is

looking for and the toughest part of this entire process probably. it is the big barrier. if they can find a way to cross it, i think president obama is going to be happy as long as it sticks by most of the key principles he has outlined throughout this process. >> thanks for your insight. >> the u.s. house is currently in recess. earlier today, members passing an expiring tax provisions bill. when the house gavels back in, we expect consideration to begin on a financial regulations bill. debate on that bill expected to carry over until tomorrow. live coverage of the house will continue when members return here on c-span. a portion of today's "washington journal" when the chairman of the house financial services subcommittee on capital markets talked to us about the financial regulations bill. , th perfection.

the reality is that it is surprisingly refreshing and i think that the american people will be pleased. i know that we shock to the devil out of the industry. which is a healthy sign. people are attacking both sides of it, which is a healthy sign. it is the beginning. we have got a long way to go. we have got to work out a lot of philosophical problems in the congress. we are trying to do that and yet the first phase of regulatory reform done so that some of my colleagues can brag in the future that what happened in the past will not happen again. not quite true, but this is the

best that we can do to anticipate major problems in the future. host: what work has been going on in your committee lately? guest: we have about eight bills that we are taking to the floor today. calling for regulatory reform. of them i have probably drafted four or five of them. i have participated in the amendments to two others i look forward to it. host: let's talk about some of the elements. the consumer financial industry? guest: probably a new theory. how it will work, we are not sure. it sounds more radical than and is. it sends a clear message that

consumers have not been adequately protected. that there has been an overemphasis from the regulators on safety and soundness. but the reality is that there has not been a great deal of attention and protection paid to the needs. it takes on some of the leveling out of the regulatory process so that not everything is spent on safety but there is a direction in payments towards the protection of consumer rights. which is good, many of the problems that occur in this country are excesses' that occur from sticking it to the consumer. the effort we are going through in the credit card industry today is just horrendous. you get the feeling, as a member of congress, that you would like to grab some of these people and

ask -- what you mean 29% when there is no default and a good record? but you can arbitrarily raise the interest rate at will? that is wrong. we cannot constantly be passing pieces of legislation to right every wrong. this agency is going to have the authority to look into that and appropriately sanctioned companies that are abusive in their interest rates and how they handle these things. so, we will have to see how it works out. it will certainly be better than in the past, but it is an intrusion of the government into private enterprise. this last year shows the government has to do that, to an extent, to save and protect people from excessive abuse from the business community.

host: critics say that that might be too far reaching. but the agency might affect companies and businesses outside of the typical realm. guest: a legitimate criticism. we will have to watch that that does not happen. the nice thing about a lot is that you've analyzed as another. -- nice thing about the law is that you can always pass another. on the other hand, if you do not provide the authority to right wrongs, they become so egregious that they are destructive. we will try to find a balance. host: too big to fail -- talk about the work you have done on that front. guest: glad to get the opportunity. that does back a long ways. i always doubted that we have the constitutional authority to

become so heavily involved in rearranging companies of interest. as we move along systemic risk, which mr. frank is the drafter of the legislation of, did not work last time. we needed something before bankruptcy or during bankruptcy, or in preparation for handling a crisis, a financial crisis other than bankruptcy. with that they came up with the resolution authority in the form of a bill as prepared by the committee. we have another alternative. we do not have to force lehman brothers into bankruptcy. they could take another route, and it would be a managed downturn. when the secretary performed by

questioned his legitimate authority under the commerce clause to go one step further and preemptively prevent getting to the point where the company is having such a systemic risk to society than they may bring it down. if they do, why wait until that critical stage? why not look at what has happened and recognize that there are some companies -- is not just size, it might also be interrelationships and interconnections. there are all different reasons but they have so many tentacles in our system that if they are individually to fail, they could bring down the system. to prevent that happening we have a council of regulators that will constantly review the

top 50 countries -- companies in this country. if they see that something is wrong, i propose that we should have the authority that if they determine that there will be a grave effect on the economy as a whole by the attributes of these companies that day can move in, restructure, lead, stop them from merging or getting larger, what ever is the effect to lessen the chance that they would cause systemic risk. this came about in a serious way last summer when members of the committee and myself went to europe. at the european union they have the same desire, finding a way to force companies from becoming so compelling that taxpayers have to stand in for them. because america and europe are responsible for 70% of

securities, we have an open opportunity right now to get our hands around how we would do that. otherwise we are fast on our way to the mega corp. in the global market that exceeds in strength the size and power of any single government to regulate. if we could wind up with one gigantic corporation that is above and beyond everything else. that will put into challenge democracy and capitalism in the form of corporate governance. there is a political difference between them. the united states government operates on the democratic process. corporations are essentially authoritarian. we do not want to have that fight. can we provide a 48 break -- --

we do not want them so they they can cause the collapse of the economic system in this world. host: georgia, good morning. caller: i have a joke and a question. the joke is that the dictators are the ceo's, which was evidenced when the stakeholders in the insurance debate got their say by any insurance company. i would like to ask you, are you aware that mr paulson and what's his name had written up tarp bill back in august? hank paulson met with the entire board of june -- the entire

board of aig in 2008. they're counting on this building broke mess. they took all of their stocks out and the taxpayers pay for everything. were you aware that they had this tarp written? guest: whether or not they had it written as a bill before the crisis occurred? i know that treasury had ordered certain studies to be made. they do this all the time. they do this in the pentagon. at the treasury they have contingency plans for everything.

, that was of the first situation where we knew that we were headed to a financial disaster. when there was a failure in of breath the secretary ordered a study as to what could be done under the of this in law to a large extent i have been involved in drafting the legislative plan. we started with a small bill and ultimately it was increased to where it eventually had over 4 under pages.

they were inserted by the legislateors in the congress when we worked on the rescue plan. i don't doubt the veer asity -- i'm thinking of his name now, our friend from the "new york times" "too big to fail" book, his statement may be correct but i don't think it's pertinent on the matter. we were pulling from all sorts of information and still are. as late as yesterday, because of a piece in the "new york times," the rating agencies, a stanford from the law school, offered some suggestions because he saw may name cited in the article and we connected

as of yesterday. that is happening all the time. and that's good. if anybody has a solution to the present economic problems of the united states or the world and they can add something, don't hesitate to talk to me or members of congress or members of the senate, anyone you can, because nobody has a capture on what is the right process or what should be done and it's amazing how many good great ideas come from simple conversations. baqucus. pat, republican line. caller: barney frank to be in jail caller: i think barney frank should be in jail. he has done so much damage to

our financial industry through intervention into establishing prudent banking regulations, banking practices. the government intruded into these prudent established banking companies by forcing them to lower and you can see where this has gotten us. like in this country at any one time. some of it is for political advantage, some of it is philosophical difference, some of it is misinformation and

understanding. and some of it is true. the reality is that mr. frank is not responsible for the disaster, one. two, he has had a sympathetic ear in the past and has taken encouraging steps. he was not the final regular -- regulator. none of us are. we pass laws, regulators implement them. contrary to what you might think, they do not always agree, they do not always implement them in a way that we would like. they have a separate function as a regulator. i think that to try and find at this 0.8 justification for -- find at this point eight justification for the problems,

but there is no one person. when i was in france, i said that the one thing that is lacking in our crisis today is we have no one to put to the guillotine. which is true. in past crises we had a criminal, a scandal. someone who could be identified as being previous wrong. this is the case of society going to extreme excess. having all the signs over the years that deregulation could cause problems. none of the finest economists in the world really picked it up in time. there were a few that said that there were problems coming, but not in sufficient, significant numbers in describing the potential catastrophe. in the end of we have no

villains. without a villain is a difficult thing. if we could just get over that and think of the positive side. one year ago this country was on the edge of total destruction. the world economic system was on the edge of total destruction. leadership from past administrations and democratic congress, coming together to construct bills that put us away at that time. then it transitioned into a new presidency, creating a psychology that since the last year we have saved the economy. that is the judgment across the world. what would have happened, we will never know how bad it could have been, but we took steps to prevent it. we are in the recovery stage.

you can tell because the shock has gone away and some of us want to find fault. the reality is that that is a sign of health. i do not want you to feel guilty about it. i do not feel guilty about it. half what i am trying to say is that we are not out of the woodwork. it is on its way. i am optimistic that we will get there. thank god that we had the strength of george bush, secretary paulson, ben bernanke, president obama when he came in, and timothy geithner. all of these people have emerged in performing a great effort. quite frankly the congress on both sides should be thanked, they did their job as well. not all of us agreed, but everyone tried.

the real beneficiary? the american people. guest: -- host: josh, independent line. caller: congressman, you are a master at filibuster. why should i believe any word that you say? you are one of the biggest crooks in congress. guest: let's try to be intellectual and ask questions. i do not care about your personal opinion of me. if you can be convinced of my ethics and moral turpitude on the basis of some politically influenced program, that is great. i feel sorry for do, not myself. if you have a legitimate question, ask it. i am happy to answer it. other than that, save your slander for the cheap tabloids and sub channels on television. they love that kind of work.

host: josh, democratic line. caller: i had a couple of questions for you. do lobbyists' influence the committee? are they any part of your job? do you deal with them at all? i was also wondering about inflation. i know that with tarp part of the problem that we clearly avoided was the the fashion -- depression with job loss. i was a machinist at john deere at the time. they lay off hundreds of people to try to save money at the top and. a lot of companies do that. you talk about ethics and stuff. in my area in iowa, illinois, we

have a lot of manufacturing. i worked in a place that shut down. i worked at a machine shop and they closed their doors and there are not any more jobs popping up. can legislation be drawn up to prevent outsourcing? can you punish companies for outsourcing these jobs? guest: an interesting question. sometimes we do. sometimes it is difficult. your first question, do lobbyists have an effect? for me to say that they do not, that would be ridiculous. the title comes from the speaker's lobby, where people of interest, or the white house lobby as you enter, people with

interests with the government, whether it be that president or congress would assemble and get a chance to talk with them. that all grows out of the riding of the petition in the constitution. quite frankly, the right of petition, while not well understood in america anymore it is extraordinarily important. who do the most of lobbying in this country? citizens, constituents of congress. i meet with them every day. they come by and they talk. that is the private citizen lobby. i think you are directing yourself for the professional lobby. lawyers in the washington area, generally hired by interest groups, corporations, to make their case. yes, they serve a role.

the last time that i looked there was something like 12 south in any single year -- 12,000 bills in any single year. if you had to view every one of those and read them in their entirety, a member of congress could never get through them. it would be impossible just to do one reading. what lobbyists basically do is try to describe and argue to the point that they are interested on one or the other side of an issue. what people do not realize is that on every bill there are at least two sides to the issue. as long as you have strong people and proper people -- when i say proper people, i mean those that gained access to members of congress generally being people that you have tested over the years.

you find out whether they mislead you and give you false information. if they do most of them cannot get access to the staff or the member of himself. they are cut off. it is to the detriment of a lobbyist to not fulfil a professional function. they do not just lobby on a single issue, they make their living representing people on all sides of issues. they want to maintain those relationships and credibility, which is important. i do not think that we should fear that. i should say that we should watch that it is not misused. the there are not improper advances or offers of interest made. can we get along without them? i do not think that you absolutely out law the right of petition. if you did, america could not be america. can you separate the

professional lobbyists from citizen lobbyist? very difficult without some of these provisions in the constitution. we have registration all the time, ethics committees and all sorts of protections. are we always perfect? hello. will we ever be perfect? held no. but that is what life is all about. host: christopher, detroit. the morning. caller: i am 61. i served in vietnam. i play by the rules. 20% down on my first home. i used to have a great deal of hope for this country. a couple of comments, we appear to be the same country only on the surface. i am sorry to say things like this and be down and out, i used

to be an optimistic person. i would never take the judgment of a stockbroker ever again in my life. i do not trust most politicians. i am not sure who to trust, anymore. to tell you the truth. i do not give up entirely. apparently the color of red is not in the spectrum of people that run this country. a wide spectrum of long-term capital management, we would think that we would have learned from that. the asian contagion. even the former secretary of state under clinton said that they made a mistake pouring money into thailand and suddenly the currency was not worth what they thought it was and a collapse like dominoes, speaking of -- and it collapsed like dominoes, speaking of domino theories.

this is a structural and i am sorry to see that. one more thing, if you do not mind. as long as there is a pentagon with a budget there will always be worse. other than that, good luck to us all. guest: i do not divide -- i do not think i discerned a question there, more extreme frustration with the system. the message out would like to leave with the caller is take a step back, take a deep breath. do not be so frustrated, although i can understand why you might be. the great and noble american experiment has been unusually successful if you look at it over its lifetime. even today, with all of our problems, we are the most sought after nation to be a part of in the entire world. we have been contagious to the rest of the world. we have spawned so many other

nations that have the desire for democracy and freedom. we are still, i think, the most free nation in the vernacular of any person. we intend to keep that and we will keep that. we have frustrations. none of us like to see fallen stars. i just watched a news program this morning on taggart. -- on tiger. he was a hero of mine. i am not a gulf war, but he was a hero. but there are fallen angels. sometimes all of the people disappoint us. that does not mean that we should lose faith in humanity or human existence. the fact is that all of us, every day, are trying to do the best that we can. host: let's try to get one more

call. george, maryland. guest: how are you doing -- caller: how are you doing, congressman? caller: you have got to be nice to me. i have been getting some pretty rough questions. [laughter] caller: why not replace glass stiegel with something that is similar? it prevented this, and now we have this big issue. the solution is real simple. we have to regulate the banks where they will not have systemic risk to destroy the economy. my question is, what are we going to do about that situation than on making a lot or reinstating the previous? guest: we have a committee

meeting on that regulatory point going back to quasi glass stiegel. it is hard to put the genie back in the jar. . . that was done because of tremendous pressure of the global economy. that global economy hasn't changed. we are in a competitive world on the outside as well as domestically on the inside and it would be much easier if we could take certain domestic steps and clean things up and do that. but we could clean things up on the domestic level in such a way that we would be noncompetitive in the global world and therefore collapse under our own weight because we couldn't be a global economy anymore. we have to recognize that. so i'm sorry we ever left and

went away from that, my own personal philosophy. but majority of the citizens decided it was time to do that, made that decision and it's hard to put the car in reverse and go backward. i think what we have to do now is try and recognize that we are in such a different economy. we do need regulatory reform. look, if you had said to me even a year ago that i would be in favor of government involvement in telling private corporations what they could buy, where they could go or how large they could get, that was repulsive to me. i'll be honest with you. i'm supporting it today because i think we were abused. we gave liberty and opportunity to corporations in this country and they have misused and misabused, not illegally. it was under the laws they did it, but put at risk our whole economic system which means your livelihood and my

livelihood and the very existence of this nation and that we cannot afford. rules are made by men and we can make rules to correct bad rules as need be and we are trying to reform regulatory he laws. will it last as long as it has lasted in the past, probably not. but we are going to stabilize the economic system and keep the economy growing and going and we hope it will benefit most people. host: paul kanjorski, thanks for being with us. >> the house is still in recess, but earlier today, members passed an expiring tax provisions bill, 241-181. when the house does gavel back in we expect debate on the financial regulations bill. the senate also in recess at this hour, scheduled to return at 6:15 eastern time to

continue work on health care legislation. it's the 10th day the chamber has been considering the measure and we have had debate on several amendments. majority leader reid has said there will be no more votes today. senate democrats are meeting behind closed doors on removing the government-run public option from the health bill. live senate coverage on c-span 2. here's a portion of today's "washington urm journal" on the house financial regulations bill. host: congressman bachus joins us now and ranking member on the house financial services committee. this act? and call the shots and make decisions whether it's in

healthcare, whether in energy policy and now in financial services or matters of credit, and i think it is always dangerous when the government begins to make decisions that individuals have made historically in our country. individuals have made those decisions. there has been competition between private companies. we have not had a government managed economy. you do in europe. the idea is to go more toward the european model. we have the largest economy in the world. it is three times larger than the japanese economy. you need to put the japanese economy, the chinese economy, the french economy and the brittish economy together, and our economy is bigger than all of those. we didn't get there by the government making decisions and managing healthcare. we didn't get there with the government making financial decisions, and really, i think shifting responsibility.

i heard a caller earlier that said i bought a house and put down a 20% downpayment. i'm not behind on my mortgage. why am i having to pay for someone who, you know, isn't able to pay? for whatever reason, and i think that is a valid question, and in this country we have always allowed individuals to succeed and sometimes to fail, and the same ought to be true of corporations, no matter how big they are r if they fail, the taxpayer shouldn't underwrite them. host: how does republican legislation differ? glenn: well, guest: well, it differs in many regards. we don't impose a tax. the democratic plan imposes a bailout tax. it is $150 billion tax on large corporations in this country. $150 billion out of our economy right now is going to cost jobs.

we don't tax corporations in the event that other corporations, their competitors fail. what we do have is we established a council, and that council would look at consumer protection. i think we failed with consumer protection. now, we had laws in place to protect the consumer, but many times government regulators did not do their job, and in other cases, we have gaps. we closed the gaps in the regulation. we make sure that someone is in charge of consumer protection. we don't separate safety and soundness in consumer protection. in other words, we think that for a bank to operate in a safe and sound manner, that they ought to protect them sooner and if they don't, if they make bad loans, it's time for both the consumer and the financial institution making it, so we

think there ought to be -- the same person ought to be looking at the practices of the banks and not only seeing that they protect the consumer but that the loans are sound and not fraudulent. host: let's talk about tarp. you said it's time to bring the tarp money back in and not use it for what president obama has proposed, new projects, job creation and the like. tell me about your thoughts on tarp money. guest: one is our biggest dhal eng is really what got us in the mess in the last two or year. we borrowed too much money. people borrow too much. corporations were overleveraged. they couldn't meet their obligations. i fear that the government today, we've taken a lot of private debt and shifted it on to the taxpayers' back, and today the government struggles to pay its debt. we have deficits -- we have a large deficit, of probably approaching $2 trillion. we're having trouble funding

that. we have debts as far as the eye can see. this idea that we have money to spend and we need to spend it, i think, it's just wrong. it's a contradiction. the federal government is running a deficit, so we don't have any spare money to spend on this program or that. we ought to put it on the debt, and, in fact, that's one reason that we so vigorously oppose chairman barney frank, and this is a 1,300-page bill, bigger than the original healthcare bill. this is a massive bill, and it reaches every segment of our economy. whether you extend credit or whether you want to, you know, want to receive credit, you make a loan or receive a loan, you're regulated and the government will make a lot of decisions that individuals and financial institutions in the past have

made. host: let's go to our caller paul on the republicans' line in wilmington, ohio. caller: yes, basically i have a comment and a question, and i don't know how we got to this point, but my point is, i am a workingman, and i have never received any check from a poor individual t has always been the rich man who has allowed me to support my family. now, in '0 a, the company i worked for, and i was a tool and die set up man. we had high sales, went from $15 million in three years to $40 million, and the sticks from the democrats, whatever legislation was drawn up to allow the companies to outsource our jobs, that's when we started sending them to mexico and china. i was forced, and i was scared by this to switch jobs.

then the housing market fell through. how do we get to the point to where people don't matter, just the individual matters, and that is a job killer, because then the greed sets in, and then you have more rich people in this country than you have people working. guest: well, you know we did have a lot of greed at all levels. we had people that misrepresented their income to get a house. we had people that extended loans knowing the person couldn't pay it back. we had fraud on main street. we had fraud on wall street, an i don't believe the regulators did a good job at enforcing the laws. look at madoff. for years people tried to blow the whistle on madoff, so, yeah, greed is a problem. i think greed undermines our

society. i think it undermines our values, and i think one thing about greed, it's somewhat self regulating. in other words, if you com%it a criminal act or you get a loan that you can't pay back, there are consequences, but if the government comes in and short circuits those consequences by saying ok, you failed but we're going to bail you out, and we did that last year. we did that with some very large corporations, who had acted recklessly, and we came in, and we intervened, and we used taxpayer dollars to pay them back, taxpayer dollars, and they didn't suffer the consequences. i think that undermines individual responsibility, and individual initiatives, so i believe that in many cases the government shields people from the consequences of their actions. there is really -- the other

thing, i think, you mentioned, caller, is jobs. let me tell you, the government doesn't create a lot of productivity. that's the private sector. when you take capital, and this bill proposes taking $150 billion of capital out of the private sector, it proposed making regulations which are going to cost companies a lot of money. that's less jobs, less money to hire people, less capital in the private economy, and i believe we've already reached that tipping point to where the private sector is being bled dry by the high level of tax and the high level of regulation, and, you know, regulation, we have a lot of regulations in washington. i don't think we need more regulations. we need to enforce those that are on the books. guest: marianne on the democrats line from mentor, ohio.

hi, marianne. go right ahead. caller: yes, what i would hike to know is when are the banks going to be paying a fair interest on savings accounts? i think that if they are charging 13% interest on a loan, they should at least -- not a loan, but on credit cards, they should at least pay 6 1/2 to 7% interest ron savings accounts. that seems fair to me. guest: caller, that's a great question. in fact, i think that's one reason that we opposed this bill the reason they don't have to pay you a lot of money on the accounts is they are supplying banks with cheap money at almost no interest rates from the feds. as long as the banks can borrow from the government and as long as they can into cannot borrow m

you, it is safer to borrow it from the government, number one. i say it's safer, at least in the short term. they're not going to have to borrow from you. i tell you, senior citizens and people that save are really being penalized by this easy money. i think the easy money got us into the housing crisis. it got us into the credit bubble we saw in this country. i think that's what is happening right now is the government continues to take money out of the real economy, and they continue to deploy it in ways that drive down the savings. host: what should consumers do who get letters in the mail from credit card companies saying they will be charged 26, 29% interest rates? >> part of that was as a result of legislation we passed recently that said credit card companies, if someone's credit

starting dpee tear rating, that they still could not -- they could not take certain certain steps to proprotect themselves. you know, there again, i think if you make a deal with credit card companies and they change the deal on you, the federal reserve because of the prodding of congress has said you have to continue to give people that old interest rate. it is a disappointing thing. i don't really defend that practice. the congress has passed legislation which i think makes it fair for credit card users and some of the practices in the credit card industry, quite simply, i can't defend some of them.

host: connie on the independent line. caller: hi. my comments are general. i have been listening to the show and the different topics and the people calling in have made. there is something missing that nobody has brought up, that if the people of this country don't come together as a nation, and put aside their differences, their recriminations, they're you're wrong because you're a republican, you're wrong because you're a democrat. if we can't figure out a way to be americans, we're not going to solve any problems. we have to do this. our country is in deep trouble. we have to learn to be able to talk to each other. my ideology is right. this rhetoric is the only one that has any value. that's not how it is. everybody has opinions. if you have a problem with your neighbor, you solve it.

you may disagree but you find a way to come together and compromise. we can compromise, but when compromise is not a good thing is when we compromise our values or principles. i see in this country that there is too much compromise of our principles. there was a caller earlier that said she has a savings bond, and -- or a savings account at a bank and they're paying a very low interest rate. what we saw last year is we saw banks that in many cases, financial institutions that made a lot of money, but when they got in trouble, the taxpayers bailed them out. there is a lot of anger out there among the american people that their tax dollars were used to bail financial institutions out that took risks, so i do believe there is a lot of

frustration. there is a lot of anger. it is important that in the midst of our anger, and i'm angry and frustrated with what i have witnessed in the past year, too. i'm frustrated with the levels of greed the caller mentioned. it is astounding the amount of criminal behavior we saw in the subprime lending markets. it is disappointing that the reg haters didn't champ down on that, so what i think we should do is approach this but not compromise our principles. one of our principles ought to be that the government doesn't pick winners an losers, that when someone takes risks and fail they lose the money, not the taxpayers. another principle we should have i think that's the responsibility of every american. we teach that to our children.

we should not treat adults like children when they are overleveraged. we should not treat wall street firms when they take outsized are risk make tremendous profits when they then fail to bail them out. that is wrong, and you're going to always have a division in this country. if there's some people, that want to establish a bailout in the regime, a permanent bailout is that already for the government to bail these companies out. there is going to be a lot of anger, and there is going to be a lot of disagreement, as long as people want to push legislation like this. glenn: there guest: there is concern about understand of the year bonuses about to be given out to wall street firms and the financial services industry. tarp money? >> i think it's fair to the extent that if they have taken government assistance, well, a

lot of these firms made a lot of money and there was executive compensation, high levels of executive compensation, and then when they got in trouble, they came down and convinced the federal reserve and treasury to bail them out. i think that's what the anger is about. it's anger on the part of the taxpayer of the unfairness of this whole thing. in fact, that's why we oppose this. you know, the last week that the democrats could get this bill through said ok, we're bailing out some of these large corporations. we're going to bail out main street. the answer is don't bail out anybody. host: should the companies that took tarp money be giving out bonuss? >> they ought to pay the government back, and we ought to shut tarp down. that's the answer. get the government out. the government should not be in it. last september, there were three or four actions we took. i think of all those actions, the one that it appears actually may have actually proved to get@

the taxpayers' their money back is when they loaned money at 5% and issued warrants to some of the large banks that. is the only program that seems to be making money. freddie and fannie, the money given to fannie and freddie, we're not going to see that money again. i fear that we won't see a lot of the money that was loaned to general motors. i think that's a loss. host: you have talked about phasing out fannie mae and freddie mac. >> that's right. the first crisis was not last september. we had a failure of fannie and freddie about two months before that, and secretary paulson asked for $300 billion to bail them out. we said we want to reform them

and get the government out of the business, and really even the bush administration, and chairman franks is always saying, well, the bush administration helped us do this. it wasn't just the obama administration. it was the bush administration. well, the anger on the american people is directed it everyone. it is not any certain political party. it is at anyone who continues to, i think, intervene and bail people out, and shield people from their consequences of their actions. host: do you see a purpose to fannie mae and freddie mac? do you think they have helped americans? >> i believe they did supply liquidity, but i think what happened, if you go back and you didn't have it happen, then the main street banks would have done that. i think what actually happened is they became into the market and crowded out a lot of small and medium-sized lending

institutions, including small banks and community banks and i think if we had it all over to do, we wouldn't have the interventions we have. i have always said the large companies on wall street, they can hire lobbyists and come to washington. some of their former executives are working at treasury rand the fed. they're well connected. you heard they can get along if there is a lot of government regulation. they have the lawyers to cope with. small businesses don't, and the more government vox and management you have, it's almost impossible for small businesses to participate in that. host: republican line from indiana. cape thank you for c-span and i really appreciate the opportunity to express myself today with senator bachus.

i am a republican and have been all my life since goldwater, and that was when i was about 7 years old, so that goes way, way back, but really, we talked about too big to fail, and i can tell you that i am one who is small enough to fail. my wife and i had to re consolidate. we overspent. it was my fault. i took the blame. i'm taking the hit, and we are repaying back the money. we've got a five-year program in front of us. i can tell you honestly, as a republican, i'm a right winger. i'm an extremist because i'm a christian. that's not funny, but that's a fact, but the real letdown in my opinion on our part as republican voters is that our

men and women that we have elected to congress, the house and the senate, have not done the job that we sent them to do, and the first primary job, if we don't get this one right, none of the rest really matters, and that is abortion. don't cut me off here, because i'm not quite done. i know it's hard to tie all of these problems in with abortion, but believe me, christians can't understand that if we are willing to continue to kill in the womb our living offspring, then we aren't deserving of the blessings that come with that which christ has given this nation since it was founded. host: het's get thoughts from congressman bachus. guest: kevin, i'm congressman

bachus from alabama. you didn't confuse me with senator baucus from montana. a lot opá you said, first of all, and earlier i talked about our principles. we shouldn't compromise our principles. in healthcare, we shouldn't compromise our principles. we have -- you know, i believe and i think you believe that it is an abomination for the government to fund abortions, and yet, you know, the senate just yesterday or the day before rejected tight restrictions on this government-managed plan paying for abortions, which i think is just outrageous. when you said to start, you called, you had trouble managing, and you had trouble with the loan, but you were too

small to save, and i think that's the expression i have used. i don't believe in too big to fail. i believe i don't believe in too big to fail. i believe that if you a certain size shouldn't give you certain privileges. it's unfair. if you had too big to fail, then you have to small to save. and a lot of small companies have failed and a lot of homeowners have lost their homes and they have the right to ask, if you're going to bail out the big guys, what about me and that's why we ought to end the bailout. and finally, you said something that i agree with, republicans, we are in the majority and we failed. and i don't think there is anyway that you can dress that up or put lipstick on it. we did. we had an opportunity and blue it.

-- blew it. and given the opportunity again , what will have to have happen. so i appreciate the caller and i appreciate your views. .no carrierringconnect 1200

new mexico. caller: ben bernanke, hank paulsen, and christopher cox were there. and early on, you mentioned the whole issue of leveraging. christopher cox, when he was in charge of the s.e.c., enabled companies to leverage one to

306789 he was a republican. and that republican has enabled me to lose my savings on wall street. now to come on a show and genuflect may be good for your party, but it doesn't do anything for me, the person who is out here who invested, who lost his savings. guest: we have a lot of anger and a lot of anger towards what happened. we did have republicans at the treasury, that's true. we had the credit expansion that went on for 20 years. it went on under bill clinton and it went on under george bush. there is plenty of blame to go around. i don't think -- if you look, i don't think you would find too many innocent people in washington. one thing that i will say, and

that's republicans in the house, during the clinton administration, we warned that these no-down payment loans, and extending loans to fannie and freddie and a lot of banks to people with bad credit without any money down and we did warn about that. we said that this was going to create a disaster. i don't think anybody knew the magnitude of that disaster. yeah, i think what's important, and this is where i think we can all come together is where do we go from here? ,and, you know, to the caller, i would say, ok, all these mistakes were made and there were bailouts made, but do you want to continue the bailouts? that's what i have to say to the caller and ask her -- i don't know if she is still on the line, but i would say do you want to continue to bail these companies out when they fail?

one thing that i think is important is that we have not -- there are several commissions that are going back and examining everything that happened, and they have yet to report what we have got a bill that is 1, 300 pages. it is a bigger bill than the original healthcare bill, and we're going to do all these things, and it is the government doing them, and the caller said this, you know, washington screwed this up. well, i acknowledge that a lot of what happened was as a result of bad policy here. why would you give the federal reserve -- she mentioned the federal reserve, why would you give them more power? why wouldn't you have what we calmed if we had a four or five five-year problem, why not declare a timeout?

host: you are a nine-term congressman in the house of representatives. thanks for being with us. >> the house is still in a recess. earlier today, members passed an expiring tax provisions bill, 241-181. when the house does gavel back in, we expect debate on the financial regulations bill. debate on that bill is expected to carry over until tomorrow. the senate is still in a recess with members scheduled to return at 6:15 eastern time to continue work on health care legislation. it's the 10th day the chamber has considered the measure and we've had debate on several

amendments. majority leader reid said there will be no more votes today. right now, senate democrats are meeting behind closed doors for further negotiations on removing the government-run public option from the bill. until house members return, here's the state department briefing, including information on honduras and news that five americans were arrested in pakistan. spokesman ian kelly speaks with reporters for about 20 minutes. >> ok. let me just give you some information at the top of our briefing and welcome to our briefing, late as it is. undersecretary tauscher was in geneva today at the biological weapons convention conference. she noted that the united states takes the threat of

biological weapons very seriously and so has adopted a -- an energetic approach tailored to counter today's threats. she outlined the broad goals of the strategy, promoting global health security, establishing and reinforcing norms against the misuse of life sciences. implementing a coordinated approach to influence, identify , inhibit, and interdict those who would seek to misuse scientific progress to harm innocent people. and finally, reinvigorate the biological weapons convention as the premier form for global outreach and coordination. also, i want to highlight that today, our embassy in kabul hosted a day-long agricultural coordination conference to roll out our new coordinated agriculture strategy.

for the first time, there's a single, unified strategy to guide the u.s. government in assisting after began tan tan stn -- afghanistan to redevelop its agricultural sector a sector on which 80% of afghans depend for their incomes and livelihoods. at the conference, afghanistan's minister of agriculture provided information to the group, sharing guidelines developed by the afghanistan historical framework. it focuses on increasing jobs and income, regenerating agribusiness and rehabilitating water sheds and improving information infrastructure. it aims to increase afghan's confidence in the government, particularly the ministry of agriculture, irrigation, and

livestock, by increasing the capacity to deliver water to farmers and herders. the secretary had a meeting with ukrainian foreign minister and looks forward to a meeting with the el salvador ran foreign minister. >> can i ask about mrs. tauscher? what she did not say was that the administration was ready to go ahead with an enforceable -- enforcement mechanisms on this. why is the administration not -- why is the administration not supporting that? >> i think she did say we were not prepared to revive negotiations toward a verification regime on biological weapons. because we've determined that this would be something that would be extraordinarily

difficult to verify compliance. it's biological weapons programs can be easily disguised in a very small part of laboratories that are devoted to legitimate activities and we think that our energy and efforts should be focused instead on working in a multilateral basis to enhance transparency and to come to an agreement on compliance on a multilateral basis. but unfortunately, any kind of verification protocol that we would come up with under the convention wouldn't be able to keep pace with rapidly changing

nature of the biological weapons threat, so we feel that it's -- it would be more productive to do this via a multilateral agreement to increase transparency. other questions? >> ian, what can you tell us about the arrests in pakistan? can you confirm that those people who were arrested are actually the five people who were missing locally? in other words, what do you know? >> well, the short answer is no, i can't confirm that. what i can tell you is that we've contacted our embassy in islamabad and they are seeking further information. i think that we need to get those kinds of details about the identity of these five

individuals. i think insofar as there will be information coming out, i don't think it's going to come out of here, i think it will come out of law enforcement agencies, the department of justice or the f.b.i. >> we were talking about americans the other day are incarcerated in other countries. if these people have been arrested, is the embassy seeking to meet with them? >> absolutely. if they're american citizen we, of course, are going to be very interested in the -- in the charges that they've been detained on what sort of circumstances they're being held. this is something we would do anywhere. this is why the embassy is seeking more information. >> [inaudible] >> i know that we -- >> aren't they required to notify you if they arrest american citizens? >> i think under the

convention, they are required to do it. >> have they? >> i'm not certain. i know that the embassy is trying to get more information. >> just for clarification, when you were asked whether you would seek to meet with them, it is, you would, you are going to, you are going to seek meetings, or you have sought meetings? >> first of all we need to verify their identify, verify that they're american citizens. if this is confirmed, then of course we would seek to get some kind of further information about them and whether or not they desire to meet with the consulate officer. >> i'm just kind of surprised you don't have anything on this because other buildings around this town, other agencies seem to have quite a bit more information and presumably they're getting that information from their people on the ground who are attached to the embassy.

>> well, i'm -- i mean, you're welcome to contact these other agencies. >> i know. >> at this pint, we can't confirm who they are. >> the chief of mission liaisons for various investigative agencies are under chief of mission authority, correct? >> this is something that this has broken in the last few hours. >> they report to the ambassador who works for the state department. >> this is all correct. >> and you don't know anything yet? >> we do not have confirmation of their identities. >> if i'm not mistaken, they were arrested monday, right, this is wednesday? is that correct? >> i'm not sure when they were arrested. we've seen the media reports over the last few hours. >> are you going to get back to us specifically on whether the pakistan government actually has informed the u.s. if -- >> first we have to confirm they're american citizens and

then yes, if we can, we will confirm that we've -- that we've confirmed this. >> i'm wondering -- the secretary made a statement about honduras, it tracked in large part what you said after the election. i'm wondering if you can tell me why she felt she needed to make that statement today and does the state department think things have changed since you made eyour statement after the election? have things gotsen bet her are they on track? have they gotten worse? what's going on? >> we believe that important work still needs to be done to promote national reconciliation in honduras. we had some important elections that we deemed as free and fair. there are still some steps to be done under the san jose accord, particularly in this area of national reconciliation. the secretary made reference to

that, the need to name a national unity government. the secretary spoke yesterday with costa rican president areas, who was in tagusi-galpa, met with president-elect lobo and eseveral other, he was there with panamanian president mart nellie. he told the secretary that it was a useful meeting. he said president-elect lobo maze clear that the establishment of a national unity government a truth commission and political amnesty, as he put it, were actions that needed to be completed before his inauguration on january 27 to facilitate national recognition -- national reconciliation and also facilitate broad

international recognition of his government. so we welcome this meeting by costa rican president areas, who has played such -- arias who has played such a significant and helpful role and we hope it leads to, as we said before, further steps in implementing the tagusi-galpa /san jose accords. >> does this mean this is over? are those the things that need to be done for this to be put behind us? >> what we're concerned about is that the hon duran people have a way out -- the honduran people have a way out of this crisis. as we see it, the best way out of this crisis is a step-by-step fulfillment of the

accord and we've been very active in encouraging the sides to take these concrete steps in support -- and support other international efforts, such as the efforts of the costa rican and panamanian presidents. this is really -- stst in the interest of the honduran people that they have a way to a more normal future and the elections were one step, the vote for congress was another, but we have a few more important steps that have to be taken. you know, honduran people have signaled their strong desire to move beyond this by their participation in the elections. >> could you answer the question with a yes or no? >> which question? >> i think you forgot what the

question was. if they do these things, does that mean in the eyes of the u.s. the crisis is over? >> i normally don't answer keques that begin with if, but i think in this case, the answer is, yes. i think it will all depend on the hondurans, of course. the key is moving beyond the coup and getting to a point where we have reconciliation. >> talking about that, there are versions that say the assistant secretary will go to south america next week. do you have confirmation about that? >> i don't. i wouldn't be surprised. i know that he is trying to make -- make these kinds of trips in the western hemisphere. if he does have these plans, i'm sure he'll be able to share the details. >> we know that yesterday was a

meeting in montae vee day owe -- in montevideo, and if these countries proclaim they're not going to accept the elections, do you think that hillary's -- hillary clinton's message today was a response to this? >> you know, i would discourage you from seeing it as a direct response, any one event. i think it's restating our p -- helping the people of honduras to move beyond this and helping the -- helping the various political actors in the area implement the accord. it was a way for us to reiterate our support for the efforts of president arias and president mart nellie and i

think also -- president martinelli and also what president lobo said in his press conference yesterday. i think it's more a response to that than anything else. >> any readout on bosworth's north korean trip? >> i would expect in the next few hour, he'll be living pyongyang going to seoul and i think there will be a lot more information flowing once he hits the ground in seoul. >> press conference in seoul? >> there should be a press conference in seoul. i don't have an exact time for it. >> but it will be overnight here? >> it will be rather early in the morning here, yes. >> does that mean there's no reason for him to stay any longer? i know that was suggested as a possibility. >> he hasn't left pyongyang yet. >> do you know who he actually met with? >> i do not.

>> there's been complete radio silence. >> we expect to have more information -- we expect more information tomorrow. >> he's returning faster than we expected. >> i think -- well, as i understand it, everything is on schedule. >> i was going to ask you -- since the whole thing from the other day, has there been any contact from thity bet tan group about that? -- the tibetan group about that? >> the secretary looks forward to talking to senator cantwell, there has been some conversations between secretary, staff, and senator cantwell's office.

and as we said before, we look forward to seeing that. >> what about with the italians? >> i think there's been contact between the embassy and the ministry of foreign affairs, but just routine, diplomatic contact at this point. >> you don't know if the -- the secretary has not yet met with the senator? >> no, she hasn't. i don't think anything is set but i think within the next, i don't know, few days or so. >> on iraq, the iraqi police say the attacks yesterday that killed, i think, about 120 or more people were linked to saudi arabia and syria. they allege that al qaeda and former supporters, or supporters of the late saddam hussein were behind it. do you have anything on that?

are you working with the syrians to find out more? >> i think that we have -- we, of course, you say saw the secretary's statement yesterday. it was horrific. we strongly condemn these barbarous acts. we have offered to provide support to the iraqi police and military forces. they have -- the u.s. forces have provided explosive ordinance dispose am -- explosived or nantz disposal -- ed or nants disposal assets. providing over watch over baghdad and u.s. forces in iraq of course stand ready to provide additional support if

necessary. >> does that support extend to the investigation and especially since it may go beyond the exporters? >> i don't have specific information on that, as i said. we stand adey -- ready to provide that kind of forensic support if that's what they want. >> on iran, we asked about iranian press reports about the disappearance of prominent scientists, those allegations continue in the iranian press in somewhat stronger terms. do you have now any response to these? is there anything you want to say about these allegations? >> i don't have anything to add to what my colleague said yesterday. you can ask again tomorrow, if you like. >> so the -- >> do you have a question?

>> mr. labrof, i guess, said it looks like some type of progress. where are we? >> let me give you kind of a brief update on it. you know that the two presidents have set the goal of completing the discussions on the treaty by the end of this year. i know that our negotiating team and the russian negotiating team are working extremely hard to finish this treaty. they still have that goal of finishing their work by the end of the year. for our part, of course, our real priority here is to get a good treaty that meet ours national security interests. those kinds of interests

include obligations in the treaty that are appropriate to the strategic environment now that mutually enhances both parties and enhances the security of both parties and enhances the security of the region and the world. we want to have more predictability and stability in our nuclear relationship and we also want provisions in this accord that ensure effective verification of the treaties' obligations. i think at this point, this is a -- this is something that you see toward the end of any negotiation, where there are end-game issues that you see in any negotiation, but the real core of the agreement, i think,

is agreed on. the vast majority of the text is agreed on. but we do have some of these final issues we need to work out. i can't predict when exactly that would be. i'll stress again, the important thing is not necessarily meeting a deadline, necessarily, but the important thick is getting a good treaty. in the back. >> is there a possibility that they will extend the schedule in pyongyang? >> as far as i know he's on schedule to leave pyongyang tomorrow, he'll go to seoul. exe we expect him to have some kind of press availability tomorrow. thanks.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is currently in recess. earlier today, the members passed an expiring tax provision bill. they return shortly to take up a financial regulations package. it extends the government's authority to deal with companies that pose economic risk. live coverage when the house returns on c-span. in the senate, it's day 10 of the health care debate. you can read the senate's health care bill online at c-span.org and follow live senate coverage right now on c-span2. president obama today spoke out in favor of the health care compromise worked out between liberal ancon servetive senate democrats. those comments came in an announcement on spending for community health centers. this runs about 10 minutes. >> thank you. thank you, guys. please have a seat. have a seat.

good afternoon, everybody. i am pleased that you could all join us today as we announce three new initiatives to help our community health centers provide better care to people in need all across america. [applause] i want to thank our secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius. our surgeon general, dr. regina benjamin. our administrator of the health resources and services administration, dr. mary wakefield, and our deputy secretary of h h.s., bill core, for being here today and for their outstanding work in supporting community health centers. there they are. regina, it's good to see you in your uniform.

we've been waiting for that. i also want to thank the many members of congress who are with us today, both in the audience and up on the stage. particularly bernie sanders and representative jim clyburn. we are grateful for all -- [applause] >> and i especially want to recognize the leaders here today from health centers across the country for what all of you are doing in your communities every day, working long hours, to provide quality care at prices people can afford with the dignity and respect they deserve and in a way that takes into account the challenges they face in their lives. for you folks, health care isn't just about diagnosing patients and treating illness, it's about caring for people and promoting wellness. it's about emphasizing education and prevention and helping people live healthier lives so they don't get sick in the first place.

and it works. studies though people -- show people living near a health centerer less likely to go to an emergency room and less likely to have unmet critical medical needs. c.h.c.'s are proven to reduce ethnic and economic disparities in care and the costs are nearly 25% lower than those who get their care el elsewhere. you can see why in a speech marking the first anniversary of the first community centers in america, senator ted kennedy declared, you have not only assured the best in health care for your families and neighbors, but you have begun a minor revolution in american medicine. unfortunately, today, nearly 45 years later, that care has yet to reach many of the folks in this country who need it most. today, millions of americans still have difficulty accessing primary health care. many of them are uninsured.

many have insurance but live in underskembed -- served areas in rural or urban communities. when they get sick or hurt they tough it out and hope for the best. when things get bad enough they head to the emergency room. we end up treating complications, crises, and chronic conditions that could have within prevented in the first place. the cost is measured not just in dollars spent on health care or in lost workplace absences but in the kind of raw human is suffering that has no place in the united states of america in the year 2009. no matter what party we belong to or where on the political spectrum we fall, none of us thinks this is acceptable. none of us would defend this system. that's why we've taken up the cause of health insurance reform this year. it's why many of the folks in this room fought so hard to ensure that the recovery act included unprecedented investments for a toele to toovel $2 billion to help

upgrade our health centers, investments that embodied the core mission to put people back to work and leave a legacy of improvements that will continue to lift up communities for generations to come. today, we're well on our way to meeting these goals. we've created or saved up to 1.6 million jobs, according to the c.b.o. the congressional budget office, through the recovery act. our economy is growing again. we're doubling our capacity in renewable energy and rebuilding schools and laboratories, railway, highways, yesterday the kaiser family foundation issued a new report showing the recovery act has helped many states keep and improve access to health insurance for families in need. so far we've allocated nearly $1.4 billion to health centers across america to they can get to work building and renovating and hiring new staff. and today, i'm pleased to

announce we're award morning $500 million to 85 centers in 30 states and puerto rico that are providing critical care for so many folks with nowhere else to turn. [applause] we're investing in places like kenyon lands community health care that has one facility operating in building originally constructed as a chicken coop and another in a cramped fire station. we're investing in places like avis goodwin community health cent for the dover, new hampshire that's become so overcruded -- you must be from there. it's become so overcrowded the doctors are using bathrooms and closets as offices. we're investing in bucksport regional in maine, where doctors are double booked and

the waiting rooms are standing room only. we're giving them what they need to expand their facilities so they can meet the demand for services that's come with this economic downturn. we don't want our health care centers to just provide health care for their patient we want them to provide better care as well system of starting today, we're making available $88 million in health care for them to adopt new decknology centers to manage their matters and transfer old paper files to electronic medical records. these investments won't just increase efficiency and lower cost, they'll improve the quality of care as well, preventing countless medical error, allowing providers to spend less time with paperwork and more time with patients that it's the noimp final mission i'm announcing today, a

demonstration of the medical home model of care that many providers aspire to. the idea is simple. in order for care to be effective, it needs to be coordinated. it's where the crener that serves as your medical home can keep track of prescriptions or get the referrals you need or work with you to gets the plan of care that assures providers are working together to keep you healthy. taken together, these three initiatives, funding for construction, technology, and a medical home demonstration won't just save money over the long-term and create more jobs, they're also going to give more people the peace of mind of knowing that health care will be there for them and their families when they need it. ultimately that's what health insurance reform is really about. that's what the members of congress here today will be voting on in the coming weeks. [applause]

let me just end by saying a little bit about this broader effort. i know it's been a long road. i know it's been a tough fight. but i also know the reason why we've taken up this cause is the very same reason why so many members from both parties are here today. because no matter what our politics are, we know that when it comes to health care, the people we serve deserve better. the legislation in congress today contains both democratic ideas and republican ideas. plenty of compromises in between. the senate made critical progress last night with the creative new framework i believe will help pave the way for final passage and a historic achievement on behalf of the american people. i support this effort, especially since it's aimed at increasing choice and competition and lowering cost. so i want to thank all of you for staking with it, for all the late nightses and long

weekends you guy have put in, with so much at stake, this is well worth all of our efforts. it is now my pleasure to sign the memo that will direct secretary sebelius to get started on that medical home demonstration. let's do that. [applause] there you go. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the house is still in recess, but earlier today, members did pass an expiring tax provision bill. members return shortly and are expected to take up financial regulations package. it would expand the government's authority to deal with failing financial companies that pose economic risk. live coverage when the house returns here on c-span. over in the senate, it's day 10 of the health care debate. you can read the senate's health care bill online at c-span.org and follow live senate coverage right now on c-span2. until the house return, we'll show you as much as we can of today's white house briefing.

>> i came down, kevin said, we didn't give the two-minute warning, i said, i thought marissa came down 10 minutes ago for the two-minute warning. >> they did. >> all right, i'll get slightly organized but, go ahead. >> foreign minister lebrof said not too long ago that a signing would happen soon, i'm wondering if you can flush that out any. i'm wondering if it will be in conjunction with the trip to copenhagen, perhaps. >> we continue to take part in

negotiations with the russians on a replacement star treaty. our hope is to get one done. but can't plan for a signing ceremony until something is done and we've certainly made no arrangementses for that. >> are you close to a signing? >> well, i think we're getting closer and making progress on an agreement. i know there are ssh issues that have to be worked out that stand in the way of that ultimate agreement and our principles continue to -- principals continue to meet and brief the president on what's happening. we're optimistic we can get one. whether or not that happens by copenhagen is hard to say. >> some congressional democrats have said that they'd like to jobs package that could cost up to $200 billion. the white house has been careful to put no price tag on

the president's initiatives, but is there a cost ceiling you'd impose on the jobs, given you're trying to cut deficits in the future? >> i think what the president would say is the ideas, the areas that he outlined yesterday are targeted approaches to creating an environment where businesses can start hiring again. i think the president believed he had a good meeting today with democrats and republicans. and began by outlining a couple of thing he is talked about yesterday. first and foremost, how do we help small businesses. zero capital gains tax for small business. incentives for hiring. incentives for depreciation and things like that the president mentioned, along with infrastructure, the second thing he talked about, the president discussed with democrats and republicans that indeed those were initiatives that in the past have enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

i think the president believes there is a commonality to these ideas that he's proposed and that he's heard from capitol hill that they propose that we think we can find agreement on and hopefully get some progress on. i don't know what the ultimate figure is. obviously part of what the president wanted to discuss with leaders today was what might be in that package. this is not a one-way street. i will say, when it comes to the deficit, the president agreed with and reiterated the fact that we have to do -- we have to have a plan for addressing in the medium and long-term, fiscal reresponseability. the president also reiterated -- responsibility. the president also reate -- reiterated we are not going to solve the problem of our long-term fiscal health if our growth rate is where it was in

the first quarter of this year, in excess of negative 6%. let me just for some visual stuff the president talked about, the -- this just gives you a sense of where we've been, right, i'm going to go to that in a second. the big board is coming. again, this is just -- this just gives you a sense of the average, in quarters, of our jobs picture. the first quarter, the average was nearly negative 700,000 jobs. in the second quarter, minus 42. in the third quarter, minus 199. in the previous two months from minus 111 to minus 11. what happened in the beginning of the year, we're seeing progress. what i talked about a second ago, in terms of economic growth, the first quarter, we saw our economic growth contract in excess of 6%. second quarter, negative .7. and then for the first time in

a year, positive job growth. negative 11,000 jobs lost was sadly the most positive report we've enjoyed in two years. now that keith has spoiled my big surprise. this, i think gives you a sense. some of you have seen this when we did briefings on the recovery act. this gives you a sense of the genuine depth that we're in in terms of employment. this number -- >> we're leaving this recorded brief, the house is returning now, expected to take up a financial regulations package. this is live coverage on c-span.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a third party subpoena for production of documents issued by the u.s. district court for the district of maryland. in connection with a civil matter now pending in that court. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, john sarbanes, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker. house of representatives, madam. pursuant to section 125-c-1 of the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008,

public law 110-343, i am pleased to appoint mr. jay mark mcwaters of dallas, texas, to the congressional oversight panel. his appointment fills the vacancy created by jeb hensarling who has resigned his position. mr. waters has expressed interest in serving in this capacity and i am pleased to fulfill his request. signed, sincerely, john a. boehner, republican leader. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. mr. perlmutter: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 956 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 138. house resolution 956. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill

h.r. 4173, to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole general debate shall be confined to the bill as amended and shall not exceed three hours. with two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture. and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the

committee of the whole shall rise without motion. no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the house. section 2, during consideration of h.r. 4173, pursuant to this resolution, the chair of the committee of the whole may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on financial services or his designee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. perlmutter: all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. perlmutter: i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 956. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, house resolution 956 provides for general debate of the bill h.r. 4173, the wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2009. it provides three hours of general debate which will be evenly divided between the chairman and ranking members of the various committees of jurisdiction. it self-executes an amendment to resolve jurisdictional concerns among the committees of jurisdiction of this bill. the amendment also includes the text of h.r. 1728 regarding president torrey lending which the house passed earlier this year overwhelmingly. it also makes certain provisions to the bill to ensure it complies with pay-as-you-go rules. mr. speaker, for more than a year the financial services committee of which i am a member has held hearings and conducted a thorough oversight into the causes of of last year's financial meltdown which caused our current economic troubles. after exhaustive work, the

house now has before it a comprehensive package of reforms to address the numerous failures that led to the near collapse of our financial system last year. the banking system is our nation's circulatory system for our economy. last year that system had a heart attack. we cannot and will not let the banking system fail which is why this house had to take bold action last year to stabilize it. however, now we must turn and look to the causes at the root of the meltdown and make targeted reforms or repairs to address the inefficiencies or failures we found in the system of the the legislation before us is the most significant reform to our financial system since the new deal of the 1930's. the bill creates a financial stability oversight counsel to monitor systemically significant institutions,

counterparties, and tension threats to the financial system. this ensures that there is no place to hide. by closing loopholes, improving consolidated supervision, and establishing robust regulatory oversight. we provide for the orderly wind down of failing firms that are systemically significant, ending the notion of too big to fail. by dissolving these firms, we end them. we kill them. we put them out of their misery so we say no to anymore tax payer bailouts. this legislation also makes robust consumer protection repair and reform. it puts the regulation of consumer protection on a level playing field with the regulation of safety and soundness of our financial institutions. it creates an independent agency focused solely on the right -- on writing meaningful consumer protection standards and keeping watch over predatory practices that some

lenders have shown a propensity to pursue. additionally we increase transparency and accountability by establishing a regulatory system for the overcounter derivative market. now most derivative trades will be done on exchanges or through clearing houses. again we have made sure that there is no place to hide. other important pieces of this legislation including the registration of hedge funds and the doubling of s.e.c. funding to hire more experts and investigators. investor protection is substantially strengthened. a federal insurance office is created to gather information, mitigate systemic risk, and provide for insurance expertise to the federal government. in this legislation we have also included two very important measures which passed the house earlier this year. first is the say on pay and second is mortgage reform aimed at curbing the abusive and predatory practices that led to the subprime lending problems. this legislation is critical to

protect taxpayers and consumers by reigning in -- reining in the abuses of wall street while having an environment for financial markets to grow and stabilize our economy. these changes are essential to rebuilding main street and getting credit flowing to small business, creating jobs, and rebuilding our economy. i'm proud to stand here with my colleagues today while we consider this important set of reforms. we cannot afford another collapse as we had last fall. it cost this nation trillions of dollars and millions of jobs. and is no longer acceptable. we need to repair and restore the system so that confidence is restored by the american public and people around the world. we make these necessary reforms that establish robust regulatory oversight. this bill is another step toward economic recovery and i urge its adoption. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: i have to say at the outset that i have a slightly different take than was just offered by my rules committee colleague, the gentleman from golden, colorado. as our economy, mr. speaker, and our jobs market continue to struggle and families face the coming year with deep worrieser for their own financial futures, i believe that our responsibility here in this institution as members of congress is very clear. we must reform our financial regulatory system to prevent the kind of catastrophic breakdown that occurred last year. we both can agree on that. we know that what happened last year -- a year ago right now many of us were sensing that our economy was in peril and we could have seen a major meltdown.

we need to ensure that that doesn't happen again. the threat that we went through does not happen again. we must do so in a way that preserves access to credit for families and small businesses, promotes job creation, ends taxpayer funded bailouts, and allows us to begin to pay down this horrendous national debt. that we are all facing. unfortunately, the proposal that is before us this evening fails on all counts. at a time when we need to reform and streamline our regulatory regime, the democratic majority proposes to make it more complicated and less accountable, more unworkable, and less transparent. the majority wants to keep the taxpayers on the hook for a permanent system of bailouts. my friend said we were going to ensure we no longer had bailouts. clearly from our perspective this will continue the pattern

of bailouts and they are attempting to use repaid tarp funds as what is little more than a slush fund that will create a wide range of additional federal suspend spending. the net effect of the underlying bill that the democratic majority has put forward will be to reduce consumer's access to credit, destroy jobs, and leave our deficit sprawling -- spiraling out of control. this is not the solution that the american people were hoping for from this institution. they understand that while the circumstances leading up to our current economic crisis involved incredibly complex and arcane regulations, policies, and institutions, the lack of accountability, and transparency was the core problem. they understood that a lack of of accountability, a lack of transparency that that really was the core problem that led up to the crisis. financial institutions took on unsustainable levels of risk and used highly questionable

practices that fed into a bubble that we all know burst. individuals took on an enormous amount of debt that they simply could not afford. and we all know that the federal government did the exact same thing. the result was frozen credit markets, declining growth, and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. we are still trying to climb out of this hole as we all know. the task at hand is not about increasing regulation or diminishing regulation. .

get our housing market back on track. by exacerbating the credit crunch, today's underlying bill threatens further job destruction and stymied growth. the bill also creates this $150 billion fund paid for with new taxes to continue to bail out failing institutions. if that $150 billion turns out to not be enough, who is on the hook for more bailouts? well, surprise surprise, it's the u.s. taxpayer.

the democratic majority was given the opportunity to remove these bailout provisions from the bill in committee. but they chose to keep them in place. if that weren't bad enough, this bill will take the bailout dollars that are repaid to the taxpayers and put them into a slush fund for more government spending rather than paying down the national debt. the democratic majority has apparently forgotten that they voted last fall to consider the taxpayer bailout first, the taxpayer first as bailout dollars are -- the path charted by this legislation is utterly reckless at a time when prudence and accountability are more needed than ever. but, mr. speaker, i'm happy to say that we as republicans have an alternative. we have a very viable alternative. we put forth a proposal that reforms our financial regulatory system without

threatening access to credit or job creation. we enhance rather than diminish accountability for agencies like the fed. we tackle the issue of fraud and give shareholders greater rights when it comes to executive compensation. we put an end to the bailouts once and for all. and we return repaid bailout dollars to the federal treasury where they belong. our alternative accomplishes the goal of guarding against future crises without imperiling our recovery. this is what the american people are demanding of us. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues while we are considering this as a general debate rule, i'm urging my colleagues to reject this because we can do better. reject taxpayer funded bailouts. reject the credit crunch for small businesses and families. reject greater job losses. and reject a new slush fund for even more wasteful spending.

with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. perlmutter: as much as i enjoy listening to my friend from california, i'm afraid that i would have to say, mr. speaker, he hasn't read much of this bill. and the reason i would say that is that under the proposal the republicans presented to us in financial services, they were going to allow this thing to linger through a chapter 11. if there was a failed banking institution, it would linger as opposed to the proposal by the democrats which says -- which is the bill before us, a financial company that comes within the coverage of this title for resolution shall be placed in liquidation, period. it's over. it's done. number one. number two, with respect to this comment or his comments and general comments about job

creation, and the debacle that occurred last fall, it came under the watch of president bush who has the worst track record for job creation of any president since those jobs -- since the job creation records have been taken. also we lost trillions of dollars because of the types of casino-like approaches that were taken in and on wall street and other places that cost millions of investors thousands and thousands of dollars each and cost so many jobs. i would like to now yield 4 1/2 minutes to my friend from kansas, mr. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise tonight in support of the rule and in support of 41 -- h.r. 4173, the wall street are reform and consumer

protection act of 2009. a comprehensive package that the house financial services committee and other committees have worked this year to produce. i commend the leadership of chairman frank, without his hard work and many committee hearings, long committee markups, and behind the scenes to listen and address concerns, we would not be on the floor tonight with the bill we have. we spent over 50 hours debating the various pieces of this regulatory reform package. and our work was bipartisan. over 50 republican amendments were accepted along with over 20 bipartisan amendments. this package, mr. chairman, contains ideas put forward by democrats and republicans as it should, creating a bert and more thoughtful bill that we are considering tonight. we should never forget why we are here tonight with the most sweeping financial regulatory reforms since the great depression. last year the financial system, credit was overextended and financial firms were overledged to a point that was unsustainable. .pm unsustainable.

sec are tear paulsen said we may not have a market on monday. so more than a year later, well past time for congress to take the next step and create strong, clear rules for wall street. i believe in free and hope markets, but i don't believe in letting people game the system. this bill will make sure that can't happen by number one, ending too big to fail, and putting an end to taxpayer bailouts, and number two, preventing future bernie may dauf ponzi schemes, and number three, strengthening consumer protections. i worked with my colleagues in our committee offering amendments to strengthen this package, such as the moore-meeks amendment to have big institutions to ensure

stress tests to ensure that they're fully prepare nerd worst. and second my amendment to strike qualified receivership, a form of conserve toreship that would have allowed the government to revive a failing firm. the amendment ensures the next a.i.g. or lehman brothers will be required to fail and put out of its misery. three the moore-lynch amendment creates a council on oversight that will have strong oversight of the systemic risk council. i urge my colleagues to support the wall street reform and consumer protection act to guarantee that we have tough new rules of the road for the wall street to play by and to fully protect consumers, investors and u.s. taxpayers. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. trire: i'm happy to yield two minutes to my colleague, a hardworking member of the

financial services committee, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill this massive financial overhaul would permanently entrench the federal government and taxpayers in the very position we have worked to avoid since the beginning of this economic crisis. we must crack down on illegal, unfair, and deceptive activity, eliminate regulatory depaps and strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement agencies. we should create a culture of transparency and accountability on wall street that will discourage, not promote, risky behavior and never, ever allow taxpayers to be left holding the bag when those deem today big to fail can in the meet their obligations. instead this bill creates a vast new government agency, permanently codifies the practice of bailouts and doubles down on government intrusion in the financial

sector. i have joined my colleagues in the financial services committee at every step of the way to offer ideas for smarter, stronger financial regulations and yet this proposal continues to weaken the economic competitiveness of our markets, limit consumer choice and place taxpayers on the hook for wall street mistakes. mr. speaker, american taxpayers cannot afford any more bailouts in our financial markets cannot weather another storm of fiscal mismanagement. i ask my colleagues to vote no on this the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois yield back. the gentleman from california california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i yield four minutes to my friend from florida, a member of the financial services committee, mr. klein. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. klein: i thank the gentleman for his colorado for his work on the financial

services committee and on this rule. certainly i support the rule and the underlying bill, h r. 1473, wall street reform and consumer protection act. we think about the name, wall street reform and consumer protection act, this is self-descriptive of exactly what americans have been looking for for the past year. our current economic crisis is the worst in decades and it certainly didn't happen overnight. it happened over several years because of the failure of regulation and oversight. one thing i'll agree with mr. dreier from california is, it's not a question of more or less regulation, it's smart regulation. it's the right type of regulation, it's the right type of people in those agencies that know what they're doing, that have the proper training, have the -- they're properly paid and are not outsmarted by people who are trying to scam the system. that's what americans have been asking for and that's what americans have been looking for congress to do finally after a tremendous amount of work and a lot of it has been through democrats and republicans, it's hard to see it at this moment, it's becoming a partisan issue,

the good news is this bill is good quality, one of the most important things that's been done in our economy, in our financial system in other 50 years and it will be an answer to not only figure out what went wrong in the past and learn from those mistakes, but also anticipate what can go wrong in the future. a lot of very smart people out there have learned to scam the system. we as americans need to make sure we are anticipating what those kinds of problems may be so we can avoid those problems from happening again. under the bill before us today we created a regulatory structure to protect consumers and ensure that investors have the appropriate information to make knowledgeable investment decisions. there's no guarantee in investing and every person has to take personal responsibility for themselves in making those decisions. but at the same time, you can't be fraudulently misled, can't have a lack of information, a lack of context and it's important to have an agency that will stand up for consumers or abusive other financial institutions that are out there.

this legislation also restores accountability to wall street. regulatory loopholes and gaps in regulation have been closed to make sure there is common sense, transparency and adequate oversight. financial institutions that were previously unregulated and we've heard the stories about who they are, will now be brought under government supervision. derivatives and other complex financial products we've never heard of, credit default swaps and other things, will be tightly regulated to eliminate unnecessary risk take big financial institutions and executive compensation at these institutions has been modified to discourage risky speculation for short-term gains that have negative effects on the overall economy. this bill also makes sure that the american taxpayer, all of us, won't have to bail out wall street bank bus putting in place resolution authority that will allow these firms to fail without damaging the financial system in the entire economy. no more too big to fail or we

have to rescue them because if they fall, the whole economy fails. we cannot let it get to that point. that's exactly what this bill does. it stops it before it gets to that point. we've also learned that both the quality and quantity of staff at the regulatory agencies, as i said before, are important. we want to have qualified technical staff. we want to know if someone tpwhrose whistle and calls something out, the staff will respond quickly and efficiently so to the make sure that doesn't continue. it's also important to hold individuals who committed misdeeds to account. many financial players committed abusive and fraudulent acts, from wall street to local mortgage brokers, and we have to hold these people accountable. americans, all they ask for is a sense of fairness. they want to know if they play by the rules, people who play and sell them products are also playing by those same rules. unfortunately, there haven't been enough prosecutions for those who committed some of these very bad acts that brought us to our knees.

that's unacceptable. people who commit these types of criminal, fraudulent acts must be punished. if i can just get another minute, if i could, sir. mr. perlmutter: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. klein: simply punishing these bad act -- actors is not enough. we have to learn from the past and anticipate the future. and make sure our financial structures are adapted accordingly. this is necessary to creating a functional, sustainable system that our families an businesses can count on. we cannot and will not as americans allow what happened last year to happen again. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the congress for the passage of the bill, to the president signing it, and americans knowing that they can have confidence in their financial system. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm privileged to

yield two minutes toth to the senior republican californian on the committee on financial service, mr. royce. . condoleezza rice i agree here tonight with my republican colleagues who oppose permanent bailout authority, which is put in this bill and the fact that this legislation instulizes the too big to fail model. the short coming is the failure to address one of the key causes of this financial collapse. while others may claim it was lack of government involvement, i think history is going to show that government intervention had a major role and legality me show you how. it was fannie mae and freddie mac that were at the heart of the housing market and largely

responsible for the proliferation of subprime throughout the financial system. over the years, they loaded up on over $1 trillion of these junk loans, pushed by initiatives on the other side of the aisle and they signaled to the market that these were safe loans when we know they were not. trillions of dollars in losses. it was the federal reserve and banks around the world for four years running. and the effect of those negative real interest rates were devastating because of mitigating the ups and downs, the fed's actions had the negative effect. it intensified the boom and bus cycle and encouraged risk-taking throughout the economy especially in the financial sector and housing. while there have been other blunders, that contributed to

the crises, these two steps taken by the federal government were at the heart of the boom and subsequent bus of the housing market and financial system. until we address these, we are simply treating the symptoms rather than the disease. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from california -- mr. dreier: i i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time, i'm very happy to yield two minutes to my good friend from georgia, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i thank my colleague from california. here we go again, mr. speaker.

here it is. we got the bill right here, another late-night, another 1,000-plus page bill that virtually nobody in this house has read and another government takeover. this is ought to be called the unending bailout authority, credit constricting and permanent job loss act, mr. speaker. it not only doesn't solve the problem of government bailouts, it codifies them, it writes them into law and makes them permanent. politicians picking winners and losers. mr. speaker, this is a very dangerous time. the american people are concerned about jobs and a stagnant economy and the majority party comes to this floor with this bill that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and further harm the economy. why? well, mr. speaker, as a physician, i'm here to tell you, i think they have the wrong diagnose, just like in

health care. their prescription for health care was a government takeover and now they want a government takeover of our economy and financial services area, because their prescription is wrong. if we conclude as a society that we're here because of a fail you're of free-market capitalism and failure of deregulation then our kids and grand kids will lose because all of the solutions will harm free market capitalism, depress the economy and increase regulation, which will destroy jobs and destroy our economy. we're not here because of a failure of free market capitalism, mr. speaker. we are here because of the government distorting the market, politicians getting involved. we aren't here because of a failure of deregulation but because of foolish and inflexible regulation, of government edicts so people couldn't do their jobs. the democrat prescription for this is to take over and

control the entire economy, thereby stroig jobs and our economy. the shame of all of that, mr. speaker, is there are wonderful, wonderful solutions. there ought not be any more bailouts. mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional minute. mr. price: we believe there ought to be no more bailouts. we know what the american people know and that there is no real risk, there can be no reward. mr. speaker, we believe the government ought to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. this bill destroys jobs. absolutely destroys them. we know markets must be allowed to function, innovate in order to be profitable and the economy cannot and will not recover without these things. in so many ways, this bill kills jobs and harms the economy. the american people want to end the wall street bailouts that the majority party so desires

to have that they wrote it into this law and make certain that we get into the business of freeing up the economy, to increase jobs and allow free capitalism to work. that's what will restore the confidence of the american people. i thank the gentleman from for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: how much time does each time has? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 16 minutes. the gentleman from california has 16 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i just want to respond to my two colleagues from the financial services committee. after all the hearings we had. after all the witnesses that we heard from, it's almost as if they forgot everything we heard. the wild-west mentality that permyated wall street, permyated the investment system

brought this country to its knees last fall. and as consequence, trillions of dollars of wealth were lost and millions of jobs have been lost and it was based on a belief within the bush administration and the republican congress that participated with it that you don't need regulation. these markets will take care of themselves. will, what they ended up doing is we had three of the biggest ponzi schemes under that regime, under that administration. and that's just wrong. our bill has nine sections to it, mr. speaker. first is on consumer protection. the second is on investor protection. the third is on hedge funds. the fourth on credit rating agencies, the fifth on derivatives, the sixth on life insurance companies, the seventh on dealing with banks

that are so big or financial institutions that have so many components to them that they are a threat to the system and we force those institutions to either raise their reserves and their capital or sell different parts of their examine if they are a threat to the system. and if they finally fail, we put them out of their misery and don't let them linger and bail them out some more. we are done with those bailouts. the last two sections is say on on pay. executive salaries got completely out of control and part of the gambling and allow the share holders to have some opportunity as to what their executives should be paid and the final deals with subprime mortgages where people were allowed to get into mortgages that had teaser rates and impossible to repay and we now require that financial institutions have skin in the game.

these are nine sections of reasonable regulation to restore confidence in the system and stop the quind of failures that we -- kind of failures that we saw in this last administration that cost this country trillions of dollars and millions of jobs and we aren't going to let that happen again. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield two minutes to a very hard working member of the committee on financial services, my friend from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: i listened to my -- mr. hensarling: i listened to my friend that they are done with the bailouts. that begs the question, why do they have a bailout fund? why do you have a bailout fund if your not going to bail people out. we started a college fund for

our children and the reason is because we intend to send our children to college. why is it that the democrats have a bailout fund, but now they expect us to suspend this belief that they won't use it. if i could phrase a line from "a field of dreams," if you build it, they will come. if you create a bailout fund, people will come for bailouts. that's what this is. this is the tarp bill in perpetuity. if the american people like bailouts, our friends on the other side of the aisle certainly have the bill for them. as i talk to my constituents in the 5th district of texas, they are tired. the school teacher, the farmer, the farmer in henderson county,

they are tired of the bailouts and tired of paying for this. and yet they create a $200 billion bailout fund. and worse than that, mr. speaker, this is a job-killing bill. it is a bill that creates a huge federal bureaucracy to ban and ration credit. i mean, this is the group of people who have brought us double-digit unemployment, the worst unemployment in a generation. i would just ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, how many more jobs have to be lost under your plan? small business needs credit. you're going to crush it. reject the rule. reject the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado.

mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, i would yield five minutes to the chairman of the committee, mr. frank. mr. frank: mr. speaker, few people in this house apparently recognize or in the country, the enormous significance of january 21, 2009. that is apparently the day on which a number of extraordinary things happened. it's a day in which bailouts began, according to my republican colleagues, there weren't before. bailouts, you may think they started under george bush, general motors, a.i.g., chrysler and the tarp bill, some people think they started in 2008. they started in 2009. that's the day that the war in afghanistan, which was going wonderfully began to go bad, it's a day that a surplus became an enormous deficit and we had a recession. my republican colleagues talk about job loss. job loss was, of course, i thought begun with the

recession in 2007 and got worse and worse in 2008 and is now beginning to moderate. not all those things happen on january 21, 2009, the tarp sprang full blown, deficits came, war in afghanistan, but it was the day in which we had the worst outbreaks of illness. mass amnesia on the part of the republican party who forgot everything that happened before. every single bailout started under the bush administration. some cases, we thought we had to cooperate because the lack of regulation, derivatives, subprime mortgages, of excessive leverage by banks, all of those things were republican policy and now members have said, that's t republican policy and now members have said, that's their answer. leave it to the market, because

if you try to regulate, you'll kill the economy. well, members who were impressed by that don't have to wait and listen to my republican colleagues. go back and read the congressional record from 1900 when they were saying that about teddy roosevelt. read what they say when franklin roosevelt set up the s.e.c. we believe there should be regulation. we were told to leave it to the markets. leave it to a.i.g. to sell whatever credit default swaps. leave it to people unregulated to sell subprime mortgages to people who shouldn't have them, leave it to the rating agencies to say, hey, those are great deals or buy them or insure them. do nothing about executive compensation. do nothing about a salary structure that incentivizes excessive risk don't let the share holders have a say. one of my colleagues say, there

is a bailout fund. he talks about it as if there was a reality. there was the tarp bill in october, which the bush administration said -- as a result of the lack of regulation, we were in a terrible crisis. we in this bill end those. the authority that the federal reserve, george bush's appointees to the federal reserve, to give money to a.i.g., that's abottle issued in our bill. it will no longer allow them to do what they did what bear stearns, but allow a facility to set up to provide for some liquidity for some solvent institutions, but there is no more of the federal reserve doing what they did with a.i.g. and bear stearns. we do take a fund not from the taxpayers. and as i went along with along with the republican leadership with the house and senate because i didn't think we had

an option, but we will assess the financial institutions for that fund, but the fund is not used to bail out any failing institution. the bill specifically says the money only comes to put that institution to death. there is nothing in here that allows a failing institution to be continued with federal money. there is a dissolution fund. and it does say that to dissolve this in an orderly way, as oppose todd lemman brothers that you need to pay off some of the states that may be hurt because they got into investments they shouldn't have got into, that's the only fund. here's another difference. . the bailout fund does zero to prevent institutions from getting to that point.

they will monitor institutions and monitor active aand if we see an institution getting to that point we say, raise your capital, stop selling -- giving mortgages to people who shouldn't get them. divest yourself of this or that. may i ask for one more minute? mr. perlmutter: i yield the gentleman one more minute. mr. frank: i know some of my conservative colleagues want to emulate the people who revolted against george iii but there's another monarch who comes to mind when i think of them, when in the 19th century, when the royals were restored after a revolution, they have learned nothing. that's what they say. do we care about jobs? yes.

ea we don't want, as their bill would do, to allow an a.i.g. to continue to do what it did. to allow subprime mortgages to continue. to allow executive pay to have that incentive. we want to prevent a job loss like the one president obama inherited. i thank my colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. mr. dreier: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from columbus, indiana, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the so-called wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2009. unfortunately it's been said, there's not much taxpayer protection in the bill and even less wall street reform. i see this bill as nothing more than a permanent bailout and job killer.

i relish the opportunity rise in the immediate aftermath of the formidable debating skills of the chairman of the committee, who i respect. both personally and as a colleague. but i respectfully differ with him on this bailout as i did on the bailout he authored last year in the bush administration. mr. frank: would the gentleman yield? mr. pence: i'd be pleased to yield. mr. pence: it was offered by president bush, i did vote for it, but it was offered by president bush. mr. pence: i believe it was a bill that bore your co-sponsorship, addressing now the speaker properly, i believe it bore the gentleman's co-sponsorship. i opposed the wall street bailout last fall and i oppose the wall street bailout today. the truth is, the american people looking in tonight have got to be astounded that washington, d.c., in response to these extraordinary economic times is launching and making permanent the policies of

bailouts that millions of americans have rejected over the last year. after more than a year of the federal government's heavy-handed intervention in the financial services industry this bill continues to take the country in the wrong direction. more governmentmark bailouts. the legislation before us makes permanent the taxpayer funded bailouts. in this cause, the house republicans stand with the american people, who have said with virtually one voice in the last year no more bailouts. no more bailouts by republican administrations, no more bailouts by democrat administrations. we stand with them in that cause. this democrat plan will vastly expand the power of the federal government and further empower washington bureaucrat thovers financial decisions of america's families and businesses. it has the so-called credit czar to determine what products are available for consumers. the president yesterday said at

the brookings institute that we need to address the continuing struggle of small businesses to get loans. he's right about that. he attended the -- he said the same at a meeting aa-- i attended today. but apparently the house democrats didn't get that message. this bill will limit credit. american small business doesn't want a handout. they want the federal government to get out of their way. instead of providing taxpayers with an exit strategy for government involvement in wall street, this bill makes it permanent. house republicans -- house republicans have a good alternative that ensures the era of taxpayer bailouts will come to an end. it's an interesting choice, tonight, mr. speaker. do we want to make bailouts permanent? co-we want to set our nation on a path of ending bailouts once and for all? i urge support of for the republican alternative -- alternative and opposition to

this bill which is rightly the wall street bailout and protection act, if rightfully understood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i want to respond to my friend from indiana who calls this a bailout. all it does is put big institutions that fail out of their misery, like we liquidate banks who have failed, big financial institutions on wall street, whether they're insurance companies or credit companies or banks or stockbrokers, are placed into liquidation and finished. so with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield two minutes to our great new colleague from eden prairie, minnesota, a hardworking member of the financial services committee, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: i want to rise in on cig to the rule for house

resolution 1473 and the underlying legislation. the effects of this bill as we've already heard will further harm our economy, draining exap tall from our economy and reducing overall lend big as much as $55 billion, as studies have shown. the effects of the bill further harming the economy will hurt small businesses and consumers alike. they'll find it difficult to access the credit they need, in addition to dealing with more government bureaucracy. this bill this legislation, will create a new credit czar with a mandate to limit consumer choice, to ration credit, and to increase the cost of financial transactions. congress should be focusing on measures that will lead to job creation and encouraging american prosperity, not implementing policies to increase the unemployment numbers. studies have shown this legislation will literally cause hundreds of thousands of jobs in our -- will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in our economy.

we should putting an end to all washington bailouts the washington bailout mentality. this legislation does not put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts, but rather could increase bailouts. this legislation will institutionalize the too big to fail mentality. by creating institutions that are too big to fail, we are implying that certain companies will be sheltered by a federal safety net. i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i'd like to ask again how much time each side has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 10 minutes remaining. mr. perlmutter: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of my time. mr. dreier: may i ask thing colleague how many other speakers are on their side? mr. perlmutter: i have at least

one, maybe some others on their way. mr. dreier: i know how that works, i yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. flake: i wish the gentleman from massachusetts were here to hear this discussion. earlier in the year we had a discussion about moral hazard. i think all of us recognize that moral hazard played a role in the mess we got in last year and have been in for a couple of years. the implied guarantees we have that freddie and fannie played a role in the problems we later had. i mention the gentleman from massachusetts that some legislation we were passing earlier this year would further foster that principle of moral hazard. he said to me yes that would be a problem, if what we were doing would be permanent, but it wasn't. it was simply temporary. but here, what we are doing is

very permanent. we are establishing a permanent , in a sense a permanent bailout fund. we're told only to believe that we're establishing a bailout fund that will never bail out any companies, but rather will be used to shut companies down, or something like that. establish a fund, $50 billion seed money from the treasury, $50 billion in taxes from other companies to establish a fund to shut companies down? i don't think so. i think what we're establishing here, i think it's clear is a bailout fund a permanent bailout fund. if you want to talk about moral hazard, this is it. this is moral hazard institutionalized. it will lead to the type of problems we have seen. it's not a republican issue or a democrat issue. this is a principle, an economic principle we cannot ignore. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona's time has expired.

the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: reserve. mr. dreier: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes, the gentleman from colorado has seven minutes remaining. mr. dreier: let me just say we're winding down and if the gentleman has no further speakers, we're preparing to close here. mr. perlmutter: i have at least one further speaker. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to my very good friend, a member of the rules committee, the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: i'd like to thank my colleague and former chair for yielding this time to me. my colleagues, our friends on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that the wall street reform and consumer protection act derives its name from the assumption that the underlying text will protect

americans from the economic disturbances like we experienced last fall. if only that were true. instead, it's nothing more than than a continueation of the bailout mentality that put billions on the hook for the mistakes of wall street are we putting an end to the bailout culture on this bill? no, we are not. rather than ending bailouts this institution institutionalizes them. instead of protecting taxpayers, this bill puts them at further risk. the democrat bill will grant authority to both the treasury and the federal reserve to create a new $200 billion fund to finance future bailouts of the big banks and financial institutions and who will be paying for this fund? the consumers. furthermore if there's another marketwide disturbance like we experienced last fall, it will be the taxpayers who will be called upon to pick up the tab. unfortunately, the chairman's bill also fails to put an end to too big to fail.

if certain institutions are too big to fail, then that means that the rest are too small to save. this will no doubt continue the troubling practice of government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. this bill will do nothing more than set up an unlevel playing field that penalizes consumers, puts taxpayers' dollars at risk, and restricts the flow of credit at a time when our small businesses need it most. republicans on the house financial services committee have put forth a better proposal. we believe it's time to truly put an end to the bailouts. business decisions have consequences, and wall street needs to know that taxpayers will not be there to help them pick up the pieces of their risky business practices. instead of permanent bailout, we propose a new chapter of the bankruptcy code, capable of ensuring the unorderly winding of failed firms.

mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. mrs. capito: we would goif banks the authority to stake claims, alleviating potential panics if a large institution faces trouble. under this proposal, all market participants, large and small, will know the rule os the game. if they take on too much risk, they'll face bankruptcy like any other failed business. we'll also protect consume wers increased investment fraud enforcement, we'll monitor systemic risk, have -- and most importantly provide market certainty by making it clear to wall street that no firm is too big to fail. i urge my colleagues to say no to bailouts and say no to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves, the gentleman from colorado. .

mr. perlmutter: these are assessments against the biggest financial institutions in the world -- excuse me. mr. dreier: i'm sorry, someone left the microphone on. mr. perlmutter: pearl i will start over. the continued use by my republican colleagues is wrong and misleading, because what is stated in the bill is a creation of a fund based on assessments paid by the biggest financial institutions in the world, $50 billion and bigger in terms of assets, so that those institutions, if they fail, will have a lick which dation fund to put themselves out of their misery.

to just be finished with it. one thing i would like to say about my republican colleagues. they talked about consumer protection, which is absolutely essential as well as dealing with huge financial institutions that are risky to our financial system and could create a domino effect. the seven other sections of the bill, hedge fund, derivatives, life insurance, executive pay and subprime, those were bipartisan sections of the bill. so this bill covers a lot of topics to brian rein in our financial system and restore it and strengthen it as we go forward. i would like to yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves.

mr. dreier: may i ask my friend how many speakers he has remaining? he has one speaker remaining. at this juncture, i yield one minute to my friend from savannah, georgia, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: i want to stand in opposition to the rule and the bill. and one reason is that 1969 when congress passed truth in lending, it was with great intent, nobody would argue against the purism of the heart. but in 1969 before the bill went into effect, before the new law became effective on the books, there were 34 official interpretations of what the rule would mean. and 10 years later, there were over 13,000 lawsuits about it just trying to figure out what does this thing mean. now, here comes this bill and there are all kinds of terms in there, excessive, unreasonable

and abusive and they aren't defined. those will be defined in a court system by trial and error over a period of time. we need to send this bill back to the committee and ask for definitions on this stuff so we can during these uncertain economic times not put one more ambiguity on the private sector. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has five minutes remaining and reserves his time. the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. perlmutter: i ask my friend how many speakers he has remaining, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, it's a work in progress as my friend knows. let me just say at this juncture, i think in addition to my closing are marks --

remarks, we have one more speaker. my friend has just arrived and wants to share his wisdom with us and i know he has brilliant thoughts. mr. perlmutter: i yield two minutes to my friend from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. and there is nothing like delay, delay, delay in terms of helping the american people. if you would look at what the intent of this bill is, i think we would find common ground. i rise to support the rule and the underlying bill because it attacks the crises. we are ending the bailout and preventing the rise of institutions that are too big to fail. we are dismantling institutions. i'm very glad that we have a

financial stability council that has been enhanced by the congressional black caucus where we will have diverse membership. executive exn sayings gives share holders a say on pay. never before we have had that. this is long overdue. investor protections and certainly to be able to respond to too big and too fat, fat cats mike madoff. and then to emphasize the importance that i have heard from so many of my constituents on the whole question of mortgage foreclosure modification. and that is, they need to have real foreclosure modification and only 6% of those that have been in trial modifications have now been moved to permanent foreclosure modifications. the process is too slow. we are kicking this down the road by adding $3 billion from the federal troubled assets relief program to jobless

americans. the measure would designate another $1 billion to states and local governments and use it for productive purposes, according to the members of the financial services committee that have worked with congresswoman maxine waters. we stand united on the idea that the financial sector has not worked for the jobless, poor and working americans. this bill helps to generate that kind of roadway. it is extremely important -- may i have an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. perlmutter: i yield 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it is important to protect and consider our credit unions. i want to ensure if this bill has any language about the overdraft not being protected, that in essence we work through that process. i want to make sure that this

bill is supported and i support the rule and the underlying bill and i yield back. mr. dreier: at this time, i yield two minutes to a hard working member of the financial services committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: delay, delay, delay? it's absolutely delay. we have been waiting here for the last four hours waiting for your side of the aisle to come to the floor to debate this bill. and i would ask, who it is on your side of the aisle that was delay, delay, delay. i would be glad to ask that person why are you delaying trying to reform this in the country. people are watching what is going on on the floor right now and they said you must go down to the floor to end the bailouts and end this legislation that will cut jobs in this country and end this legislation that will expand

the size of government. i understand why the gentleman from colorado says we are mistaken as to whether or not there are bailouts in this bill. this bill is larger than the health care bill. it's larger than the cap and trade bill, the bill that no one read before they came here or the health care bill before they came here. maybe the reason why the gentleman from colorado is perhaps mistaken on this point is because enough people on your side of the aisle haven't read the bill. if you did, would you see there are bailouts and the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook to the tune of upwards of $150 billion. how does that work? well, we set up this system where, in essence, wrer's go to go say, set up a slush fund that will cut jobs in this country. where are we going to get that money? we're going to get it by allowing the u.s. treasury to go to the american public and

ask them once again, once again to bail out the mistakes on wall street. we say enough to the bailouts. enough of putting the taxpayer on the hook for the bailouts, enough for all of the bailouts on wall street and enough to this administration. if the chairman of this committee has ushered through in the past whether this administration or past administration, they have been at the forefront of bailing out these wall street and government as well. the speaker pro tempore: jarksl the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: how much time does each side have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colth

colorado reserves. mr. dreier: is my colleague prepared to close debate? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for the remaining of the time. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we have had an interesting debate about where we are economically and the challenges which we are trying to contend. it is a serious time. the american people are hurting, people are losing businesses, homes across this country and want to get our economy back on track and want us to ensure that we do this in a very, very responsible way. well, mr. speaker, my colleague, mr. garrett, has just put before us the 1,279-page bill that is to be considered under this measure. and i have to say that as we

look at it, it is voluminous. and i haven't read many pages of that bill and i doubt many colleagues have. but we have 170-page alternative, this one, by the way, is on both sides of the pages, this is on one side, mr. speaker. 1770 pages and it's a proposal -- 170 pages and it's a proposal that we don't proceed down the road of bailouts and don't jeopardize our economic growth and make sure that we create greater transparency and accountability and that is a key priority that i believe the american people want us to pursue. we all hear david letterman's top 10 list and i was handed a top 10 list as to why we should support the 170-page bill that

provides transparency and accountability and works to get our economy back on track without increasing taxes or permanent bailouts and to oppose this 1,279-page bill. number one, it creates a permanent tarp-like bailout authority. number two, it imposes a max massive tax duration a credit crisis and weak economy. number three, it reserves the federal powers. number four, it creates a credit czar and imposes taxes on consumers and small businesses. number five, it undermines the safety and soundness regulation of financial institution. protects trial lawyers. number seven, kills jobs, by undermining the ability of main street companies to manage risk. number eight, empowers regulators to impose wage controls on workers and