bank of america new at the time guest: in a short answer, yes. that the november 12 forecast i would say that the iraqi was of questionable validity. security forces still have some improvements to go. however, bank of america did not do any actual financial analysis in their capability to bring intelligence from all different to make up for the narrow zero sources together. emissions. instead, bank of america nearly the iraqi security forces have pulled out of thin air a number to improve police. counterinsurgency is about protecting the people. of november 13 which was having police that can really reported on the forecast document as the gut feeling of protect the people of the cities. third, the one thing, security it cheap accounting officer. the attorneys did not question will be sustaining, iraq has to the financial information never work on a rule of law. given, in spite of the glaring and obvious omission and the there are a lot of things explicit reference to a gut feeling. necessary in the rule of law. they advise bank of america not to make further disclosures to its shareholders in advance of the merger vote. the chief judge, his entire . . objective in life is to retire. merger vote. based on the information in the deficient forecast and a gut feeling. the bodyguard's will protect the november 12th forecast everyone who comes in and out. omission of any projection for that is the lifestyle that a lot

losses and the cdos and other of the judges are living because liquid investments and the implication of merrill lynch of intimidation. would break even in those rule of law is a critical aspect investments for the remainder of that requires a lot of work. the quarter was material to the host: how do you measure success advice attorneys gave bank of america. over there? now when i asked ken lewis about guest: an excellent question. this at our first hearing, he told us he relied on advice of we had a redeployment ceremony counsel. protecting shareholders is often right before thanksgiving. in the final instance the we invited the family members of responsibility of corporate general counsels and theirout general counsels and theirout side counsel. our fallen warriors. one of the fathers came to talk the subcommittee's investigative to our battalion commanders. findings demand the question where were the lawyers? he asked if his son was the glaring omissions and inaccurate financial data in the sacrificed. that is tied to our success. critical november 12th forecast, so obvious that they should have alerted the attorneys to the necessity of a reasonable our success is really dependent upon the strategic relationship investigation before making a with iraq. decision on bank of america's january 1, 2012, the day after legal duties to disclose. the apparent fact they did not the last american leaves, iraq mount such an investigation makes the decision not to is sitting in a critical disclose merrill's losses to location in the middle east, shareholders an egregious violation of securities laws. sitting on top of a significant mr. khuzami, in march, gao energy resources, on the western issued a scathing report on the bank of a potentially nuclear-

effect of christopher cox's leadership of the s.e.c. in armed iran. our strategic partnership in reducing corporate penalties and formal investigations at exactly 2012 has got to be strong and the time that the cdos and cdss significant. that will be what determines were proliferating to chairman success. shapiro's credit, she rescinded at the lower level, success a cox policy and appointed you to reinvigorate the enforcement right now is an iraqi security division. force that can resupply itself. i am concerned that one security forces that can dig out pernicious aspect of the cox legacy may have survived, the unwillingness to pursue as gao terrorists, apprehend them, and wrote, quote, more complicated bring them to trial. cases those with industry wide success is fixing roulade in the implications in favor of those seen as more routine, unquote. judiciary. mr. khuzami, this is the test those are a little bit of case. success. when we were over there we were this is the case with industry seeing little bits of that every wide implications where what is day. host: what about daily life at issue is the performance of the attorneys and interpreting success for iraqis? the nation's securities laws walking without last barriers or strictly or permissively. being able to shop freely, is here's the case where the -- that success for the military as where at the s.e.c. shapiro well? breaks with the s.e.c.'s guest: speaking of that, i would christopher cox. mr. khuzami, is the s.e.c. add on the economy. success in iraq is for young men and women to be able to get a

widening its investigation to job. to be able to through that jobs include the issue of bank of america's failure to disclose to apply for their family. that will give them a lot of its shareholders the mounting hope. losses at merrill lynch, known so, the rebuilding of the economy is critically important or knowable by mid-november, in iraq right now. 2008, weeks before, weeks before that will serve as the alternative to a young man that the shareholder vote on the might consider joining an merger? >> congressman, we have been and insurgent activity just so that are looking at all aspects of he can get some money. fixing the economy is very the activity with respect to the important. proxy statements including the fourth quarter losses of merrill host: do you have an iraqi counterpart over there? lynch. >> is that a yes or a no? >> that's a yes. if so, who was it? >> if it is a yes, then the work do you stay in touch? of this committee has been worthwhile, because you now have guest: we actually had a a chance to do your job because partnership with five iraqi we have done ours and the information that we have armored divisions. uncovered should facilitate your investigation. i thank the gentleman. we had a couple of operational i thank the chair. the man's -- commands. i yield back. >> thank you very much. now i yield to the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we also partnered with political leaders, like the governors.

mr. khuzami, mr. bernanke and also the ones in kurdistan. paulsen were negotiating with it was very good to develop merrill lynch and bank of america and sort of came to an these relationships and partnerships. agreement, yet they didn't i have only been gone for a disclose this, didn't want to put it in writing the month, but we have been transactions that were about to corresponding. embark on here and about to i have got their addresses and approve and had been working we will send them christmas with. and my understanding is that at cards, things like that. once they did that, that would host: a couple of headlines -- have been a discloseable event that the s.e.c. would have been able to come in to and be a part "al qaeda warns of more attacks of and have some oversight over. is this a -- what is your in iraq. opinion of this transaction, how it all happened and this targeting dens of evil and dens unwillingness to put this in of apostates. writing? >> well, congressman, what the they are determined to approve law -- what the securities law require is that if that the pillars of this government is about -- government." understanding had solidified to if you have interaction with the a material contract, then it would have been required to have been disclosed under what is islamic state of iraq? known as form a case.

bank of america would have had guest of that was the primary to make a disclosure if it rose insurgent group -- guest: that to the level of an enforceable was the primary insurgent group that we were going after. contract. and, you know, that's -- mosul was in our area, so we >> but isn't this skirting the law? by them saying we're going to have a little wink and nod went after them in a big way. agreement here and let's don't put this in writing, let's have their influence has diminished. a gentlemen's handshake on it. aren't they trying to subvert what is really the necessary part of a transaction, the i would make the case that the al qaeda ideology has alienated disclosure to all of the parties themselves from the majority of involved? >> well, congressman, it the iraqi people. wouldn't be appropriate to counterinsurgency, separating comment on my views of that in the people from the insurgency. light of the ongoing nature of not many people in iraq will the investigation, but certainly leave in the al qaeda ideology. there can be circumstances where there is an enforceable contract, even though it is not formally written down in which case it may trigger the disclosure obligations. their primary motive is to >> okay. conduct these very high profile following along then, the attacks to discredit the iraqi process, and if -- do you see something has happened here that security forces. when you saw what happened in

you think needs to be changed in existing law? baghdad last week, that was what do we need to have something more clarified by the way that they were doing. through that is where they we have these transactions take continued to gain influence. place so that there is more host: finally, the lead story disclosure? this time from "the new york >> congressman, we sort of constantly review our disclosure times," "blackwater guards tied rules and regulations to determine whether or not more to secret cia raids." disclosure or different disclosure is appropriate that process is ongoing now. did you have any contact with the sarbanes oxley act required whitewater? guest: -- contact with us to consider more real time or blackwater? guest: not in my area. robust disclosure and that's a process that continues. we certainly take the experience host: numbers are on the screen here and determine whether or not we should change our rules in case you would like to call and regulations appropriately. >> okay. well, you still haven't said yes there is some things we need to do and they are -- can you fill in. rex, tennessee. in the blank there? >> the question whether or not events such as these should require more affirmative caller: a couple of questions. first, do you believe that part disclosure obligation is something that we're of the problem in iraq is that considering. the people had been hard-pressed so, for example, contracts or so long that they are afraid to

discussions short of a formal stand up for themselves? legally enforceable obligation, my second question has to do should that be disclosed even though all the term aren't with the military itself. do you think that nowadays the finalized or interim results u.s. government, when fighting a that may not rise to the level war, is to restrain from using of a material impairment of an the full power? asset, the current standard, whether or not that should be i do not think that many people disclosed. understand that if the united >> are you currently looking at states wanted to a leash its doing that with your rules and regulations or do we need full power, we could end these congressional action or what do wars pretty quickly. you think we need to do? >> congressman, that's something we look at on a rig base us and we're looking at now. >> okay. guest: thank you for your as someone who has gone through this and been in the middle of question. and readdress the second point. it and we're in the process now hist when a soldier feels congressionally to try and do something with this too big to fail situation, what do you see threatened, a soldier has the right to use lethal force, which that we're not doing with the legislations proposed that you is important. think would be adventurous or a but sometimes when you have the big aid to you or would be application of lethal force and something we could do in the you commit collateral damage, future to mitigate or minimize some of the things going on or have gone on? the people that receive that collateral damage, people that >> congressman, from an enforcement perspective, which lose family members and homes, is my perspective --

>> right. it has an enduring effect. >> -- transparency and information is critical. we cannot determine if in an insurgency, where you are trying to get the government to misconduct is going on in markets if we don't have complete and accurate and gain legitimacy. those people in receipt of standardized information about collateral damage have no trust what is going on. in the government and security so, for example, registration of forces. hedge funds which would require in the end you are alienating better reporting, and stronger that group of people. application of lethal force is compliance, and inspection critical to success. authority would be highly beneficial. in the end we have the right to >> okay. use whatever levels of combat the transparency and the registration is in the bill now, is that -- does it go far enough, too far? power necessary. what's your opinion? but we used that application >> if i might, i'm not sure i judiciously because it was important to understand the understand the full and complete details of what is in the effects that we were trying to current version of the bill, so get on the ground. if i could have an opportunity the iraqi people have been to respond to you, i would oppressed. appreciate that. but the same is true in the derivatives markets, we would but i did not see them concerned like that kind of information. or anxious about getting one case we brought, for involved in political affairs. example, recently involved insider trading which typically if you look at their recent takes place in the equity world, political debates, that was in stocks, was actually going on fantastic. in the credit default swap even though it went past the

market. and yet we don't have nearly the deadline and threatened to the same kind of information in that market as we do in the equities. on-time elections, the fact that >> okay. the people were engaged in that interesting. type of dialogue resolved thank you, mr. khuzami. thank you, mr. chairman. through a political process, it >> gentleman's time has expired. shows that the people are engaged. and i now call on the gentleman from baltimore, mr. cummings, host: democratic line, new who is a very active member of jersey. this committee. go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and mr. khuzami, i got to tell you, as i listen to my good caller: thank you for your service. good morning, general. friend and colleague congressman kucinich he said our work is done, and i don't think our work during the time of the iraqi is done. surge, do you think that there and let me tell you why. as you know the s.e.c. in the case of the s.e.c. versus bank of america, there was a is a way to separate the settlement that was submitted to taliban? the federal court in new york on august 3rd, 2009. the settlement agreement provided for the bank of america to pay $33 million in fines for do you think of these troops going to afghanistan are going making false and misleading to make a difference? statements in proxy statements

to shareholders. guest: i was in iraq, i cannot bank of america, of course, told speak to your question regarding shareholders that no year end afghanistan. some of the principles that we bonuses would be paid to merrill learned about counterinsurgency, lynch executives when in fact it i think that some of those principles do have application had been agreed that bank of america would pay up to $5.8 to the strategy that was developed by general mcchrystal. so, i think that there is some billion in bonuses to merrill merit to that. executives. putting aside the fact that $5.8 host: you did serve in afghanistan for a little while? billion was to be paid to the executives of a company that was guest: yes, sir. host: chief task force of one hemorrhaging money at the time, down region at the air force base? the decision to settle the guest: that was in the very matter for $33 million struck early days. right after 9/11. many of us as being a perverse you remember anaconda, then you had for a bora afterwards. outcome. here was a company with $45 i came right in after that. billion in government assistance, $20 billion of which those go the general is a was from this exact deal, and graduate of west point. he has gotten a couple of

the securities and exchange commission let them pay a fine. master's degrees. one from long island university. and this is a piece that got me. he served in desert shield and pay a fine with our money, with desert storm. desert storm. he has taxpayers' dollars, does this strike you as fair to the he has held football positions taxpayer shareholders? and teaching positions at west does it fit your mission of point and was the head coach. protecting american investors? guest: the commandant is to me it is like you find responsible for military somebody and then take somebody development, not the physical else's money to pay the fine and development of the court did i'm trying to figure out where cadets -- the court cadets. is the punishment in that? where's the enforcement in that? i have a counterpart, who was i mean if i'm sitting back, i say, oh, boy, i got a great day the dean of the academic corps. here. got the public's money to pay host: what was your football the fine. everything's fine. i don't have to pay a dime. record? guest: that was a couple of and then one of the things that years ago. tomorrow is the army-navy game. i -- that i read about the after seven years of not settlement, once i read about it i fired off a letter to your winning, i will put some money on that one. inspector general, david coates, host: tells about the 25th asking him to look into the settlement. division.

i just read in mr. coates' guest: we take orders at recent semiannual report to barracks in hawaii. congress that he is in the midst we have a tremendous lineage of this investigation and i look going back to world war ii, and forward to his conclusions. one of the main reasons i they also participate in haiti. requested the investigation was because i would not be the least bit surprised that in the aftermath of this crisis the . fairer the securities laws host: in 1994? violations are uncovered. and the violations may have guest: wright, 1994, 1995. occurred at a firm that has received government assistance. they are involved in the global in that case, what is the calculus that is used to war on terrorism. determine how to punish a they have had two rotations in company without penalizing the iraq and one in afghanistan. involuntary investors in the they are scheduled to go back to firm the taxpayers. iraq. based on the last mission, it i want you to understand, i'm concerned about when we catch will be changing. folks, what is the thinking that a very honorable division. goes into the process of how to my memories are fantastic. punish them? because to me, this was not host: lincoln, nebraska. go ahead. punishment. and i'm glad the judge did respect it. caller: i salute your service to i know you may not be able to talk so much about the case, but the nation, general.

i assume you can talk about what my question, the prime minister goes into your thinking as the number one guy who addresses of iraq has said that most of these issues and the only person the slaughter occuring in iraq is because of the neighboring that you answer to is miss shapiro, mary shapiro, right? countries supporting those you and straight up to her, is terrorists. how long will the united states that right? >> that's correct. >> so help me with this. as a lawyer, i'm trying to continued dialogue with countries that are small -- figure -- i read this, i got so slaughtering civilians in iraq? upset because i said it makes before they take some action to absolutely no sense. and i know you got a great put a stop to these terrorists? answer for me. i'm waiting to hear it. >> well, congressman, let me take each of those. first, with respect to the guest: thank you for your question. amount of the fine, the did there have been recent discussions about what has penalties that we assess have to be proportionate to the actual caused these recent attacks. wrongdoing that occurred. the prime minister, as did -- and here the wrongdoing was not the payment of the bonuses, that may be excessive and wrong as a prime minister credited the policy matter, as a corporate recent attacks to al qaeda. matter, a number of other matter, but from a pure

enforcement point of view, it was wrong to disclose to but there is another insurgent shareholders that they said that movement in iraq. they would not pay bonuses without bank of america's it is a nationalist movement. approval when they had already agreed to pay the money. so the wrong was the deprivation it is focused on the former of information to the regime. shareholders in deciding how to vote, not the fact that the amount of money that was paid was illegal or improper in and there is support for them from of itself. the neighboring countries. we look at the wrongdoing which was the -- i know that the united states is >> i got that. they had a duty to disclose, working diplomatically with right? >> if they -- yes, they have a duty to make sure the statements neighboring countries to try to in the proxy are not misleading. so the number of $5.8 million or work that out and get that stuff resolved. $3.6 billion -- or $5.8 billion, host: what was the worst thing $3.6 billion was ultimately about being in iraq? paid, is not, i don't think, the guest: the worst thing? good question. measure of the wrong. the wrong was that they did not i think that the worst thing was tell shareholders who needed all the information they could to seeing the sacrifice of our decide whether or not to vote. so young men and women, going through the moral services and the was the starting point. working through that. the good part was to see how cuyahoga largest find that we supportive their brothers and

had imposed was $38 million give sisters were of each other. or take or so in a case and house supportive they were involving more egregious of the family members when we came back. conduct than this. host: when you lost a soldier next, we try and balance the over there, what was your process? benefit of the penalty versus guest: depending on where we the burden on the shareholders. were on the battlefield, i tried to go immediately to where the we recognize the penalties may vent occurred ji-- where the come out of the pockets of shareholders that might have been wronged because of the conduct. we have to impose the penalties event occurred. because its cents a strong message to other corporations we lost a battalion commander at that this kind of conduct will one point. not be tolerated. my job was to talk to the it tells others they should not do it and says if you do, you command, put my arm around them. reassure them that they needed are going to pay costs. it did incentivizes them to fix to continue to work through this their own problems before we particular thing. come knocking. we had a memorial service. the companies voluntarily in we always had a memorial gauge in corrective measures service when we lost a soldier.

rather than us having to go to each one of them. brothers and sisters would get they implement changes. up there to memorialize and talk there are many good reasons to about the soldier. have the penalty but we did not it was excellent, very helpful. want it to burden the it did not necessarily bring shareholders unnecessarily. we come to the best closure, but it was good for determination that we can. helping out. >> thank you. >> the gentlewoman from of course the unit would california. s. >> thank you, mr. chairman. accompany the remains back to the final resting place. mr. skkhuzami, i am deeply troubled by your description of what took place. when i was the commandant of the you said that the bank misled cadets i became close with the shareholders. senior leadership. the bank didn't mislead the shareholders. i lost one of them. it lied to the shareholders. his name was dan hyde. i still wear his bracelet with it was a ball-face lie. his name on it. that was one of the toughest on a proxy statement, if you days for me, personally. make a bald-faced lie, i think he was a tremendous man with tremendous potential. that you should have a penalty

that is so strong that you won't ever do it again. now the courts seem to believe his family came to the redeployment ceremony. you understand that the that $33 million was sacrifice of these young men and women. these strong, long-term insufficient. who initiated the settlement? strategic relationships become clearly more important. >> congressman, this was a settlement that was -- >> who initiated it? host: minnesota, republican line. did s.e.c. go to the bank of caller: hello, general. america and say, let's settle this or did the bank of america come to the s.e.c. and say let's settle this? >> i don't know the answer to merry christmas. that, congressman. two things -- of wanted to typically settlements result from a, you know, both parties commend c-span for having you on. coming together and discussing i wish that they would have more the possibility. >> someone initiates it. military. you have a beautiful part. and if you don't have the answer today, i would appreciate if you when people can hear what would make that available to the committee. >> certainly. >> all right. military people go through and you based your decision on the what they feel, i think that the -- one of my greatest upset fact that there was a precedent has been the lack of the verve where $38 million was fined in another setting. now, you know that the s.e.c.

that we initially had for the historically when you were not a war. it hurts the military when we do member of the staff was reducing not support them as fully as we can. my concern is that we will not its enforcement actions support them and not give them dramatically. what they need. in fact a recent gao suddeny i think that they should come indicated the enforcement actions had been reduced by some home under those circumstances. 80% and the disgorgement actions by some 60%. presuming those figures are had anyway, i do not know what you can say to that, because it indeed accurate, i may be off a little bit, you're basing a is political. thank you very much. decision on whether or not to impose a fine on a very anemic guest: thank you for your support. i was at west point in the s.e.c. that was not doing a good job of enforcing the law. vietnam war. i remember when i would go on so i guess my real question to leave i would definitely not wear my uniform, i would try to you is if something is grow my hair and b as in condi substantive, if something is go as possible. at the time the military was not significant, if it is a lie, accepted by the public. shouldn't the penalty reflect didn't when i made the decision to go to west point, my high that? and i'm not -- i'm not accepting school teachers tried to talk me

the fact that somehow because out of it. there was another fine issued an interesting dynamic. that is not the dynamic we have before that that somehow should be a measurement when we know that the s.e.c. wasn't doing its today. today everyone thinks you for job, and finally, your argument your service. the outpouring of support for that somehow you got to balance what happens to the soldiers and service members is shareholders, if that's the -- fantastic. the support of the hawaiian people to the family members if that's the deliberative process you're going to use, that we left behind was unbelievable. then the appropriate fine is i cannot think those people up. never going to be imposed on the support that i have seen for companies that do, in fact, lie. the american people in this war has been fantastic. >> well, as to your latter they have separated their political opinion about the war. what has not been at issue is point, the harm to shareholders who may have been victimized by support for american service the wrongful conduct is only one members. i would like to thank them for the support they have given us. factor amongst eight or nine thank you. that we take into account, one of which is the importance of the deterrence impact of the host: how did you get that penalty. so i don't want to mislead you jacket through security? guest: they have got to put it to suggest that we only look at through the metal detector. whether or not there is harm to absolutely. [laughter] shareholders. we look at a variety of factors,

including most importantly the host: jerry, good morning. deterrent effect of the fine. >> let me ask you this. based on what the judge has said caller: thank you for your in this case, if you were to service. how come they are not rotating start over again, what would be other soldiers from like japan the fine that you would believe and germany and throughout the would be appropriate for a proxy world, bringing them through for statement that had a bald-faced lie in it that shareholders iraq and afghanistan upanisha? relied on or perspective shareholders relied on in terms of purchasing the stock? >> well, actually, congressman, i would also like to war -- like i think actually the judge's concern in his opinion had to do to know if the war is more with whether or not the fine was too high because he sustainable and livable. felt that it was falling -- the also, go navy. guest: [laughter] burden was falling on shareholders who were victimized by the whereonful conduct, not re question right of until the that it was too low. end. no, great question. but reasonable minds can have different opinions on that issue. my belief is the settlement we struck was fair and appropriate. when the time on the ground was over, the brigade was >> so in terms of further redeployed. negotiations, will there be there was a time when there was another settlement offered up to a lot of coalition support on

the judge or will this go to trial? >> matter is scheduled for trial the ground in iraq. in early march and the case is we are still getting support proceeding. >> so there will not be any from other countries, but that further settlement on this case? is one of the issues that the >> i couldn't predict the future as to whether or not the case department of state is working on. it was good to work with the will settle or not. koreans. right now it is proceeding in the big question about whether the discovery phase and is scheduled for a march trial. or not the war can be mistaken >> well, i would -- i want to is whether or not we can understand that could you then go back and negotiate a maintain the will of the american people to understand smaller -- is what you're saying that the judge wants a smaller the sacrifice and service of fine imposed? these men and women, that it is i find that absolutely unbelievable. worth it. >> no, my point was in the to make sure that we finish and judge's opinion he indicated complete this war in iraq in a that he was concerned about the penalty because he thought that sustained and successful manner. it was -- it was being imposed that is important. on shareholders who were the other critical part of a victimized by the wrongful conduct. sustained, a protracted conflict in these particular >> it was -- his opinion was not based on the fact that the fine wars, is to maintain the all volunteer army. was too low? even though we are 18 years into >> i don't remember it -- this global war on terrorism we whether or not he used exactly are still maintaining 100% those terms. but his point was more that the

fine was -- sorry to repeat reenlistment rates for the young myself -- but the fine was falling on the shareholders who men and women, this 9/11 were victimized by the wrongful generation that understands what conduct. >> or maybe his focus was the is going on and elected to fine shouldn't be imposed on the volunteer to serve their country. executives who misled the so far i am impressed with what shareholders and maybe have it taken out of their salaries? i am seeing. >> he did say -- he did question why no individuals were charged, host: "usa today" has an article you're right, but he didn't suggest that the fine should be about the fort hood tragedy to paid out of the pockets of individual or particular increase the challenge for muslim american arab american corporate executives. >> the gentlewoman's time has service members. expired. did you have them in iraq with i yield five minutes to the you? guest: yes, i did. gentleman from ohio, ranking member on the subcommittee. >> thank you. a couple of them were actually thank you, mr. chairman. born in iraq and as soon as they mr. khuzami, were you here for came to the united states they miss bair's testimony and became united states citizens. questioning earlier this morning? >> yes, i was. >> so you're aware of what she they were very helpful to understanding the culture. said and confirming what mr. they are tremendous american lewis had told this committee soldiers. we did not have a lot, but we about the meeting took place in october, ten days after t.a.r.p. had a few. it was important to reach out, had passed where the nine

biggest financial institution giving them opportunities to were brought to this town worship on the base. including bank of america, told they were now going to have their bank partially our chaplains did a great job with that. nationalized and had to accept t.a.r.p. money and fine a form. host: vivian, good morning. you heard that all that testimony that she gave? >> yes. caller: i am having such a hard >> and i guess my point is, my time comparing this military to the military that my father was question is, well, let me go back to this. in, that flew out of africa. and she -- her testimony to this committee a few hour ago was i am not buying into this loving that that action by the fed, by a man in uniform thing -- this mr. paulsen, by mr. -- treasury is a different military. secretary paulsen and federal what you said first about the reserve chairman bernanke, quote, took her breath away, resources in iraq, that is the when she saw, you know, what took place at that meeting. so now as we move forward, it first honest military thing i seems to me that, you know, i have heard anyone say. guess your testimony, i apologize for not being here, i was at another commitment, you talked about shareholders being to me, if you are going to join misled. but it seems to me that this the military, which so many kids do. unbelievable involvement by the a country that spends $680 government, the e-mail we have

billion on their military, kids that has been part of the record cannot get a job so they join in earlier hearings from mr. the military, turning kids into lacquer, federal reserve bank of richmond, we are talked about killers from all over the world. the fact they didn't want to you are not going to join us on discloseable event so mr. paulsen, mr. bernanke were not this murdering spree? willing to put anything in we will hired killers from writing about the willingness to china. help bank of america with from the school of the americas. this is not the same military as additional t.a.r.p. dollars. i mean it seems to me that my father's. someone will look at this and host: general? say, bank of america, what was guest: thank you very much. the government's culpability let me tell you, i was in the here in running this show and pentagon at 9/11. my son was a sophomore in high pushing for this deal, school. particularly mr. paulsen and mr. bernanke? i mean, i assume you at the very fun-loving young man. s.e.c. are looking at -- that he had 100 questions when i came has to -- in my mind factor into home. this whole picture this whole as he tried to understand what scenario that we have been looking at now for several months. had happened, he made the decision to join the military. any response you have on that? he pursued an appointment to the >> congressman, as we look at these events, we look at the u.s. military academy. roles of all the participants he himself is going to deploy to that are relevant and all of the

iraq in the new year. facts. so i guess that would be my but he is typical of the 9/11 response. >> yes or no? would potential arguments by generation. the fact that we have americans bank of america that the bank and its management were not making a voluntary decision to serve their country speaks necessarily completely liable tremendously of his generation. because they were acting at the we understand the nature of this government's directions. conflict and the risks >> well, the events that you're associated with it. talking about, i believe, i think that this is something occurred after the proxy and so after the merge her been that america can be proud of. approved and so the question is whether or not with respect to i am proud not only of my son, but the men and women of this the t.a.r.p. money, whether or generation. i think that they're no not that understanding had different from your father's generation, from the greatest become a material contract that generation. had to be disclosed under the those men and women serve their 8-k rules and regulations. country voluntarily. so that -- that is certainly an they came back and rebuild issue. america. 50 years from now, i think that >> does the whole -- i mean, let this will be a glorious history me -- when did you guys first of these men and women. become aware of what was taking place here, the mounting losses host: why did you decide to the at merrill lynch? join the military in the 1970's? when did you first become aware

of that? >> unfortunately i wasn't there guest: i was free approach to until march so i can't -- i play football at west point. don't know the answer to that question. -- i was preapproved to play >> why do you think, when we football at west point. [laughter] have the e-mail saying we don't [applause] [applause] guest: when i looked at the want to discloseable event, why do you think there was a reluctance by the federal reserve to not have information be made known to the s.e.c.? i saw it as an opportunity, but i had no problem with the >> i probably won't be appropriate for me to speculate education. once i got into the army and you about that. >> okay. mr. chairman, i yield back. are out there leading soldiers and getting your boots dirty, it >> thank you very much. i now yield to the gentlewoman is something that grew on me. from california, congresswoman it was a decision that i made watson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. incrementally. and thank you for this follow-up i absolutely loved the work. hearing. we have had several in the past when i went to west point, it and after listening to the was not something i thought i testimony from the bank of would stay and 32 years. having looked back, i am glad i america, ceo kenneth lewis, the federal reserve chairman ben made the decision. it host: where did you grow up? bernanke, and former treasury secretary hank paulson, and guest: i was born in connecticut officials at the bank of and went to high school and

america, there is still strong questions and i know the intent vermont, and entered west point from vermont. of this committee through its chair is to get some of the host: what is your biggest frustration about the army? questions answered. so we will know really what took guest: oh. you know, i would have to think place. and we want to hear from you the about that. role of the government and what i would just say that i do not was played in the negotiations, have a lot of frustrations. the quality of the bank of the army is a great way of life. america's due diligence process, and the motivation behind b of the frustration that have is the a's attempt to claim a material young men and women that joined the army and the they do not decide to take advantage of all adverse change, or the mac, and of the opportunities. the adequacy of their disclosure but that is their decision to to shareholders. can you package all that in and make. host: we have a twitter -- will clarify it for us? i think this is, what, the third or the fourth hearing, mr. be allowed at the assigned date or does it depend on what it looks like on the ground? chairman? >> fifth. guest: we will be pulling out at >> fifth. okay. let us hear how you would the assigned to date. describe the roles that each one the security agreement went into effect in january, but we had to of these sectors play.

>> well, congressman, as be out of some of the cities by involving some or all of the matters that are currently under the 30th of june. we had not yet reached the investigation, i have to be attack levels in june that would have created the with trip -- careful about my comments. with respect to the proxy that withdrawl conditions out of the city at that time. was sent out in connection with tactically i would have made the case for staying, but the merger, as we have charged strategically the general in our complaints, we don't believe that the -- we believe understood and the prime the disclosure was misleading minister wanted us to move out of the city. because bank of america did not disclose it. they already had an agreement to pay bonuses when they told one month ago the governor of one of local provinces, who ran shareholders that merrill lynch would not be paying such bonuses on an anti-coalition platform, without their consent but the consent had already been given. told me that i used to see you that's the case we charged. as the army of occupation. and that is the case that is but because you were true to preceding. >> let me stop you and i want to your word, i do not see you that way anymore. query these bonuses. i embraced the fact that you are here for the restructuring of our province and how important ethically i don't see how the that is. the entire image that he had

transitioned from how he used to bonuses could even be in see american forces to how he contention when we are bailing saw forces now was completely out too big to fail institutions dependent upon the fact that we did what we said we would do. with taxpayers' monies to try to we left the cities. that is very important. capitalize these big institutions so they can save that is a strategic message that the iraqis did not believe. people's homes, et cetera, et cetera. they did not believe we would is a bonus appropriate under abide by it. when we did, they understood crisis conditions that exist? i just want you to talk about that we were going to leave the bonuses and then continue. cities on the 30th of june, >> well, congressman, again, dropping down to 50,000, then from an enforcement perspective, leaving at the end of 2011. my focus is on what the law they believe that we will do it requires and whe and it is important for us to >> do bonuses fall under that maintain that timeline. host: so, the american soldiers provision and a lot? >> generally, but not. are no longer patrolling? except in this situation where they are on bases? they made the representation about what they were going to do guest: they are no longer on with bonuses. >> that was prior to the patrol in the cities. collapse, wasn't it? when the security forces are on when people send their patrol we have advisers in that

contracts, they had bonuses capacity. attached in there, but the whole we have clearance and other condition has changed now where operations outside of the cities. they have to comply with the provisions that were in the strategy's move it from within original agreement. the city is the strategy is all >> that is correct. along the borders and other the bonuses were paid shortly areas. after the merger was approved. one of the other things that we >> would you continue? are doing is spending a lot of >> it is probably not much time training the iraqi security forces and police. moret. so that they can build the there is probably not much more capacity necessary to hold the on that topic that i would say, lid on the insurgency when we leave in 2011. whether or not bonuses are host: steve, republican line. appropriate and the appropriate level and the balance scene good morning. between incentivizing talents versus what is appropriate [feedback] host: steve, you know the rules. conversation -- compensation -- you have got to turn down that >> to retain talent -- that volume. we are moving on to pennsylvania. really goes beyond -- i feel like it is so absurd. murray? i do not think at this point you debt -- caller: hello.

could find -- you could find i would like to tie my comments 1000 people out there with into why we cannot have tremendous talent. if that talent goes, there are universal health care in our country. people lined up. we are really being hit hard, i am opposed to war. i am opposed to my tax is going and i am talking about my district now. to support war. people have lost their jobs in especially a war that was based on lie upon live. droves. talent is available, believe me. it is a phony, a phony excuse. it was run by war criminals like rumsfeld and bush, who in putting this all together, i initiated torture. feel there were tremendous now we have a country that it failures on all sides. tends to justify the wade you agree to that? >> there is a lot of blame to go unjustifiable. i am a quaker from pennsylvania. around. >> gas. my colleague said it was just so i am certainly opposed to war downright lies that were given in general. especially unnecessary wars. and possibly it was done so that which is one of the reasons we government could support cannot have universal health care. because needlessly $3 million bankamerica during the merger.

per day goes to the bloated i am thoroughly disappointed that the people that were in pentagon budget. place at the sec it look the it is one of the reasons. other way. i yield back my time. the other reason is because the >> i yield five minutes to the other half goes to the wealthy gentleman from missouri. 1% on wall street. host: we have got the point. ressman clay. >> thank you very much, mr. general? chairman. guest: thank you very much. and thank you, mr. khuzami, for being here. i understand people's position let me -- just a couple of with regard to war. questions. at what point should action have the only thing i would say is that if you look at the risks to been taken to curb some of the our nation and national activities of the big banks' security out there, it is important to understand what the involvement in the securities market. consequences of failure are. there had to be some indication if we fail in iraq and it to the s.e.c. that some becomes a failed state, rather than having some element of a investment houses were stretched democracy in the least, instead too thin without the proper you have a failed state? reserves that come at a risk in this market. what are the consequences for not only the region, but the did red flags or alarms ever go security of our country? off? what did you know and when did that is a question worth looking

you know it? at. >> well, congressman, i didn't to have strong economic arrive at the s.e.c. until march development or generate income to pay taxes that go to those of this year. so that's probably not the right programs, we must have security. person to ask that question of. >> how about the people that you the fundamental basis in iraq work with now that have been for their economy is to develop there for years, did red flags their potential governments with go off for them? a basis of security. >> well, you know there was certainly systemic risks and a bubble that had occurred in the that is what security forces are housing market and elsewhere doing. now we are building other that, you know, that resulted in institutions. i think that that principle the collapse and the excessive applies in the united states as leverage and risk taking that we well. host: steve, one more chance. saw. you know, it is -- what the guest: good -- caller: good morning. a couple of questions. commission saw at various points along the way, it is difficult for me to answer that question. next year, when we transmission from common -- from combat to we didn't have regulatory authority over certain areas, so support, will the iraqi forces it might be better if i have an be able to stand up on their own? opportunity to respond to you what is your personal outlook on iraq over the next 10 to 20 after today's hearing so i can give you a more full summary.

>> i would love to hear from years? do you think it will be similar your colleagues in writing just to be a nom, japan, germany? will they have a flourishing what -- what alarms went off or economy? guest: i think that as we whether the relationship was too cozy with the big banks, that transition out of iraq, and it is important that we transition they never wanted to cite them in the timeline we said, as i for risky practices. said before, the iraqi forces let me ask you in particular why have the power to keep a lid on did bank of america get only a the insurgency. slap on the hand when it was they will maintain security gains. there are important things to work on. cited in 2006 for improperly one, for them to maintain intelligence so that they know marketing auction rate security? where they need to go to why were they allowed to continue these practices, conduct specific grades. abusing false and misleading the second thing, they have got information in selling these to develop their police. if the iraqi people are living instruments? in cities, it will be the police in hindsight, do you think that b of a was given too much that are protecting them. as i mentioned before, it is leeway? >> congressman, i would have to important to develop a rule of

law. refamiliarize myself with that case. i'm aware generally of the auction rate securities matters, my personal opinion is that i think that this is moving in the but as i sit here, not with the right direction. particulars of whatever action may have been brought in 2006. i am optimistic about it. i know that it is fragile, but i would be happy to respond. >> would you respond to us and iraq is going through a critical to the committee in writing on time in its history and the that issue also? >> certainly. development of its democracy. >> okay. mr. chairman, i have no further the risk of these elections taking place, it is encouraging questions. i yield back. >> thank you very much. that they passed election law. before we close out, let me just we will see a transition of say, mr. khuzami, i'm troubled parliamentary government from by the question that the one to the other, which is gentleman from maryland raised, important. a couple of other essential mr. cummings. things that must get resolved, you know, first in terms of -- one is the successful resolution it seemed to me that individual of the disputed land between the kurds and arabs. executives, the ones who sign off on the proxy filings should i think that iraq has the capacity to do that. be the ones that are responsible we will see of this new so therefore why wouldn't they government has the will and be the ones that you go after, leadership to make that happen. you know, you fine them and host: general robert they -- from the personal

standpoint, because, you know, like you said, you know, taking out money, and then paying the fine, and i'm not sure that -- thank you very much. tomorrow >> on the ""washington we get to where we need to go with that. the other thing that the general journal," the french health care system and the u.s. system. feeling is in terms of the trita parsi talks about the community at large, they feel that the reason the judge sent anti-government protests in it back to you is that you were not aggressive enough, that you iran. stuart becker walt joins us to did not pursue it in a fashion that he felt that it should have talk about the recent on-line been. posting of the security man all. and, of course, that's the general feeling among people, and a proposed $3.4 billion settlement of a class auction you know, if they say in the lawsuit by native americans street as to what's going on. climbing the u.s. government now i don't know whether that's cheated tribal members from the case or not, but i do royalties on oil and gas grazing believe that you really need to lands. look at that in terms of because when i listen to the fact that [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] they're paying our money, you know, that doesn't encourage, >> tuesday, the house armed you know, people to do what's

right. >> well, a couple of responses. services committee heard about situation in afghanistan. first with respect to the karl eikenberry is a retired payment of the fine, obviously lieutenant general and served in the afghanistan and general any entity that receives stanley mcchrystal assumed the t.a.r.p. funding or other money position and june. still has to pay that full amount back with interest. this is about two hours, 50 so whether or not a fine was minutes. paid with government money which can be fundable in an institution, but they had to pay inconspicuous as back all the money they got from the government with interest, possible and not interfere with the witnesses today. let me make that point. second of all, you're right, the judge expressed concern about not charging individuals. hearing will come to order. we have shown a very aggressive posture of charging individuals i want to first say that no demonstration will be tolerated. and if you look historically at our cases, the overwhelming number of cases result in charges against individuals and anyone disturbing by signs or not corporations alone. and i just mentioned some any other disturbance will be earlier today. removed forthwith. but the particular issue in the proxy area is that the proxy laws impose the obligation on so today i welcome -- the armed

the -- the entity whose proxy is being solicited or on whose services committee. our second hearing on behalf it is being solicited. afghanistan. the results of strategic review. and those are the corporations. to charge individuals, you need witnesses today general stanley a higher level of proof. you need to show what is called mcchrystal, commander international security assistant force in the united states force of afghanistan and the honorable sienter, knowledge or reckless conduct, meaning a significant carl ikenberry. and substantial deviation from normal standards of care. we welcome you, we thank you for being with us as we have been and it is that difference in the long anticipating your testimony legal standard that makes a today. difference in how we can proceed. there is a higher burden of two months ago i wrote a lengthy proof with respect to the letter to the president some six pages. individuals and our determination based on the record we had is that, you know, that he listen to his commanders in the field. we did not have the basis to and let me begin by commending charge those individuals. the president by demonstrating now as we get into the discovery his commitment to achieving process, we may get additional success in afghanistan by adding information and we'll take that 30,000 american troops to the into account and in making our war. decision. but i don't want to leave the in that letter and in private impression that we do not considerations i urged the aggressively pursue individuals. president to listen to our we recognize the deterrent military leaders and give them impact of charging individuals what they needed, and he did as much as corporate penalties

deter people. nothing substitutes for charging just that. i've noted that the war in iraq individuals. and we do that across the board in many, many, many of our caused the previous cases. administration to lose focus on afghanistan shortly after >> because i'm happy to hear deposing the taliban regime, because the shareholders who are really the ones who suffer in a case like this. enforcing al qaeda out of let me thank you very, very much afghanistan the preoccupation for your testimony and, of with iraq caused the war in afghanistan to be underresourced course, we really appreciate the fact that you came in and you're with essentially no strategy. here and you shared with us. unsurprisingly, the taliban and this is the end of many hearings their al qaeda allies were able we have had on this and we hope that we will now be able to move to come back and once again threaten the stability of afghanistan and the region and ultimately our country. and give the kind of confidence that people really need in order the president in his speech last to turn this situation we now week conveyed his commitment to our findselves in around. so i want to thank you again. addressing the threat. this hearing is now adjourned. posed by al qaeda and their taliban allies in january of 2009, there are about 33,000 united states troops in afghanistan, now in about seven [captioning performed by national captioning institute] months, there'll be three times [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] that. yesterday in my office, ikenberry informed me will soon also have tripled the number of

civilian experts assigned to the mission, and we welcome that. many in the press have compared the increase and forces in afghanistan to the surge in iraq. i don't think such comparisons are wise are fair. as a percentage of the forces on the ground, increase ordered by president obama is much larger than the increase in iraq. and the fight in afghanistan will be different in many ways. many articles citing general petraeus yesterday suggested he does not believe that progress in afghanistan will not come as quickly as it did in iraq. in the article he suggested that we must be measured in our expectations. to me this article highlights the need for a commitment to accomplishing this mission. not just from the president, but from the congress and the american people. i hope that this hearing can help build that sense of support and that sense of commitment. >> the latest now on the economic stimulus. tover $301 billion has been

general mcchrystal and you, ambassador ikenberry, sat in my committed to states by the office and told me you think we federal government to spend on stimulus projects. can successfully complete the mission in afghanistan. i believe that you're right. that the president's new over $149 million has been paid strategy coupled with increase in troops and civilian experts out to those projects. in the sense of urgency online, you will find conferences, hearings, and debates on the economic stimulus, as well as links to groups tracking its spending. >> coming up next, portions of the house debate on the amendments of the financial regulations bella. then, general mcchrystal talks about the withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq. i

>> this week, the three former solicitors general discuss the role of the solicitor general, duties associated with the job, and are doing for the supreme court. i-- and arguing for the supreme court. >> now available, c-span's abraham lincoln, great american historians on our 16th president. it is a unique perspective on lincoln from $56, journalists, and writers. -- it is a unique perspective on lincoln from journalists and writers. learn more at c-

span.org/lincolnbook. >> the u.s. house has passed the biggest restructuring of financial regulation since the new deal. but it will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy and ordered new oversight for some financial markets that have been unregulated. now, portions on the debate. gentleman from idaho. ms. minnick: madam chair, we all support the goal of a strong stronger, more uniform consumer protection regulation. but you don't acheeven that by adding two regulators and in many cases thousands of miles apart -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. members will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may resume. ms. minnick: you don't achieve better regulation by splitting the responsibility between two regulators, many cases thousands

of miles apart, each with half of the responsibility. and you exounds that mistake by creating exemptions to the new regulation which create gaps and inconsistency. every regulation has some impact on both the solvency of a financial institution and on its customers. to split the responsibility between two inherently feuding regulators will lead to conflicts, inaction, failure and frustration. my amendment is much superior. it creates a strong mandate for consumer protection in all of the existing regulators. every regulator must have a division in charge of consumer protection reporting to a person with co-equal responsibility for safety and soundness. the staff of this organization

-- the regulations themselves will be set by all of the major will be set by all of the major regulators council, including @ in forging a bipartisan coalition that yields this common-sense solution to this increasingly important problem. wo minutes to mr. boren

from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. boren: thank you. i thank the gentleman from idaho for yielding. i rise today in support of the minnick-schock-boren-shuler amendment. everyone agrees that following a period in history where the dow jones industrial average lost almost 60% of its value, three of america's five mainly investment banks went broke and the u.s. saw the largest number of commercial bank failures in four generations, that we need to reform the way america's banking and financial regulatory system works is important. the question, though, is just how many new government agencies are necessary to accomplish this task. if we create a new federal agency to regulate consumer credit, will it improve the current regulatory framework or will it end up costing american jobs? i think we need to be cautious in our approach. so today i rise in an effort to streamline this piece of legislation.

the amendment currently before this house will do a few simple things. first it will change the framework of the legislation by locating a newly created consumer financial protection council within the department of the treasury. rather than creating an entirely new federal agency to oversee the financial system. second, it will amend the legislation to take the power of regulating trillions of dollars of financial transactions out of the hands of one politically appointed administrator and instead create a consumer financial protection council charged with promoting consumer protection for users of financial products and services. by consolidating the expansion of government created by this regulatory bill we can properly get the financial and banking system back on its feet without creating another new federal agency designed to solve america's problems. in the interest of good government, this legislation must be focused and directed at what caused the problem and not

about settling old scores over business practices. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. minnick: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? ms. minnick: how much time do i have remaining? mr. frank: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. frank: i yield to a member of the financial services committee who we will greatly miss when he retires, the gentleman from kansas, mr. moore. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. moore: thank you. i rise today to owe poles the amendment offered by my colleague. i know my colleague offers this alternative to the consumer financial protection agency in the spirit of wanting to do all we can to better protect consumers and i certainly share that view. but i don't support this proposed consumer financial

protection council as the best way to accomplish that objective. this amendment effectively eliminates four days of thoughtful markup for cfpa and nearly 50 amendments offered by republicans and democrats to improve the bill. i'm concerned the amendment before us maybe unconstitutional, empowering a three-member state panel to decide how states will take a position that affects their consumer protections. this amendment creates a bureaucratic nightmare. in committee we work to focus cfpa on the bad acts that are created the financial crisis, not the responsible community banks and credit unions that were lending responsibly and doing as they were asked. the exemptions for merchants and nonfinancial institutions make sense as well. cfpa is currently drafted will help level the playing field for all community banks and credit unions. the new consumer protection agency will still be focused on the big banks and nonbanks like mortgage brokers that gave us the subprime mortgage crisis that led to the broader financial crisis. it's time to put an end to those greedy enough to lie, cheat and

steal for. like our parents and grandparents who gave us federal deposit insurance following the great depression, now is the time to give our children and grandchildren strong consumer protections and create the cfpa. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the minnick amendment and votey yes on the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. jaft idaho is recognized -- the gentleman from idaho is recognized. ms. minnick: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. schock: thank you, madam chairman. first i wish to thank the thoughtful gentleman from idaho for his work on this important amendment. clearly the fact that we're debating this amendment towards the end of the piece of legislation speaks to the support for it and i truly hope that a majority of our colleagues join together in supporting this amendment. a couple of thoughts. last week the president hosted a

jobs summit here. we go back home every weekend and the prevailing concern on the minds of our voters and our constituents is jobs. their concerned about double-digit unemployment, they're upset with the greed and the lack of oversight that has been provided and so rightfully so this body has tried to rein in some of that lack of regulation, tried to put forward a thoughtful program and i know that the chairman of this committee is doing what he believes is best. but the fact of the matter is we need to look to those who are hurting. we need to look to those who are the job creators in this economy and ask how will this affect them in their effort to employ people? well the fact of the matter is this is going to hurt our economy, this is going to lead to fewer jobs. the goal of the cfpa is to lead to improvement in the marketplace for the american people. however, consolidating the power into one bureaucratic appointee, creating a $1 billion agency,

adding to our national debt, increasing taxes, restricting lending, costing small businesses to shed millions of jobs hardly just fice itself. an agency -- justifies itself. an agency which would make it more difficult for lenders to offer services and products to small businesses at a time when the economy is still struggling to recover. the university of chicago just this week released a study that they suggest that the c frvingtsprving -- cfpa as it stands will increase consumer interest rates by more than 1.6 percentage points and consumer borrowing will be reduced by at least 2.1% and net new job creation will fall 4%. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: madam chair, i now recognize a strong advocate of a responsible policy towards the business community, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. bean, for two minutes.

the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. bean: madam chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the underlying bill. while opposed to the gentleman from idaho's amendment, i want to commend him on his leadership, on comprehensive financial regulatory reform. we've worked closely on many issues in committee and i appreciate the expertise he brings to these complicated issues before us. reforming our financial system is vitally important to creating a functional, sustainable financial system that american families and businesses can count on. we must not fail to enact adequate safeguards so that the mistakes of the past do not reoccur. topping our to-do list should be the enactment of a strong consumer financial protections that will keep our constituents safe as they rehabilitate their trust in our ability to effectively monitor america's financial health. in order to accomplish this goal we need an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect and empower consumers to make informed, financial decisions. the new cfpa, our consumer financial protection agency,

would go a long way toward that end. restoring vital protections that were absent and dealer needed toward the build-up to our financial fallout. the committee has made significant improvements to this bill. one of the initial concerns we heard was that companies who do not engage in consumer financial business would be regulated by the cfpa. merchants, retailers, doctors, realtors and others, some suggested, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, they're exempt from cfpa as was intended and as they should be. we address concerns we heard from banks and credit unions. small and mid-sized banks and credit unions under $10 billion in assets will not be subject to direct cfpa examination. instead there's a requirement now for coordination with the cfpa and the prudential regulator for those who are subject to direct cfpa examination. and after the manager's agreement reached this week, the ability of national banks and associations to operate under a

uniform national standard of rules where appropriate is preserved. but functional regulators failed to prioritize consumer protection and protect our constituents. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. frank: i yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds. ms. bean: thank you. the cfpa will create a framework reducing inefficiencies and bureaucracy across multiple agencies. they'll have the pex err -- expertise, resources and mission to update consumer financial protection laws and protect our constituents from abusive and unfair financial products and services. mr. minnick's amendment takes a different approach. what our consumers need is best in class protections for investors and americans deserve no less. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support this historic underlying legislation and the cfpa it creates. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. ms. minnick: i yield the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.

mr. castle: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise in very strong support of this bipartisan amendment that creates the consumer financial protection council which of course i'm pleased to co-sponsor. this amendment checks the right balance in strong consumer protections while ensuring the safety and soundness of our nation's financial system. i am convinced that the current language in the bill threatens to ex panled the reach of the public government, limit innovation, restrict choices of financial products and interfere with day to day activities of small bills. utilizing a council of existing regulaters are a cost effective and responsible approach to achieve the same goals as intended by the consumer financial protection agency. our amendment establishes a council of existing regulators which we know is treasury, fed, fdic, etc., instead of an entirely new agency and bureaucracy with all the costs and intended bureaucracy that would be involved with that. utilizing a council balances power instead of using a single politically apointed

administrator. i would hope that everybody in the chamber would support this change by the gentleman from idaho. i think the underlying legislation has some problems. there's some cost issues, probably some job issues and other things we have to worry about but i think this particular change, which is in this amendment, is key to progressing in a way that would protect consumers but make sure we are not distracting from the world of business in terms of commerce and banking in the united states of america and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. . mr. frank: one of the speakers, maybe the gentleman from oklahoma said we don't need a new agency. well, you probably didn't get too far into the bill. the line 7 through 10 of page one there is hereby established a consumer financial protection council as an independent establishment of the executive

branch. so it creates a new agency. a monstrous one. a 12-headed council. which will have its own staff assigned under this amendment by treasury. and then within each of the 12 agencies a new position is created, a director of consumer affairs. so you have 12 new positions, staffed by the treasury with no limitations on how that's done, and this new council. it is also unwieldy. one of the responsibilities of the consumer agency will be to issue rules to prevent the kind of abusive mortgage that is had such a contributing role in our crisis. this bill says yes. there will be such rules. they'll be adopted by the 12-member council. they will vote on those. the chairman of the commodities futures trading commission will have a vote on setting mortgage rates. the chairman of the securities and exchange commission will

help set mortgage rates. other agencies without any particular involvement there will help set mortgage rates. now, the 12 agencies that make up this bureaucratic version of the christmas song will include the agency that has more responsibility for consumer regulation today than the other, the federal reserve system. those who have said we don't like what the federal reserve does should understand, the largest single loser of authority by far in the bill that the committee has brought forward is the federal reserve. the federal reserve has been the primary consumer regulator, under this bill it still will be. under this amendment. the federal reserve will retain all its powers because you have the council but you also have much of this conby -- done by the inpent regulator. if you think the federal reserve has done a good job as the consumer regulator, then

vote for this bill. our bill also doesn't just deal with the federal powers, frankly we were respectful of the role of the community banks who you have not heard from in large opposition over this. in fact the independent bank, until we get to bankruptcy, are going to be supportive of this bill. i understand they have a problem with that. but much of the problem we have today is in the nonbanks. the mortgages issued outside of banks. the payday lenders, check cashers, the people who do lending. we give specific authority to regulate. what this says is status quo is fine with regard to that. the f.t.c. arguably has some jurisdiction over it. it hasn't been exercised very well. so if you want to do something about payday lenders and check cashers and remittances, then you want to vote for the committee version and not for this 12-member amendment, maybe some of the new consumer directors in each of the 12 agencies will work this out.

but you have to wait for this 12-member body to vote on these things. do i want to address one particular issue which is, what about safety and soundness? the notion that adequate consumer protection somehow detracts from safety and soundness is at the heart of some of our disagreement. what they are in effect saying, we'll have to water down consumer proterks. if you get somebody who takes it seriously, it might impinge on safety and soundness t has been the absence that has caused the problems. it was the refusal of the federal reserve whose authority is preserved by the amendment by the gentleman from idaho, they were given the authority by the congress, and flatly refused to use it. because they would not do because they would not do y and soundness suffered. it didn't thrive. there are other examples. a failure adequately to protect people in the credit card area contributes to problems. it does not diminish them. so the argument is very, very clear. it's true, by the way, the

federal reserve began after we started talking about this bill, but the notion that you must continue -- this is what's in the bill, keep consumer protected subordinated to bank regulation and you'll perpetuate the problem. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. minnick: i would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. campbell. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. we need to change some things so we don't face financial collapse. we can change those things without creating an entirely new agency spending billions of new dollars, hiring thousands of new bureaucrats, and a new building, and creating a conflict between the safety and soundness of banks and consumer protection. the underlying bill creates all

those problems. this amendment accomplishes consumer protection without all of that. support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i have one remaining speaker. since i have the right to close i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. >> thank you, madam chair. the current regulatory structure is not lacking authority. the federal reserve and the other banking agencies had all of the powers needed to address problems in consumer protections. what was lacking was coordination, improved disclosure, and ability to fill the gaps in the system. this amendment solved those deficiencies without installing a new bureaucracy that would make rules with little or no

input from the cops on the beat, the banking agencies, and that is why i am strongly supportive of mr. minnick's amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i continue to reserve since i have only one final speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this amendment. offered by my colleague from idaho, similar to one i offered in the financial services committee marksup. this amendment is a bipartisan commonsense alternative to pro -- provisions in the underlying bill. one of the lessons we learned in the process is bigger government does not work when it comes to protecting consumers and regulating financial institutions. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman

yields. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman. madam chair, the choice is simple here. we can create a new massive government bureaucracy, empower yet another czar, to make our -- and oversee our entire financial system and cost taxpayers millions more in their hard earned money. or we can pass this amendment so experienced regulators can better enforce the laws and protect our consumers from abuse and using existing resources. the choice is clear. support this bipartisan commonsense amendment that modernizes our regulatory system and help americans thrive in the 21st century. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. minnick: madam chair, how much time? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. minnick: the c.b.o. has

scored the total cost of my council and the components in the various agencies as less than $50 million. that compares to a massive new federal bureaucracy they have scored at $4.6 billion. how many times, madam chair, are we going to create a massive new federal bureaucracy to deal with an important priority? first it was expansion of the e.p.a. and cap and trade to deal with climate trade. a public option. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield my remaining time to the majority leader. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hoyer: i'll take a minute.

ladies and gentlemen of the house, i want to first of all thank mr. minnick. mr. minnick is an extraordinarily able member of this body and represents his district and our country well as a member of the congress of the united states. this amendment i think has brought up an important discussion on the perspectives that we all have. i am one of those that believes that previous administrations had two very deep failures. one was fiscal irresponsibility . we did not pay for what we bought. even at times when we said the economy was in good shape. we continued to borrow at record rates. taking a $5.6 trillion surplus and turning it into a $10 trillion deficit. the other major failure, i think, of the previous administration was regulartory impact. it had the power, as chairman frank has just pointed out, and

in 1994 bill to intervene, to try to put a check on two things. number one, on subprime lending. it did not. mr. greenspan testified just a couple years ago that he thought that was a mistake. he thought people would not take risks beyond that which were appropriate. and therefore did not step in to regulate the subprime market. as a result, we confronted crisis. the second big mistake was bipartisan mistake, clinton administration and the republican congress. clinton administration obviously led by president clinton and phil graham in the senate. we don't need to look at the derivatives market. it will take care of itself. the head of the cfdc advised heavily and tried on her own

authority because she had the authority to regulate. the derivatives market. the congress stepped in and i think i probably voted for the bill. extraordinary mistake on my part. and phil gramm led the effort that said no, we don't need to impede this robust market that was apparently making all of us so much money. mr. frank advised us and frankly i'm not and exspert, most of the employees we are talking about will be transfer employees, not new employees. regulatory neglect i think the administration did this. they said essentially the free market left to its own devices will grow the economy and create jobs. we ought not to impede that growth and that expansion. as a result of taking the referee off the field, all the little guys got trampled on. that's not unusual. i guarantee you if you take the referee off the football field,

the split end will leave the second before the ball is hiked. not because he's a bad person but because the split end is in a competitive field and wants to take an advantage. we don't have to cast bad aspersions here, but people want to take advantage. and the philosophy of the administration, the bush administration, was don't get in the way. regulation's bad. it undermines business. undermines growth. your no cost jobs program says get out of the way. reduce regular regular -- regulation. we have a real difference on this issue. franklin roosevelt came in and said the reason we have a stock market crash is because there were no referees. and under his leadership we created a lot of referees. very frankly, for 60 or 70 years they kept this country

pretty much on track. we got way off track. and very frankly, my friends, when you wring your hands about the cost of this referee, called the consumer financial protection agency, this referee i don't accept the cost that you use, but let's say there is a significant cost, let's say it's a couple of billion dollars. you say $4 billion. let's say for the sake of argument, a couple billion. pales into incision in the $1.5 trillion that we have borrowed to get this country out of the deep, deep, deep hole caused by the failure to regulate properly. . and it wasn't the rich guys on wall street that paid that price, it was every one of our taxpayers that paid that price. so when you talk about cost, the

cost of doing nothing, the cost of not having a referee on the field, skews the game so badly that the little guys, the guys who sent us here, the guys who asked to us protect them from those of the rich, they have -- for those over which they have no power to protect. they said, protect us. and that's what this debate is about. the administration has said, look, the s.e.c. has its responsibility, the fdic has its responsibility, cftt has its responsibility, all have responsibility to make sure that our economy can grow, the trading markets can be open and honest and transparent and fair. and they look at the people who are in those markets. most of the people are not in those markets. there are people, the little people, the average guy who goes to work, works hard, tries to pay his mortgage, keep his family fed and clothed and his

kids educated, he doesn't know what these guys are doing. there was no oversight. the distinguished speaker, as we know, one of the central causes of our economic crisis, as i've said, was abusive consumer lending. signing americans up for loans that they had no way of pay bag back -- paying back. and nobody said, time-out, you're offsides, penalty. nobody said that. why? because if we did that, that would impede business, that -- that would undermine the growth of this free market economy. that's why we have antry trust laws so we don't have some big

guys ultimately take it all. because they can underprice and shove out, we saw that with our friend ms. microsoft who did an extraordinary job -- our friends in microsoft who did an extraordinary job in our economy. but you have to have competitors in this business. for years that practice went ignored by washington regulators in a financial sector that pace massive debts and subprime mortgages, the results were eventually and tragically for our people catastrophic. the same abusive practices are at work in payday lending in money transfers and many credit card policies as chairman frank has so ably pointed out in each case americans can wind up trapped in debt and while we do expect responsibility from anyone taking out a loan, we also must ensure that those loans are fair, transparent and written in plain language. i'm a georgetown lawyer.

i think i'm reasonably bright. i've got to real estate settlements, we've got these forms an disclosures. i bet nobody here has gone to a settlement who's read all those papers. period. i think there's way too much paper. i don't think even if they read it they'd understand it. but the fact that they read it and understand it and didn't like paragraph five and called up the lender, the lender would say, that's fine, you don't get the money. they're counting on us. this is the time when they're counting on us, there's a time when we can respond. that's exactly what the consumer financial protection agency would do. that's its purpose. protect us. i understand their concerns about it and i congratulate mr. minnick for raising this issue and i appreciate his perspective. i simply disi a -- disagree. it would take up the oversight responsibility that i think has been abandoned. it would safeguard consumers from ex employee employtation

and protect our economy from -- exploitation and protect our economy from another clams. on the face of it, abandoning the cfpa and -- sounds like a superficial change and in my opinion it is a very clear subs fought to change and not one that i would support. the council would be made up of 12 existing regulators, the institutions that they did not step up to the plate and say you're offsides, there's a penalty. other than concentrating on a wide range of oversight functions in a single -- single body as the cfpa would do the council would be an unruly and slow-moving bureaucracy. we talk about bureaucracy. we want somebody to focus and have a singular responsibility, making sure people don't get offsides so the little guys get hurt. it would not enhance, in my opinion, national consumer protection laws and it would

undo this bill's expanded protections over the abusive practices that endanger the economic security of millions. those abusive practices did lasting damage to americans' lives and we can't let them down by warring down this -- watering down this bill. i want to congratulate chairman frank. i want to congratulate the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. this i think is a critical decision that we will make. we're asking the referee to call time-out, to say, we want to make sure the game is fair. we want to make sure that the little guy doesn't get hurt. we with all due respect to my friend who i think does an extraordinary job, on this we disagree. mr. dent: in the current form. i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion to recommit will immediately end the troubled assets relief program, otherwise known as tarp, and require that all tarp funds that are repaid to the treasury, including interest, dividends, the sell value of stock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman can proceed. mr. dent: the tarp funds that are repaid to the treasury, including interest, dividends, the selva value of stock and the warrants be reduced our national burgeoning deficits. it will reduce the debt limit by the same amount saved by ending tarp. i call this motion to recommit the troubled taxpayer relief program act because it takes an important step toward getting government out of the bailout business and curving washington spending. tarp was originally enacted to temporary plan to address an extraordinary cry -- temporarily plan to address an

extraordinary crisis that those said was too big to fail. they did so with the assurance that the money would be returned to taxpayers. that was the assurance given at the time. it is unfortunate that the president chose to extend the tarp program through october 3, 2010. in doing so, he's opened the door by democrats in congress to begin spending unallocated an unpaid tarp funds unrelated to the national emergency. it diverts $4 billion from tarp to a number of stabilization programs. it diverts a total of $23.625 billion to pay for the massive expansion of government bureaucracy that will result from the enactment of this legislation. and just yesterday, we heard from treasury secretary, tim geithner, that the administration is developing an initiative to tackle our economic problems and unemployment by using tarp

funds for small businesses. elizabeth warren, appointed to lead the panel that oversees the use of tarp funds, responded to the secretary saying, quote, it's not news to anyone that small business lending is important. small businesses are closing every day. but treasury has announced three plans and has not gotten the job done, closed quote. the president has said we need to spend our way out of this recession. the majority also tried that in passing the $787 billion stimulus. it has not worked. now, they want to spend more tarp money. haven't we learned that if we want to create jobs and grow our economy we must support the private sector and invest federal dollars sparingly and wisely? unfortunately, this bill not only fails to end the tarp now that the emergency and the financial markets has abated, it also turns tarp into a revolving slosh fund to pay for the majority's political, economic and social agenda. you know, failing to honor the

original intent of tarp and repay the taxpayers is an irresponsible breach of trust that we are committed to stopping. the americans are struggling under the weight of high unemployment, sluggish economic growth and unsustainable federal deficits. this congress has piled on with the so-called stimulus bill that spends too much, borrows too much. and a budget that doubles it in five years and triples it in 10 years. and piling on cap and trade that will cost thousands of jobs in my state of pennsylvania and increase energy costs for families and businesses alike. an undemocratic card check bill that will deny secret ballots and impose binding arbitration and a comprehensive health care bill that raises taxes, cuts medicare and endangers jobs. now, they're piling on with this 1,300-page bill that keeps taxpayers on the hook for recurring bailouts, allows unelected bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in our economy and adds an array of

new job killing taxes and new taxes on consumers, investors and small businesses. reining in tarp -- the best way to bring about economic growth and job creation is to avoid the massive deficits and to lessen the massive increase in the national debt. these misguided policies advanced by the majority are a road to higher inflation and record tax increases. today, we can begin the process of putting our fiscal house in order and inspiring confidence in the private sector by shutting down tarp, returning the unused funds to the taxpayers and lowering the national debt limit. at this time i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: tarp was passed to bring about financial responsibility. tarp has morphed into a $700 billion bailout fund to advance the administration's political,

social and economic agenda. tarp has helped bring about our nation's first $1 trillion deficit, the highest unemployment rate in a generation, and it will turn us into a bailout nation. the american people want more jobs, not more bailouts. and oh, they want their money back and they want their nation back. it's time to terminate tarp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the time has expired. the chair will remind that members, staff and pages are not in the well while another member is under recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to speak in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts opposed to the motion? mr. frank: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: first, for those who might have believed that when the republicans supported the minnick amendment, when they offered a substitute that they

thought was a better way to regulate, for those that might have believed that somebody meant that, here's the proof that it's all a sham. the republicans have a right to recommit motion and could put anything in it. here's what it says about consumer protection a la minnick or their way about dealing with other issues. strike all after the enacting clause. the republican motion now embodies their approach to protecting consumers and regulating derivatives and restricting leverage and letting companies go out of business. it consists of strike all after the enacting clause. they could have taken the minnick amendment and made it part of the recommit. they could have taken that substitute and made it part of the recommit. what the recommit does, what the gentleman from pennsylvania, i think, forgot to mention -- i understand there's a lot of pressure when you're reading the script there, but he forgot to mention that the recommit motion kills all regulatory reform. dead, done. there's no regulatory reform.

i see my friend from texas there. he's kind of rubbing his head. there's no amendment. if they want to help mr. paul and they want to look into the fed, why isn't that in here? strike all after enacting clause, that's what mr. paul gets from them. so let's be clear that it is first of all a cover. they use anger over the tarp to make sure we don't need another one because they kill all regulation. secondly, even as to the tarp, here's my difference. the minority came to the well and said, tarp was passed to be an emergency bill and the emergency is over. you cannot directly address a member, so let me say, mr. speaker, will someone tell the minority leader, it ain't over until it's over on main street or throughout america. maybe when the republicans had that meeting with a group of

financial lobbyists they took some time out to celebrate the ending of the emergency. but most of us know the emergency is not over. the emergency continues. here's what the administration has proposed. under the bush administration, i thought that the lack of regulation created a crisis but the big banks got the first tarp money. we are now finally succeeding in getting tarp money for smaller banks who can do community lending and small business lending. we voted to give $3 billion as loans to people who can't pay their mortgage because they're unemployed, not people who got mortgages they couldn't have gotten. hardworking people who can't pay a mortgage. $3 billion would go for that. that's gone. so the anti-social parts of tarp are ok. now they want to get are rid of the other. who are they saving money here? their friends, the big banks. the original tarp legislation said at the end of the day, any

tarp shortfall would be made up by the assessment of the financial community. we went further than that. the amendment we adopted over the objection of the minority, instructses the s.e.c. to assess the financial institution to make up any shortfall from the tarp. they kill that. they complained before about our assessment. they are very upset we might levy on j.p. morgan chase and morgan stanley and gold man sachs and the other some re sponsability financially for what's going on. they kill all reform. and the pretense that they were for a different form of it they leff it -- left it out of the bill. they secondly say that now that tarp money has gone to the big banks and they don't have to pay it back, by the way, and we are trying to use it socially to encourage small lending to give it to community banks to

help people who are unemployed avoid having foreclosure until they get their jobs back, now they want to get rid of it. to whose benefit? the bilge banks. should we use tarp money to get the small banked and -- banks and community banking? should we use it to help people avoid unemployment? or should we do what they want to do and give it back so the big financial institutions aren't assessed. that's what's at risk here. the taxpayers aren't on the hook for this money. the large financial institutions are are. i know what they say, it'll be a restriction in capital. i think capital is a good thing. to the extent that capital was misused for speculation, that it was misused or unleveraged, it's a good thing but once again, here's what you have. a motion that says, let's not do anything to change the financial system. let's not have companies go bankrupt and not worry about th a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. marshall: i thank the speaker. this is an amendment which is identical to a bill passed by the house earlier this year in march. the bill permits what's referred to as cramdown in chapter 13 with regard to private home mortgages. it is intended to address this foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. it essentially forces the parties to the deal to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods. in that sense, it helps our lenders with real estate portfolios. it helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosured upon and it actually helps the creditor who is forced into a chapter 13 process because in almost every instance their portfolio is improved by not having as many houses in

foreclosure. and in almost every instance they get a better deal in a chapter 13 process than they would in a normal foreclosure process. we should have done this long ago. it would have helped the housing crisis and consequencely -- cons is he wently the economy of america. this is mr. conyers' bill. i compliment ms. lofgren from california who couldn't be here because of family matters, because she's been a real stalwart moving this forward. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. at this moment i'm pleased to yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from

texas is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, the deputy ranking member of the judiciary committee, for yielding me time. madam chair woman, those who confront mortgage foreclosures are understandably in a difficult situation. but this bankruptcy amendment will only lead to a worse situation for everyone. the number one cause of foreclosures today is job loss. the number two cause is homes that are mortgaged for more than they are worth. sending these homeowners with these problems into chapter 13 ups bankruptcy will not solve at all. they don't have the income required that is required to file chapter 13 bankruptcy. and those should honor the mortgages for which they freely contracted. allowing bankruptcy courts to cram down mortgage principal will only lead to higher interest rates and tucker mortgage terms for all future homeowners. why should those that did nothing wrong have to pay that price? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman

yields. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i yield myself such time as i may consume, and just a couple of observations. if in fact you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for chapter 13 and consequently you won't be able to cram down. it's those that do have jobs, who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt, who would be eligible, and it's only those folks as far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill provides it is retroactive. it doesn't apply to future credit. many, many experts have looked at this and concluded it will not increase the cost of future credit. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i recognize myself for two minutes. first, to say that the gentleman from georgia may assert that this will benefit creditors, but i know a few creditors who extend home mortgage loans that favor this legislation.

our country has fallen into a serious economic recession or a recession that's worsened by the foreclosure crisis. until we can address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. unfortunately, this bankruptcy amendment, which i don't think belongs in this legislation to begin with, not only fails to solve the foreclosure crisis but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider. allowing bankruptcy courts to modify home mortgages will have adverse consequences for all while providing little real relief to distressed borrowers. bankruptcy cramdown will invariablely lead to higher interest rates and less generous borrowing terms for future borrowers. the gentleman may claim that it won't effect future borrowers, but the fact of the matter is if this can be done now for this purpose, the advocates for this legislation would like to see this made in the future a permanent provision in our bankruptcy laws and it will have the effect of causing

interest rates to go up and credit to be less available. unemployment has been the driving factor behind most foreclosures, but because individuals without regular income may not file for bankruptcy under chapter 13, cramdown will do nothing for those most in need of relief. the unemployed. additionally, many borrowers walk away from their homes not because they can't afford their monthly payments but because their homes are mortgaged for more than they're worth. these borrowers should live with the responsibility for their decisions, not receive bailouts from bankruptcy courts. furthermore, we must not forget that cramdown will not only impact lenders but investors as well. these investors often include pension funds representing the retirement savings of millions. we should not pass the cost of irresponsible borrowing and lending off on current and future retirees. i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 130ekds. mr. goodlatte: there is no reason to allow mortgage

cramdown with the high cost considering it will produce only moderate results at best. if we pass this amendment, what message does it send to the 90% of homeowners who are making their payments on time? how can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbor's mortgages. what do people think back they pay the principal -- we must solve the foreclosure crisis but we must avoid the cramdown that taxes the responsible and holds no one accountable. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. marshall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to homeowners we will say their home won't decline in value. no taxpayers' dollars goes into the deal at all. to those who cannot afford chapter 13, obviously other some remedy is called for than this.

but for those who can afford a chapter 13, you're helping everybody by filing a chapter 13. and having spent years in this business, creditors will not be harmed, and the cost of credit will not go up. and that's particularly true because in this bill it only applies to existing mortgages. it doesn't apply to future mortgages. so it's widely conceded. the cost of credit will not go up. this is truly a win-win. i was originally opposed. i've been in this business for a long time. i had a change of heart. the change of heart focuses on the crisis that we're in right now. you can go to my website and on the front page of the website those who are interested will find a detailed explanation why this is absolutely the right thing to do. and with that it seems to me i've responded to everything that the gentleman from virginia has said. so i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam chairman, i'll yield 1 1/2 minutes to the

gentleman from california, mr. lungren, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lungren: thank you very much, madam chair. this is a prime example of good intentions resulting in bad policy. my area is one of the areas hit as badly as any with respect to foreclosures. we have not cleared the market yet. we are in deep, deep shape. and the last thing we need is to increase the level of uncertainty within the mortgage market, and that's what this does. it may be limited by its terms, but if we do it now we can do it again. some people may ask, why would we not allow cramdown for residential housing? the supreme court justice stevens, looking at this with a case in previous years, said the favorable treatment of residential mortgages was intended to encourage the flow

of capital into the home lending market. that is why this exists in the bankruptcy code today. precisely because it allows more people access to purchasing homes and premiums are not as high as they otherwise would be. precisely because you cannot allow cramdown in bankruptcy proceedings now. that's the sole substance of the reason why we have this. we're going to reverse this as a matter of public policy. it is going to create greater uncertainty. and thereby increase the premiums in the future for everybody else and deny access to the housing market for those we seek to help. i'd yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i'll simply repeat, because this is applicable to existing mortgages it will have no effect on the cost of future

mortgages. the beauty of it is we'll have fewer foreclosures, so the gentleman from california and those in california who are in neighborhoods that are really struggling with this housing crisis collapsing because of vacancies, all of those will be helped by this without putting a single dime of taxpayer dollars in the deal. it seems to me that's the complete justification for doing this. we should have done it long ago. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has no time remaining. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. marshall: i yield myself -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has one minute and one half remaining. mr. marshall: i appreciate that. you know, there's a thing called the tragedy of the commons, and it's a theoretical concept that applies in this particular case. it refers to the opening of common areas for grazing, and then those who have sheep come

in and overfwraze that area. and the effect is not -- overgraze that area. and the effect is not that everybody got loftier, it's everybody got poorer. i am not interested in fooling around with me in bankruptcy court or anything like that. but combined creditors are advantaged by having fewer foreclosures on the market in a situation like this. having represented an awful lot of banks, having spent an awful lot of my life as a bankruptcy lawyer, law professor, commercial litigator, i'm absolutely convinced that i was wrong to initially reject this concept. that if we apply it now -- we should have done it a couple years ago -- but if we apply it now we'll catch an ongoing wave of foreclosures. it will help the individuals who can rescue their homes. it will lessen the number of foreclosures consequently helping all other homeowners, no taxpayer dollars are involved. and creditors are assisted by this with no threat whatsoever to an increase in mortgage

crisis. we passed this before. we should pass it again. it's appropriate to this particular pees of legislation because the work we're doing -- piece of legislation because the work we're doing now is prompted by the credit crisis that was prompted initially by housing issues. so housing should be addressed as part of fixing the overall financial situation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. marshall: i thank the speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california s the bill now goes to the senate after approval. later, steny hoyer and eric cantor discussed the upcoming session for the house. this is about half an hour. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the gentleman

from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: on monday, the house will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour debate, 12:00 p.m. for legislative business, votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for morning hour debate, 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. on wednesday an thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business, on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, we will consider further action on h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act of 2010. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask the gentleman about the schedule for the rest of this year. obviously, many, many members are asking the question as to when we will be able to return

to our districts, many have planners in christmas holidays. so i would ask the gentleman, does he expect the house to adjourn for the year by friday, next week, december 18? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding that is my hope. it may not be my expectation. it is my hope. and it is my plan. but obviously, the gentleman well know, having been in this position in the past that is somewhat contingent upon what our colleagues in the other body do. but it is my intention, and i announced, that december 18 is the last day on which we are planning to meet. i very much want members to be able to be home christmas week. but i want -- i do want, as the gentleman knows as well as i do, that that is dependent upon what our colleagues across the capitol do. clearly we have now passed most

of our appropriations bills, except for the defense bill so we funded most of government. the senate still has to enact, of course, the only the buse we -- omnibus we sent to them two days ago, which has six proping bills in it. one remains. if they pass that, 11 of the 12 would have been passed. but obviously we want to make sure that we pass our defense bill as well. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman speaks a lot about the appropriations factor. i assume that means when we would actually bring up the defense appropriations bill. but specifically, mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman whether it is his hope that we will be considering health care in this house, or whether we can expect that to fall off into next year , and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. as is true of almost al, @@@@@@% because obviously the senate action will be essential for that to happen. again, with respect to the defense appropriation bill, it is essential that we passed that bill and is essential that we passed the debt limit. it is essential that we extend, in my opinion, unemployment insurance and cobra. it is essential that we extend the patriot act for at least 90 days while the legislative committees are trying to complete that, so there are a number of things clearly that i think it is necessary for us to do because of time limits. as my friend knows, health care does not have a time limit and it will depend upon what action the senate takes and when it takes it.

>> i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and would ask about the speaker's plan to copenhagen. copenhagen. i think there are about 30 members going with the speaker to copenhagen, scheduled to depart wednesday evening next week, and would like to ask whether that will impabblingt our schedule for work next week, or does he expect that we will be in for five days with the speaker gone. mr. hoyer: i don't know if the speaker will be gone, if we have business to do. i think you're probably scheduled to be on that and i know i am, but we'll be here working if we have work to do to complete our business. i'll be here. the fact is, as you know, the

copenhagen conference ends, i think, on the 19th, maybe the 18th. the speaker had contemplated taking a delegation to that conference, which we think is extraordinarily important. but that will be contingent upon what our schedule looks like for the 17th and 18th and what we've done and accomplished by the evening of the 16th. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman did, mr. speaker, mention that one of the things that needs to be addressed is the debt limit and i believe if i heard correctly the gentleman said that he felt we needed to do that prior to year's end. that's created a lot of concern a lot of reports in the press have indicated that perhaps the administration is looking for ways that we could avoid doing that. obviously, given the size of

the expected increase of the debt limit to nearly $2 trillion, a lot of americans are wondering how in the world we keep spending money we don't have. so i'd ask again, does the gentleman believe that that comes to the floor next week? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think to the extent that the americans are considering that, they were considering that in the bulk of this decade, i would say, while we were spending money we didn't have on a regular basis at very high levels, which is why we went from the $5.6 trillion surplus to the $10 trillion deficit. having said that, we have passed a debt extension, as the gentleman knows that debt extension is in the crool of the united states senate -- is in the control of the united states senate. they can take that off the table and pass that extension. while it needs to be passed, we have done our work here. the senate has that debt

extension. i can't imagine there are any of us that don't want the united states of america, as we would expect of all of ourselves and of others to pay its debts that it has incurred. but it can be accomplished in a number of ways and the senate has a debt extension bill and if we don't act further on that, they can take that up off the floor or the desk and pass it. that's available. the other option the gentleman refers to is doing a new debt extension at a larger number. but that decision has not yet been made. i want to emphasize, the senate has on its desk a debt extension that will ensure the united states of america pays the bills it has incurred. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the gentleman and i were both in attendance at a meeting at the white house this week where we republicans

presented a plan to the president to suggest there are ways we could work together without causing the taxpayers to -- costing the tax payers to try to get america back to work. it's been labeled a no-cost jobs plan. as the gentleman knows, i had suggested last week that perhaps we could work on some of those measures together. i know that the gentleman just told us, mr. speaker, that we may be table expect certain things like cobra, u.i. extension, and others that he believes, i imagine, would be part of a stimulus effort and would wonder whether we could expect any of the items that we presented as republicans to the majority, we could expect any of the iitems we expected -- explained in that no cost jobs plan, to also be part of what may come to the floor next week? i yield.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me say, with respect to cobra and unemployment insurance, i wouldn't call that a stimulus plan. i would call it a tourniquet plan to try to stop the bleeding of some people who have been badly damaged by thing extraordinary depths to which this economy fell starting in december of 2007, leading to unemployment in the last year, the last month of the last administration, 741,000 people, jobs lost. as the gentleman knows this past month, we had only 11,000 jobs lost. that's significant progress, but not success until we get into creating jobs. we clearly believe that one of the important things we want to do before we leave here is a jobs bill. stimulus tends to be viewed as a more broadly based piece of legislation. we've done a lot of that, as

the gentleman knows, with his vote sometimes and without his vote sometimes over the last 12 months. the fact is that we want to address trying to create more job, get our economy going, make lending available for small businesses, expand our infrastructure, which is a direct, not only increase in jobs, but addressing infrastructure, roads, bridges, highways, as well as sewer and water systems critical to the economy and the health and welfare of our people. we're looking at that as we speak and trying to put together a package that the senate may agree to and that we could pass before we leave here. with respect to the no-cost jobs proposal, as i said at the white house, i would be glad, and look forward to discussing that with you, we can discuss it further this afternoon, some of the prose pro posals you have. i will tell you though, my

friend, i have found very few things in life which are free. if we're going to create jobs, we're going to expand our economy to pretend to the american public it's free, just as your tax cuts were not free, any tax cuts are not for free, it sounds like it, but there are consequences. and we believe that, for instance, the tarp funds that your motion to recommit sought to eliminate were essentially, while targeted at the time, really were for the purpose, and you and i both voted for them when they were adopted initially, they were for the purpose of tiing to bring our economy from the depths to to the which it had fallen, precluded from falling off the cliff and bring our economy back. i would suggest to that you that one of the reasons we don't want to see those funds eliminated after they've helped the banks we want to use some of them to help main street, small business, and job

creation, so with respect to jobs, we are very focused on jobs we look forward to working with you on that effort, and your side of the aisle, on suggestions you have and if we can reach consensus, i think the american people will be pleased. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'll respond to the gentleman and say, first of all, i was heartened by the fact that when we can did come into the meeting with the president of the white house he had a copy already of our republican no cost jobs plan. and i took that as a positive sign that perhaps we could actually work together in doing some things that don't cost anything. and, you know, i would say to the gentleman, his comment that nothing is for free, there are some things that we could do together that don't cost anything that will, i think, produce jobs and most people agree they could produce jobs and some of those being and we

tolded the president we would respond and i would share that with the gentleman, also there are a host of rules and regulations being promulgated by this administration and its agencies that frankly harm job creation. those are the kinds of things we could stop right now if we are going to put jobs first and make sure we do everything we can to get americans back to work. as for the tarp funds themselves, mr. speaker,, mr. speaker, my recollection, we voted for that authorization of money in order to stave off a collapse in our capital markets. most were in agreement that we were on the edge of an abyss and something needed to be done and so we took the action. within the prescription of that statute was the definition or perhaps the mission of those funds. those funds were there to make sure our capital markets didn't

collapse. now all of us want to be able to say we're doing things to get people back to work. but i think what the american people are going -- are growing tired of is congress saying that it is spending money for one purpose and then all of a sudden deciding, oops, there's another need out there. let me then go when we get this back into the treasury, spend it somewhere else. so, mr. speaker, the reason why our m.t.r. was classed the way it was is because we feel very strongly in the emergency nature of the tarp program and that in the statute we call for the return of those moneys to the general fund. essentially to the taxpayers and not to go and spend the money again because the borrowed in the first place. so i'd say to the gentleman, we look forward to doing some things that don't cost anything to create jobs. so the discussion at the white house centered on trade.

we know we have three pending free trade agreements. if i recall correctly the president indicated his support for those agreements. because all of us know those agreements will increase exports from this country. i believe, if i'm correct, that the leader himself, the gentleman from maryland, did say, mr. speaker, that he would like to see those exports increased and perhaps those bills taken care of. you know what, mr. speaker? if we're serious about it, why don't we do that next week? we can leave before the christmas holiday and most people would say by passing those bills we could be on the path to creating 250,000 new jobs in this country. and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. very frankly he says most people believe that, the polls don't reflect that. a lot of members on both sides

don't believe that. and that's why these bills are controversial on your side and on my side. i think longer term that is the fact. we have people, however, who are having a challenge seeing their families, keeping their homes, paying their bills right now. as we speak. it's not for free for them. they need help. on our side of the aisle we think we need to give them help. yes, we gave help to the banks, yes, it stabilized them. i voted for that, you voted for that. i think it was the right thing to do. those moneys, however, were to stabilize the economy. now they were targeted on banks which were the immediate problem. an awful lot of my constituents, people around the country said, hey, if you can -- you can help the banks, but guess what? i'm not there. my family's not there. my small business is not there. i need help. our proposition under those

circumstances is, yes, the good news is we didn't have to use all the money that president bush asked for. president bush used about half of it before he left. president obama's used about half of it for the purposes intended. we also used some of it, as you know, for general motors. that wasn't in the bill. but president bush decided that those funds oughten to used for that purpose and -- ought to be used for that purpose and chrysler as well, to stabilize the automobile industry. i will tell my friend with respect to our discussions at the white house, and i understand we have a difference of agreement, we differ fundamentally on how to get this economy moving. economy moving. your party voted to a person we voted unanimously against your plan. i think the plan worked and i think the plan in 2001 and 2003

did not work. we fell in because of a plan that you supported into the worst recession we have had in three quarters of a century. what we are saying is that we need to take some of that money and make sure that main street, small business, bank lending to small business so they can stay in business and create jobs, is a good use of those funds. because we are not done yet. your leader, mr. boehner said on this court that the recession is over. i think what he meant was, the economists say we have bottomed out and we are coming up. i suggest we have bottomed out because we have not only passed a bill that you and i voted for, but we passed a bill you did not vote for, and that is the recovery and reinvestment act. since that time, we have created 1.4 million jobs. the gdp for the first time since the third quarter of 2008 has

grown, actually 2007, has grown. where it was in the last quarter of the last administration, a 6.4% decrease. it is a little over 89 point turnaround. that is good news for the economy. . ood news for the economy but there are a lot of people still struggling. and so, yes, we believe that we need to have a jobs bill and we think it's appropriate to address the funds that we've already authorized, not new funds, that we've already authorized to try to bring this economy back, to not just look at it globally but to look at individuals who are hurting, who individuals who are hurting, who want to apply t those folks who are hurting and try to keep them in their homes, get them a job and get their families more stable. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's recognizing that there are differences. absolutely. on how we believe that we can work on getting this economy going again.

i do believe that we have some similarities which is why we pose the no cost jobs plan. so i ask the gentleman again, are we going to see the three trade bills come to the floor? because in my estimation i believe at least one if not all of the bills can garner a majority of the votes on this floor. something we could do next week, leaving town saying we're committed to job creation. are we going to see those bills, mr. speaker? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to give him the answer he knows and the answer to that is no. the bills aren't ready to come to the floor. they need to come out of the ways and means committee as you know. they're not reported out of the ways and means committee and we're not going to bring them to the floor tomorrow. if we brought them -- or next week. if we brought them to the floor next week as the gentleman knows they would have no immediate impact. the gentleman also knows and is correctly stated i certainly ambition for and have been

publicly reported over the last six months or more, i guess over a year, as being reported -- reported as being in favor of the colombia agreement and the panama agreement. i think the korea agreement is a little more complicated in terms of making sure our markets are open to our beef and other agriculture products, to make sure we have a thorough exchange. but three obviously is one of our -- korea is obviously one of our largest trading partners. that's an important agreement. but the gentleman knows that we're not going to bring those to the floor next week and the gentleman also knows that if we did and we passed them and the senate passed them somehow that it would not make an immediate impact. you and i both agree that over the long term it would be a positive impact, i just -- others don't agree with that, but the answer to your question is, no. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and i think he makes the case for all the more reason we do something now if there's no immediate impact tomorrow, at least we

could be well on the way to fostering that impact and those jobs for the americans who, as he correctly states are facing a lot of trouble right now being out of work. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask the gentleman about the 72-hour rule and the importance of that, that we felt back earlier this year. and because of the way that the stimulus bill was brought to the floor earlier, january and february, the backlash we saw that i believe the gentleman and his party committed to 72 hours to review any bill before it was voted on. for the members aswoman as the public, to realize their right to know. and my question to you is, mr. speaker, my question to the gentleman is, why now have we abandoned that commitment? why have we abandoned the public's right to know in major pieces of legislation -- legislation this week?

in both the omnibus bill as well as the bank bailout tarp ii bill we just passed? both of those bills came to this floor, the house voted on it, on the example of the omnibus and within 24 hours, not 72, and in the example of what we considered to be an extension of tarp and a bank bailout bill, there was a 249-page manager's amendment that was made available 8:00 a.m. yesterday and that very same manager's amendment was voted on at 8:54 p.m. last night. how is it that we have now decided it's not important to recognize and abide by this 72-hour rule? and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman -- mr. cantor: i mean i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: first of all, the gentleman has an inclination to state a premises that we all agree on things that we don't

necessarily all agree on. clearly we want to give notice. clearly we believe we ought to give fair notice. whereas it relates to the bill that was considered today, that bill has had over three months of hearings and has been on the table for a long period of time. the gentleman is correct that the final bill, as -- and the manager's amendment did not have 72 hours but almost all the components within it have been known to everybody as proposals that were on the table either in committee or substitute committee markup for some period of time. with respect to the bill that you refer to that we passed on the six appropriation bills, we, of course, had numerous committee hearings, subcommittee markup, full committee markup, house consideration, we passed all six of those bills through this house. the gentleman is correct that there were amendments included in there and there was notice of

all those but i would have liked more time. the problem is, of course, we've come to the -- what is, as the gentleman pointed out, a target date of the 18th. we still have the important work to do, we tend to do that, we're going to give as much notice as we can do, and meet our responsibilities to the american public. the gentleman smiles when i say as much notice as we can give. the gentleman surely will not say, because the gentleman is honest, he understands this process as well as i do, he and i have been here for some years, i've been here a little longer. when his side was in control, as he knows, some major pieces of legislation were considered within hours on this floor, prescription drug bill being a specific example, the biggest titlement reform we'd had in a long period of time.

you reported it some hour in the a.m., 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. and reported it on the floor a little after 9:00 a.m. and we considered the bill that afternoon and passed it that day. or early the next day. so, the gentleman knows what happens is -- and that wasn't even, as i recall, at the end of the session. but the gentleman knows, as practicality, both leaderships find it necessary in order to complete the business the public expects us to complete to sometimes move that when agreement can be reached at the end of a session. unfortunately i've been at this legislative process for over 40 years and members like to delay until such time as they think delay is no longer an option. mr. cantor: i was somewhat amused by the gentleman's commitment to give the public

and memberings as much time as they, the majority, could. we have a 72-hour rule in place. i thought. that was for the purpose of allowing all of us, including our constituents to realize what's going on in this house. obviously, you know, we have a lot of work undone for the year. we've got five legislative days next week. certainly, if we're going to be incurring the type of debt and expenditure, that we are looking at, surely we could make sure that there's adequate notice and that the 72-hour rule is abided by. i say to the gentleman, this is what the public is tired of. i find it somewhat interesting that the gentleman says it's ok for the majority to do that, because when we were in the majority we did that. well, i know the gentleman knows, we were let go. in the majority in 2006. and they assumed the majority.

again, there's a reason for that. the public is looking for transparency, the public is looking for fiscal responsibility, and certainly, when we were talking the numbers that we are talking in terms of taxpayer dollars, $1.8 trillion in new debt, certainly, i think, mr. speaker, we should afford the public its right to know. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield before he yields back his time? i appreciate the gentleman's observation that you were let go. i want to make it clear to the gentleman, i do not believe you were let go because you failed to meet a time frame for reporting bills. i believe frankly, the substance of our work is that which the public makes a judgment on, and frankly, we think that the reason that they turned to us in 2006 and 2008 was because they thought that the programs and policies you

were pursuing weren't working for our country or the economy or for them. with all due respect. but i continue to tell the gentleman that we want to try to make sure, as you did, sometimes, that you, our members, the public, have sufficient knowledge to make the decisions that are called upon for them to make. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would say in closing that the gentleman may be right. it may be the reason for the 2006 loss and the majority coming into power pause of the policies, because of the war, was of fiscal practices what have you. any number of things. but certainly, now, the gentleman knows, the public is not too keen on the agenda being pushed by this majority. in fact, most of the people in

this country feel we're headed down the wrong track. but also, mr. speaker, the public is extremely, extremely concerned about their future. we've got to restore the trust in this institution, mr. speaker. we've got to abide by the same rules that we expect the public to abide by. that is transparency. that is, when we commit to a certain set of rules to live by we ought not change them mid course. that's not what we should be doing. we shouldn't be changing the rules of the game as far as the tarp program is concerned. the public thought that money would be paid back. we shouldn't be changing course in terms of the 7 -hour rule. the public has -- the 72-rainshower rule. the public has got ton -- the 72-hour rule. the public has gotten to know that. that's what i'm talking about in terms of the democratic

majority. >> up next, major-general talks about the withdrawal of u.s. troops from iraq. after that, a house hearing on the afghanistan with the general stanley mcchrystal and ambassador karl eikenberry. that will be followed up by a hearing at on the merrill lynch-bank of america merger. this week, a political commentator, is assistant professor at george mason university, and the author of several books, the most recent in 2008 called "republicans and the black vote." he appears regularly on that the huffington post and his own website. he is our guest sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "american icons," now

available on dvd, a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. in exquisite detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go behind the velvet ropes and the rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous home, and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital, one of america's most symbolic structures. "american icons," the three desktop dvd set, available online at c-span.org/store. >> a discussion now on u.s. troop withdrawal from iraq. from washington journal," this is about 40 minutes. host: he was commander of the north part of the troops in iraq.

his unit is based in hawaii. tell us about your assignment and iraq, if you will. tell us about your operation. guest: we were responsible for operations in northern baghdad. we had three other arab province since. the home of saddam hussein, and the heart of the insurgency. we also had kirkuk, which is very unique for its kurdish and arab tensions. we also have responsibility for kurdistan. as the multinational north division commander we have responsibilities for 23,000 u.s. soldiers and and other service members, responsible to train iraqi police and to do our best to work with the development of the security forces and

government, helping us to build the economy. host: how long were you there? guest: we were there for over one year. we were not a part of the surge. host: how would you assess that region now? politically and militarily? terrorism? guest: from a military standpoint, the iraqi people have done a phenomenal job to build their security forces. the agreement that went into effect in january 1, 2009, through our partnership we were able to work with the iraqis can really coach them, teach them, mentor them, which i think brought them quite a ways. they have contributed to security in a big way. iraq is at the major crossroad of political decisions right

now. there elections are now willing to take place on the seventh of march, which is critical. as you transition from one parliamentary government to another, that will be good to see. also at stake is the resolution of the disputed area. which was my area. the disputed area between kurdistan and the arabs, who both claim the land. host: what is the status of that dispute? guest: they had recognized that it was disputed when they first wrote their constitution. they have an article in their constitution that requires a resolution of the disputed land. they had a tie line associated with it and they went past that. as for what we did, working with the prime minister, we came up

with a security apparatus that was finally approved. a security apparatus that includes kurdish forces, the iraqi army, and the united states. the united states is the trusted agent, assisting the other side in the area. that is going to be critical to keep the security in place. it will also be important when it comes to resolving this. host: are you satisfied with the structure and the ability of iraqi forces?