we put the final bill together, that if you see something lacking, i can assure you on one telephone call away and i'm sure mr. garrett is one telephone call away. we're looking for the best expert help in structuring the finest enforcement bill we can put together to make sure although we hear this all the time, that this will never happen again. i for one can see something is going to happen again so we shouldn't use that terminology, but we could creamy great deal from the crisis and put a piece of legislation in place that will force all of that kind of activity for occurrg again for many, many decades. and toward that end, i solicit your assistance and help. inany of my staff that don't take your calls, you let a know

it will have newtuff in place, but i know they will only want to encourage you to take advantage of that invitation. so with that, the chairman of some members may may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing. without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record here without objection is so ordered. before we turn, the following materials will be made part of the record of this hearing. a letter of may 20 from the independent community bankers of america. without objection, it is so ordered. the panelist dismissed in this hearing is adjourned. thank you, gentlemen. [inaudible conversation [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> next, remarks on sea law and off sho offshore drilling. after that chris dodd and congressman barney frank of massachusetts talk about what is next for financial regulation. then 7:00 a.m. calls and comments on "washington journal".

>> just weeks after the british election which produced a tpnew prosecutor queen elizabeth ii will announce the legislative agenda. we will travel from buckingham palace to the house of lords for one of the post celebrated occasio occasions. live tuesday morning 5:30 eastern on span 2. >> lisa murkowski was the keynote speaker in a discussion on national security focusing on the u.s. presence in the world oceans. she also talked about off shosh drilling. this is hosted by the university of virginia. it is about 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, if i could have your attention.

we are particularly honored to have as our conference keynote speaker today senator lisa murkowski, the first alaskan born nor to serve the state and only the sixth united states senator from alaska. she's the senior republican member of the senate energy and natural resources committee and also serves on the senate appropriations committee, health education labor and pensions committee and the senate indian affairs committee. she was elected by her fellow republican senators to serve as the vice chair of the senate republican conference for the 111th congress. she has a b.a. in economics from majority and law degree from willamette university. as one who has been to alaska many times, particularly during the law of the sea negotiations since as the senator knows it has approximately half of the entire continental shelf

fisheries and other interests of the united states, i'm an enormous fan of alaska. you cannot possibly go to alaska without coming away with a feeling that this is the most beautiful place on planet earth. i know from my conversations with people in alaska that one of the greatest treasures of the state is this senator. senator lisa murkowski, who has done so much for alaska and for the country, please join me in welcoming senator murkowski. [applause] >> thank you, john, for your kind remarks. it is an honor and a delight to be with all of you. i recognize some friends out there. when i have an opportunity to speak on the issue of the arctic, i don't know, are you all called arctic groupies yet? but it couldn't be a better

gathering. it is my pleasure to be able to address you today at the 34th annual center for oceans law and policy conference. i commend you most certainly for putting together a very impressive conference and some great speakers that you have in front of us. as all of us in this particular room are aware, the united states is an arctic nation because of alaska. i appreciate the very kind words you said about my remarkable sta state. we are very possessive about what goes on in alaska as alaskans but we recognize because of our 49th state it doesn't -- it does put this country in a position that we are recognized as an arctic nation and i'm very privileged to be the senior senator for america's arctic state. but, really, what does it mean? what does it really mean to be an arctic nation?

i believe the federal government is just now waking up to this reality. we are trying to define exactly what is the distinction. in my view, being an arctic nation means the united states, by virtue of our land and waters, have the fundamental interest in the region and certainly a responsibility and an obligation to protect those interests. i speak to you at a time as we recognize of great change for the arctic. the pace of change demands greater attention be focused on the region. the implications of the dynamic changing arctic for the residents and important international security, econo c economic, environmental and political interests depend upon it. we have seen the interests in the arctic growing. the general public is paying attention. the media most certainly. the arctic and nonarctic nation s continue to grow. the attention is primarily due

to impacts from climate change, the subsequent loss of seasonal sea ice, the interest in sea lanes, energy and natural resources. until recently, the resources of the arctic were deemed to be too difficult, too remote, too expensive to develop. with increasing access and high energy and mineral prices the arctic's wealth is being increasingly discovered, explored and developed. this includes conventional oil and natural gas but also methane hydrates and other less conventional forms. offshore alaska we are estimating 15 billion barrels of oil in one sea and eight in another. we are hopeful this summer we will have an opportunity for exploratory wells to prove up. the usgs says the region has possibly up to 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and 13%

of its oil. we think that it holds huge amounts of other minerals like coal, nickel, copper, tongues 10, chromium, titanium. i think there is sometimes a natural and reflexive tendency to question how in the world it is ever possible to drill and produce, how can it be be done in a safe manner such a harsh and i think often misunderstood and very distant environment. but it is happening and the technology and the engineering behind some of the existing and proposed activities is fascinating. we know russia is turning its eye to the arctic and its reserves. they are building the first offshore oil rig that can withstand temps as low as minus 50 degrees celsius and heavy

pack ice. as their oil production is in decline they are reducing taxes and hurdles to encourage new oil development in the arctic. they are planning for a near wholesale replacement of their ice breaker fleet to better operate in the polar region. by the same token, an energy company from england is ready to seriously explore for oil and natural gas for the first time off the coast of greenland. what is happening currently in the gulf of mexico has shown us that there is certainly risk and there will always be risks and impacts associated with producing energy. and we must takeover appropriate step to minimize those risks into the future. but we also need to be rational in our response to what we are seeing with the deep water horizon tragedy. we don't know exactly yet what has failed or how many components have failed. until we do, we should be

careful, we should be cautious, we should not pass reactionary legislation that hasn't been fully thought through. we have to learn we did have the exxon valdiz, we have to learn from the gulf accident. right now we are in the process of understanding, collecting information. once we have a full understanding of the cause of the accident, i'm hopeful that it will guide us in our decision phaeumaking done drafting new regulations to i will prove our safety procedures. the deem water horizon -- the deep water horizon incident may have made us more reticent to drill in the offshore, but it did nothing to change or reduce our need for oil and gas, did nothing to change the value of those resources in what is still a growing global economy. even as we take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we are going to need oil and gas for decades to come. i believe we will rise from this

tragedy not only as americans but that the world will learn and grow stronger in terms of of understanding the values and the risks of energy production. alaska's offshore oil and natural gas resources are vital to the nation's strategic economic and energy security. i remain committed to the responsible exploration and production in the waters there. since this tragedy has been unfolding we have been demanding, the administration has been demanding and have sought to know what those greater protections are that surround these exploratory activities. i think it is important to point out there are differences between the deep water activity and up in the arctic specifically the relative shallow water deps, the pressures within the area. and in addition to that, the shell permits that are in process now have probably had

more regulatory, environmental, legal scrutiny than probably any other exploration permit in recent history. the fact of the matter is all eyes are upon us in alaska. we need to be given the chance to prove that we can explore safely. safely. the exploration activity in the the exploration activity in the arctic combined with declining summer sea ice has positive implications for energy security across boards because lng and oil tankers can have alternatives to their current more dangerous in these clogged routes that go through the southeast asian straits, the gulf of aden and suez canal. so non-arctic makeses will benefit -- nations will benefit but they can benefit through the funding element of the huge projects. the exploration, production and certainly the construction necessary to develop arctic resorpss is going -- resources

is going to require all kinds of financing, not just the sheer scale and remoteness of the projects but for the levels of technology needed to bring them online in a way that is safe for the workers, safe or the environment, and as insulated s from risk as all possible. >> i had the opportunity not long ago to visit a 4-d seismic room in new orleans. the images are basically animated to give a sense of the shifting oil and gas reservoirs so the geologists can study the trends, get a more telling picture of the resource potential. it is almost surgical compared to basic mother story -- exploratory drilling and it does give a confidence that a well can be targeted and explored with limited impact to surrounding areas. i think this is one example of the ways in which technology is

able to provide a more reassuring answer to questions about whether or not the world is ready for increased energy development in the arctic. another good example of this -- and this is more alaska specific -- it is a project we call the liberty project. some of you may be familiar with this project. it is an extended reach drill rig which parker drilling helped develop for b.p. to access an oil field directionally eight miles away. it is not quite there yet, but i'm hoping and i'm betting on good news from alaska's north slope on how far we can continue to reach both literally and figuratively with the directional drilling. this brings me to a point here. technology is advancing because oil and natural gas are still the most economically viable energy sources in the world. the term easy oil is being slowly redefined as these

technologying develop. and i predict that we will see measured but certain expansion in arctic lands and waters. this is significant because the first people of the arctic have -- i certainly believe -- a right to benefit from all of their resources, not just their energy resources but the fisheries, marine mammals on which they depend for few transmission and lively hoods. and i'm -- livelihoodlivelihood. i'm encouraged by the increasing ebb are -- engagement. 30 years ago in alaska when we were first developing our north slope fields we were able to establish production from america's largest single oil field, prudhoe bay by involving the native people by almost every aspect in this new and substantial change to their land and lifestyle.

there was engagement and often it was very contentious and difficult. but there was engagements on multiple levels. on the legislative level. administrative, operational and personal level. the ultimate result, i believe, has benefited all alaskans and our national energy security in ways beyond anything that we could have predicted at the time. it is not just arctic energy that is drawing increased activity into the region. the impacts of an ice diminished arctic are already affecting marine shipping. we recently saw two german vessels go from asia to europe through the arctic ocean north of russia. two multipurpose heavy-lift carriers transited through the northeast passage during august and september of last year. the route is now open for a short time in late summer but cuts off about 4,000 nautical miles from the 11,000 mile

traditional journey. we have reports of a russian shipping firm announcing it will use one of its ice strengthened arctic tankers to go across the northern sea route to japan. this would be proof of the concept that could also apply to lng tankers on the same duel acting ice breaker tanker design we use for the oil tankers. while the arctic marine shipping assessment predicts it will be decades because the routes are open for many months of the year i think we have to consider that this is only the beginning. and if it proves economical it will happen. we know that there are national security and sovereign interests for all the arctic coastal states in the region. the u.s. navy as a new road map for the arctic and they are study being the feasibility of a deep waterport in the far north. in support of their efforts i have introduced legislation that

is the department of defense and homeland security to study the feasibility, the location and resource needs for an arctic deep waterport. i think that we will find from this study whether it is in the strategic interests of this country, as i believe it is, whether to build a port and where it might be located. a deep waterport would not only serve our military and coast guard needs but as we develop our offshore oil and gas reserves and see more shipping, more tourism and more vessel traffic in the arctic a deep water worth could provide more support. the coast guard has embarked on a study to determine what assets and infrastructure they may ned to prepare for a ice diminished arctic ocean. with increased maritime activity in the arctic and shortage of existing infrastructure it is vital we determine what the needs are and actively work to provide those resources to

protect the arctic residents and environment. i have stated and i know many of you in the room have heard this, but i think we are at a critical time in the arctic now. there seems to be a couple of paths that we could take here in regard to international relations. one is a path of competition and conflict, the other is a path of cooperation and diplomacy. i believe the decision on which path we ultimately take will require data leadership. one -- dynamic leadership. one of the first areas we need the leadership is in the united states and senate ratification of the convention of the law of the sea treaty. i believe it is crucial for the united states to be party to this treaty and be a player in the process rather than an outsider hoping that our interests are going to be protected. access to the convention would give current and future administrations both enhanced credibility and leverage in calling upon other nations to

meet convention responsibilities. given the support for the treaty by arctic nations and the drive to develop natural resources, the treaty will also provide the environmental framework to develop these resources while minimizing environmental impacts. the united states is the only arctic state that is not a party to the law of the sea convention. having first submitted the treaty to the senate for approval in 1994, we have not acceded to it yet. both canada and denmark joined. canada in 2003, denmark in 2004. there are some who say they don't see the point in joining the rest of the world in ratifying the treaty. they say the u.s. already enjoys the benefits of the treaty even though we are not a member and by not becoming a party to the treaty we can pick and choose which sections we abide by while not subjecting our actions to international review. i respectfully disagree with

this opinion. i believe very strongly at that time united states must ratify the treaty. right now we are at a bit of a stalemate. the white house is looking to the senate to lead and the senate is waiting for stronger support from the administration. in part perhaps the senate calendar is to blame. it is anticipated that, should the majority leader move the treaty to the senate floor, it would consume time. it would probably take a week of floor time and considering we have less than about 40 legislative days before the august recess, it is highly uncertain that such time will be carved out unless it becomes a priority for the administration. but, given the president's focus on advancing the start treaty i see it unlikely to schedule the law of the sea treaty. i won't say it is impossible but i would say it is unlikely. unfortunately, failure to ratify

continues to keep the united states at a disadvantage internationally and outside the process without a seat at the table. until the u.s. accedes to the toyota it cannot -- treaty it can't -- without a commission recommendation regarding this data, the legal foundation for the evident c.s. limits is much less certain than if we were a party to the treaty. according to the u.s. arctic research commission, if the u.s. were to become a party to the treaty we could lay claim to an area in the arctic of about 450,000 square kilometers. this is approximately the size of the state of california that lies just north of the north slope there. while the united states has not ratified the treaty, we continue to map our extended continental shelf. we have been working

cooperatively with canada the last two summers on extending continental shelf data where we are scheduled to work again this coming summer. the u.s. ice breaker heely completed the second summer of joint mapping with the canadian ice breaker. and though each ship, the healy and the canadian ship has their own equipment to accomplish the mission, combining the efforts together provides better data and can certainly cover more area together. canada is expected to make its submission to the commission in december of 2013 so as to meet its deadline under the law of the sea. the united states, as i previously stated, will not be able to submit its claim, not until we ratify the law of the sea convention. i am pleased that ever so slowly -- and it does seem painfully slow at times -- the united states does seem to be waking up to the fact that we are indeed an arctic nation and an arctic

nation with responsibilities and obligations. i'm confident that with growing leadership in the congress, recognition within the administration, and from the arctic community at large, we can continue to highlight this strategic importance of the arctic for the united states. with that, i thank you for your attention this afternoon. john, i'm happy to take questions if that is appropriate, but delighted to be with you. thank you. [applause] >> she can briefly take questions. >> thank you for joining us today. it really is, no pun intended, a breath of fresh air to hear your views on this. the last two days we have talked about issues of national security. we have talked about financial security. we have talked about the very

interests that as a citizen i have for our country. you are a strong voice as a proponent of ratification for this treaty. what do you feel would be the most persuasive messages to get to senate so this street can be affirmed? >> there are several messages that i think need to be conveyed. i'm not going to tell you anything new. i will repeat the strength of what we have within this argument. when it comes to being a participant, when we talk about our ability as an arctic nation to allow for an extension to our area in the outer continental shelf, the only way we can do it is if we were a participant in the law the sea treaty. when we are talking about

environmental issues in the arctic, we need to recognize that the treaty that will govern the arctic nations is that of the law of the sea. that was set forth back in a couple of years ago. there is no need for an additional treaty. so, when we are talking about the additional stepped up activity in the arctic, i think that it is imperative -- and i'm speaking from an arctic specter. i think we recognize from national security issues there are many other reasons we look to the law of the sea treaty. from the arctic perspective, we are talking about environment, we are talking about safety of maritime activity. when we are talking about development of resources and really being able to define where our borders are, i think it is imperative that this

nation step forward, that the senate step forward with ratification of the law of the sea. i have urged many of you to not let back -- not let down -- in your advocacy on this issue. i know it can be somewhat discouraging when you don't see it being considered on the floor. we are obviously dealing with many, many weighty issues right now within the senate. but i think it is important that members in the senate realize that this issue does not go away. in fact, it becomes even more imperative as we see an area in the arctic that is ever expanding and truly evolving at this time. so keep up the advocacy. anyone else out there? >> what are the chances of

having this brought to the floor in a lame duck session after the november election? >> i don't know. i wish i had a crystal ball that was a little less foggy. anything is possible in a lame duck. but i will tell you, it will take, i believe, a real firm commitment from the administration saying this is a priority for us. at this point in time, as i have said, there is a little bit of a stalemate. the administration is looking to us to lead on it. we are looking to them. and neither one is kind of prepared to take that first step y yet. it is not for lack of commitment in the senate from the chairman and the ranking member on the foreign relations committee. chairman kerry and ranking member luger are both very committed, i think, in their

efforts on this issue. i don't mean to speak for them, but in my conversations they have been very strong advocates and agree that it is clearly in our best interests that we advance this. but it really does come down to making it a priority within the administration and we in the senate then finding that time, making that time on the senate calendar for the debate that will en ssue. over in the corner. >> senator, we appreciate your he will kweept advocacy for the arctic issues and law of the sea convention. i work for the coast guard and i know admiral allen has been appreciative of all you have done and continue to do. i have a question in terms of the practicality of dealing with some of the negativity from some on the concerning the

convention. what do you say to someone who writes to your office saying this is giving away to the united nations control over 70% of the world's surface or that the convention is going to permit the united nations to tax u.s. companies in an unprecedented manner? completely false, but still beliefs that are held by some. i know that former governor palin and the alaska legislature have supported the convention as you have. but i know that there are -- there must be people in alaska that say you are giving away the store. >> there are those, and they are not just in alaska, of course. you know that there are -- there is a group of folks out there, there is a whole lot of people who have their objections to the convention -- ratification of the convention of the law of the sea. what i remind people is often as i talk to them i realize that they are operating off of old

information. old information from back during reagan days. so, it is important that they fully understand what it is that we will have in front of us. as you say, the issue of taxation by the u.n. we recognize that is not correct. the myths need to be dispelled and the old history needs to be updated, which i i think -- which i think is very important. and again i think we need to remind individuals that have opposition that the arctic that we are seeing evolve today is different than it was during the reagan years, for instance. commandant allen has said we won't talk about the science, i don't know whether it is right or wrong but i know i have more

ocean up there and i'm in charge of. that is a fact. as we put it in in those terms and recognize again we are an arctic nation with obligations, with responsibilities. i think it is important that wawe convey the full current updated facts as it relates to what exactly we are talking about with rat if i kicks of the law -- with ratification of the law of the sea and dealing with an area that was only dreamed about being explored. the thought that we would have cruise ships steaming through the community of barrow is something i never thought i would see in my life and we are there now. so much of it is updating what is old information.

>> senator, back to oil exploration, how, if at all, do you think the current fiasco in the gulf of mexico affects the enthusiasm of your constituents for drilling on the north slope? i used to deal with the he is comos on the bowhead whaling issue and i understand the fragility of the eco system and how much they depend on that syste >> i believe what we are seeing in the gulf impacts not only drilling activity in the gulf of mexi mexico, close in and deep water, but i think it impacts the opportunities for off shoshore

throughout the country. i think it will have an impact on development of our energy policy. i would like to think as a consequence of this tragedy that we are seeing unfold in the gulf, we will learn from what has happened, but we will be thoughtful and considered in how we go forward and do so in a manner that is not reactionary. there is a lot of emotion that is attached to this disaster. 11 lives were lost. the environmental damage that we anticipate is unknown. there is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety out there. as an alaskan who has lived through great tragedy with the oil spill, with the exxon valdiz, we know it all well.

i do believe, though, that wae recognize that with exploration an teuactivity there will be ri. so, how can we work to minimize that risk? right now there is kind of a -- i won't say an impulse because it is more considered than that. i think it is appropriate at that time secretary put on pause if you will the permits that were pending for offshore. i am hopeful that the secretary and president will look at the differences that you have when you are phroerg 5,000 feet -- when you are exploring 5,000 feet below the water's surface versus what we would be doing in the arctic.

in the area that is being considered by shell we are considering drilling in the area of 150 to 200 feet. so the depth of water and the pressures are entirely different. when i spoke to commandant allen a couple of weeks ago and i compared the oil spill in the gulf to the exxon valdiz, he said no, lisa, it is more comparable to apollo 13. for us to be able to access and deal with and understand what is going on we may as well have been on the moon. where we will be operating hopefully in the area of sea it is in shallow enough waters that you can send a man down there to deal with, to check out and to inspect. i think it is appropriate to note, though, that after the

spill, shell, in their efforts to gain final approval to proceed up in alaska, went through not only a full on critical review of the plan they had proposed, they went beyond. they went beyond what was requested in their permit and have put in place some additional measures that they have identified in light of what they are seeing going on in the gulf of mexico. they have well control enhancements. they have enhancements in the blowout preventers. evaluating the risk-benefits of additional sheer rams. so you have greater redundancy. a remote hot stab system. redundancies in all aspects of the preservation components. in terms of of having the

capability to respond in in the event of a disaster, having the remote operating vehicles and divers there in a backup launch, having a prefabricated copper dome prestaged in alaska. they have looked at what is going on and said, ok, we are going to operating in an area that is remote. we are a long way from assets that you see more readily deployable in the gulf. how can we be prepared? if we were in this situation what would we do to respond? so, they have gone ahead and put in place these measures in anticipati anticipation. as i mentioned in my comments, there is probably not a permit under way for exploration drilling offshore in this nation right now that has met with more rigorous scrutiny, over years.

shell has been under way with this project attempting to get the permits for about three years now and have gone through as many courts as you and i would ever want to. the environmental reviews that have preceded it, in terms of a level of scrutiny -- because one of the big issues is was m.m.s. paying as close attention as they should have with not only technological failure but was their failure on the enforcement end and we need to know for sure that we are not opening the doors for something like that in alaska. as an alaskan and somebody who believes very strongly that we can develop or resources but who demands that it be done in a way that is balanced and accountable, we will not accept a level of risk that is not

tolerable. so, hopefully there will be lessons learned and done so in a positive way. but i do believe that this tragedy that we are seeing in the gulf will impact our energy policies as we develop forward. >> thank you for your wonderful leadership for alaska, for the north sea. you are a very fine alaskan who is involved. that was a person who had been in congress. [inaudible] he was a representative of the commerce department and the task force that did all of the work in the background and negotiation of the treaty. so you have the legacy of an alaskan, a very fine alaskan who did a superb job on the

background of the treaty. >> look forward to working with all of you. thank you, john. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house financial services chairman barney frank predicts the president will sign a financial regulations bill before the resource. he is joined by chris dodd outside the white house to talk with reporters following a meeting with president obama on the next step for the bill. the national passed its version thursday night 59-39.

this is almost 15 minutes. >> we have supported this landmark piece of legislation. the work that barney has done in the house of representatives and we look forward to take these two bills as barney has said. he has a wonderful sense of history. this is one of those rare occasions when the two bills are very close to each other. there is not a great deal of difference. we need to take the best parts of both bills and marry them and present our colleagues with our final product. but we believe that the public is correct in insisting we not leave them vulnerable to the same problems they witnessed over the last several years with too big to fail, too many jobs lost, too many homes lost, retirement incomes van rating. home values declining 30% or more and to give this country a

sense of confidence and optimism by the financial institutions. we need to harmonize these ideas. we have come to the recognition we no longer live in an isolated place and events that happen in small countries can have a huge impact on the globe. we need to work with global friends to make sure we have consistent and harmonized rules. it is a strong day for america. this was not a battle of democrats beating republicans. i'm grateful to many people who joined with us supporting the legislation. the hope is they will have more when we are done and it can be more bipartisan support. i'm very grateful to barney frank, the chairman of the house financial services committee. he has done a great job, strong bill, a good bill and again the combination of the best parts of both i think will make it better. >> i very much agree with the senator. i can't remember ever seeing two

major pieces of legislation, really historic pieces of legislation come out of the two houses so close. and that is not accidental. we have been working together on this since the crisis hit in 2008 and we worked and much of this by the way you can see shadowed that hank paulson made in march of 2008. the dissolution authority and how we deal with that. unfortunately. it didn't always carry through. senator dodd thanked the four republicans that voted for the bill in the senate. i would thank the republicans who voted in the house if there were any and i would hold out to them the prospect of being thanked if any of them break party discipline and vote how i know they want to vote but are intimidated from doing so. we will have a conference, i think, that will work well. it will be conducted the formal

parts in public. that means no agreements, no compromises will be made part of anything without being publicly presented and voted on and discussed. i understand the urgency for the financial stability of the country in getting this done quickly. knowing what is going on is important. i think that people can be pretty confident. it is hard for me to think it will take this more than a month. i believe the president will be able to sign this before we leave. one other thing is this suggestion that, well, you solved some of the problems before, what about the future. we are well aware of this. this is a bill that does deal with -- and part of what we have to deal with is the recurring thing that comes up in our economy of new phenomena that haven't been dealt with. we deal with securitization without suppressing it. we regulate credit default swaps

for the first time but we don't just look at what was. we know we have an industry that will innovate and that will try to get around some of these things. so, in addition to putting resumes in place for with -- in addition to putting rules in place for what we have seen we have instructed the regulators going forward and given them principles so that they will be able to deal with new phenomena. this is not a static bill. this is a framework that allows for appropriate innovative regulation going forward that will meet innovative activity. >> the bankers still seem to think they can strip out some of the most onerous conventions to them in the conference. >> i woepuldn't basically take lot of investment advice from those banks if they are not better at that than politics. >> what did the president tell you? >> he congratulated senator dodd because he just got the bill through and getting things through in the senate is a little more differ but there is

one point. in someone situation he had a advantage over me. i want to address a cynical view of american politics which you quoted correctly which is the big banks do it. last year when the house debated the bill healthcare was taking up most of the attention. so, the bill was almost an inside game. healthcare having been done, this year the senate conducted its bill in full public light and you saw that. the big banks didn't win anything that they should not have won. they were not able to block anything they should not. anything looking for a tkphapbgs that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. look at the contrast. there were a couple of votes on the floor last year with regard to derivatives where i was on the losing side and i believe i would win today because of this. but i will say the older assumptions that the big money gets everything they want it is very hard to see how anybody can

look at the process in the senate and not realize informed public opinion working with the senate leadership prevailed. >> did you tell the president you would have a bill before the july 4 recess? >> i believe we would. >> did you tell the president that? >> yes. he is listening now. >> they are going to have a conference and there is no point in getting national weeds with you. -- in addition the weeds. >> senator dodd and i are two members of a conference committee. this is going to be an open process. we can't dictate to people. >> that is what i was going to say there. >> we are going to have a conference. we can't pre-conference it. when you are dealing with a conference you are dealing with a bunch of things that are interrelated and it is also the case we want to get into the conference process in which we

all are going to be talking about it. so these things will be discussed and i will guarantee you this. whatever the final resolution of any of these issues is, they will be presented publicly in conference and they will be subject to votes. >> let me mention something. i should have mentioned harry reid because he allowed a process to go forward. i know everybody is focused on the details and that is the most important. but the senate did something it hasn't in a long time. as someone who is in the last 30 or 40 legislative days to watch the senate over a four-week period have 60 amendments considered on the floor half of which were adopted, which for the first three weeks it was a 50 votes and 51 votes that got it adopted or defeated, that had not been done in a long time. and complaints about the point barney is making. there were members who said if it is a fair and open process that will mean a lot. i think it did to several members. where it bill includes a lot of ideas that were offered by

republicans and democrats, a long process. many, many months. but i think it is important that the public understand exactly not just in a conference where people can watch what happens but on the floor of the senate there was a full-throated debate of ideas and decisions made about accepting or rejecting those ideas. that is terribly important that the institution of the congress of the united states can conduct that kind of open full debate and produce the results we did. >> let me reinforce that. because good news sometimes is taken for granted. when there are procedural issues they become major. this was a very open process in the senate and house. we had more time to do it in committee but we had a lot of mark-ups and again lots of amendments, republican amendments adopted. you look at the house and senate together this was exactly the way the legislative process is supposed to work at its most open and i do think that

contributed to our being able to get it through. >> when you passed the bill in the house the obama administration had not yet endorsed the advocate rule. do you think the house will be comfortable with the advocate rule -- >> let me repeat. senator dodd can interrupt me. we are not going to be talking peels by piece -- piece by piece. we are the chairs but there will be other members and we will discuss and there is no point -- it wouldn't be appropriate to try to dictate to the conference before we have it. we want to have our own process. >> i'm not asking about your opinion. i'm asking is your sense of the house that the house would be comfortable with -- >> if i'm not going to speaker me i'm sure as hell not going to speak for the house. the greater includes the less. the answer is we will see about

it. again, it will be open. you will get those answers and you will get them in the process where it is not just me and senator dodd and there will be other members, house, senate, republicans, democrats. that is the way it is supposed to work. >> the u.s. chamber says the bill is too tough and will kill credit and jobs. what would you say to that? >> if i could arrange a tour for them to say that in eight places in my district i would be grateful. >> the status quo, a lot of jobs because what they did or didn't do. accept million homes have -- seven million homes have been lost because of what they did or didn't do. so it is a rather arrogant statement for the chamber to make about what the implications are considering what at the cost us because of what they did and didn't do. >> i will tell you when senator dodd and i were about to become chairs of these -- these

committees, the chamber had a big forum that i spoke at because one of my democratic cheeks asked me to and they were asking for further did he regulation. the argument then was we had overregulated the economy and everybody was going to go to england to get the light touch from the financial services authority. and so the fact is they just have been wrong on this. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it is a conference that are publicly open. there is nothing that would lead to a closed conference. the conference will be conducted under the rules that allow any immediate ymedium to cover that.

this is a chance for the staff to be working, so i would say the house apnd senate maybe the first week back we will have the first session to get all of the opening statements and things out of the way. >> thank you. >> now we talk with a capitol hill reporter about the week ahead for congress. >> john shaw of market news international. a couple of timely spending bills coming up in congress next we week. one is commonly referred to as the tax extender's legislation. what is in that? >> much of the year congress has been focused on healthcare and financial services reform and it is now getting to sort of the meat and potatoes of what it is supposed to tdo including both tax measures and spending. on the house side they will take

up about a $200 billion package of tax cuts and benefit extensions. this will include about extending about a dozen tax cuts that expired at the end of last year, extending unemployment insurance, extending some health insurance subsidies for unemployed workers, and providing states medicaid funds for states that very much need the funds. the package will allow states to avert a 20% cut in medicare reimbursement for doctors. this $200 billion package will hit the house floor next week. it will -- there will be some controversy because only about $60 billion of the panel is paid for -- of the package is paid for with revenue enhancements. so there are going to be a lot of people that will raise questions about whether there is affordable given the nation's fiscal situation. >> that is what the house will start with next week. in the senate, they are dealing

with the war spending bill. what are key issues there? >> it is about $45 billion and much is for funding the expansion of the war in afghanistan including the president's surge of about 30,000 additional troops, and also for some of the reconstruction and security measures in iraq. so, that makes up the bulk of the $45 billion. there are much smaller items that are relevant including the request of about $125 million for the gulf of mexico oil spill and also some relief money for haiti and allocates about $5 million to fema. >> who are some of the opponents to this war spending bill? >> well, i think that probably not many direct opponents but there are going to be people that will try to add. iowa senator tom harkin wants to add about $23 billion in state

aid so the funds can be used to help teachers and to avoid layoffs of teachers. there are some republicans who have signaled they want to have a good chunk of this bill offset certainly anything spent beyond the funding on the wars of iraq and afghanistan. so, in this bill you will have a lot of discussion about the nation's fiscal situation and whether or not any of these spending measures and tax measures on the house side should be paid for. >> there is a sense of timeliness to both bills next week. >> right. on the tax side you have a lot of provisions that expired and you need to get moving because congress is about to begin its memorial day recess. likewise on the spending bill front and secretary of defense mr. gates has gone to the congressional leaders and said he needs these moneys very soon. so, the majority leader harry reid has said it is very important for the national to pass the emergency bill next

week. >> a look ahead to the week in congress with john shaw with market news international. thanks for the update. >> thank you. .