things, but what you don't have is knowledge and experience on how this town and how this place works. so, those freshmen are looking for somebody with knowledge and experience. with 87 new republican freshmen you cannot just take from a current staff, not enough. yet to get some from somewhere else but i do not see it as such an awful thing. host: we set the table and brought his way -- your thoughts on the tax cuts and your concerns about the deficit and the dead and talk about the organization of a new congress. let us get our viewers. we will begin from a republican caller named charlie from citrus county, florida. turndown that tv volume and go ahead. caller: good morning. this question is to mr. campbell. i just wanted tell you. i am an immigrant, 60 -- 62 years in this country. i am republican but the politicians should be working

together, whether republican, independent, and democrat. using more common sense -- education is wonderful. president truman had no college education but he ran this country to the best of his ability. i think a lot of the people, they go on well for, they should be taken off -- not to pay them but let the government create jobs. let them go to work. if your family needs $500 a week or $500 a war, let them work for 200 or 300 and give them the balance. what happens, they stay home, create problems, they get drunk. host: i will jump in. you have given us a couple of issues. concern about people working together and talking about government creating jobs. guest: first of all, on working together, starting january 5 you

have a republican-controlled house, democratic controlled senate with a lot of republicans in it, and then you have obviously a democratic president for two years. we've got to work together. the simple math of the way government works. so, we've got to work together. i don't like this tax deal. it does not mean i did not think we should not have a tax bill. we should agree on something. i just believe that in order to get what we republicans believe we ought to have -- and we believe that just not raising taxes, making these to permit tax rates, leaving them alone andin order to get that, in my view, we gave up too much. we are going to significantly worsen the deficit. if this tax bill was not to go through, we still have to sit down at the table and figure

something out. we should not let taxes go off on people. government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. government does not create productivity. the private sector creates things. this is one place where i disagree with much of the policies of the president. it seems many of the job creation programs is the government create temporary jobs. what i believe we should be doing is creating an environment -- what government should be doing -- is creating an atmosphere under which the private sector feels more comfortable creating jobs. those jobs are longer lasting. in the end, we need to get money to pay for these jobs, so you cannot get the two out of balance. host: detroit is next. caller: i could not agree with

you more about the government not creating jobs. however, i do disagree highly about taxation, in terms of republicans. they use language very well, they say we do not want to see taxes raised for anyone, which is true, but the problem is, the wealthy have a different tax rate. of course, it would not be a benefit to them. i would challenge you, go back ally whatus historic ple taxes in the past did for us. it worked extremely well in the 1950's. could you comment on that?

guest: i did not bring the exact statistics with me, so i will have to quote it from memory. high income individuals, they are paying a greater share of taxes today than they have at any time. they are now paying the highest share of taxes. that is without raising their taxes more relative to everyone else. so, i think, the argument that people of some accomplishment that have been successful enough to make $250,000 a year and up, that these people are not paying their fair share is wrong. if you believe that they should pay 75%, that is fine.

you are welcome to that opinion. but, historically, they are paying more than they ever have. secondly, if he wants to create jobs, -- you want to create jobs -- because a lot of these are small businesses. income flows through on tax returns, individual tax returns. that means taxes are paid for by the individual. so a lot of this is small business passing through. i have been a small business owner. you can make money by reinvesting. if you want to hire more employees, you need more capital in the business. so when you take this money away

from people, you are taking away the potential capital from which they can grow the business and hire people. if you want better paying jobs, you are not going to get it from people making that amount of money or less. you will get it from people making more than that that set up the business that hires those people. i understand the idea that people should pay more and more, but it will actually work against job creation. rather than having an emotional reaction, let us think about how we can better create jobs. host: based on your explanation of the share of taxes, you are comfortable than with this chart -- this is from "the washington post" this morning -- showing

the largest parts of the push tax cuts recipients -- bush tax cuts. guest: let me tell you why i completely disagree with the premise on which that kind of charge is made. that is how much money they are going to get from taxes. from the tax decrease -- extending a tax cut. it is not a decrease. to have that kind of analysis, you have to assume all money earned is the property of the government, and the government allows you to keep the percentage they desire. so this is basically saying, we

the government are allowing the people to keep more of their money because we are entitled to it all. that is not the way i look at it. the way i look at it is the product of people's intellect, sweat, risk-taking, the money a long as to them. the idea of leaving people with their own money is somehow a gift to them is absolutely wrong and completely backwards. that is where i disagree with that chart and agree with those charts that show a percentage of their income as a percentage of

their total revenue to the government. host: richard in massachusetts. independenct. caller: i listen to this congressman talk about getting together, but the problem is, they do not listen to the people. do you know how many times i have called my congressman, senator, do you know how many times i have called my governor? i get nothing. he is in committee. he is doing this. they give me the runaround and i get so aggravated. my vote does not even count. host: what is an example of one issue you called about? caller: i called about social security. i was a firefighter for 34

years. i am 66 years old. i get a pension. when i get my social security now -- this month is my first check -- they took 50% because they said i had a pension. i said to the woman, who gets the other share of the money? she said, somebody who needs it. that was a slap in my face. i go to work for $9 an hour now. they do not care about us. guest: let me respond to social security. it is interesting what has happened. when from the roosevelt set up social security, it was not a wealth transfer program, a program of subsidy or anything

like that. individuals paid in an amount of money, and they got the amount they paid in back, no more, no less. it is increasingly becoming a subsidy program, where people who do not pay in do not necessarily get what they paid. and that is actually a distortion of the original intent of the program, back when it was put in place in the roosevelt administration. i agree with you, but one of the things is, social security is bankrupt. we are going to have to make some major reforms to it, or it will be gone. the good things about the

deficit commission is, they have made it safe to talk about the third rail of politics. if we leave social security alone, it will fail. we have to make changes. that is the debate we are going to have. talking about listening to people -- two comments. if you look at the last two other actions, in 2006, 2008, republicans were swept out of office, out of the white house, out of congress. to me, that shows the vibrancy of our democracy. we republicans were not listening, so they threw us out. now they believe that democrats

are not listening, so they want to throw them out. that is as it should be. as a member of congress, obviously, you get a lot of input. you often hear from people, i am a constituent and i want a, and you are not listening to me. but for every constituent, there are other opinions. there is no unanimous view of anything. we have to make a choice of what is best. for example, with this tax cut deal, i believe it is a bad deal for america and will result in an increase in the deficit and a lot of bad things. does that mean that people like it? you have to put a stake in the ground where you believe is best, what is best for your

constituents. and if they do not like it, they will have the chance to replace me. host: dean from colorado writes in -- guest: ok, and this person's point is? host: that they are not overtaxed. guest: we need to separate these into two camps. corporate taxes that pay the corporate tax rate. we have the second highest corporate tax rate of any industrial country on earth. part of the reason we are losing jobs to other countries is not because of low wages all the time. in fact, i know a number of instances where companies have

moved overseas, having nothing to do with low wages. we can compete, even with higher wages, against any other country on earth, for most jobs. but if the tax situation is substantially different, that is where we are losing jobs. we cannot have the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. i understand the feeling of some people, but it is the old saying, you cannot like employees and eight employers. if you want jobs, you have to create an environment in which employers can get a benefit from hiring people. -- like employees and hate

employers. host: next phone call from san antonio. caller: congressman, you sound great, but nobody is saying that we need to cut the size of government. we can pay a janitor through the private system $30,000, and the same guy in the public system makes $60,000. this is something that we are not even talking about, paying for government employees. there is a saying, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, but the rich do not set the tax rate. only government does. so is the government making the poorer.r when you take more money out of

that business guy, whatever product he sells, he is going to raise the cost. so who is paying for those taxes at that guy is complaining about? no one seems to be explaining that. i would love to hear more about that. guest: i agree with everything you just said, so we will not have much of an argument there. we are talking about the size and cost of government. that is what republicans campaigned on. that is why we have 87 new freshmen. now we need to deliver that. talk is one ban, but now we need to deliver. -- one thing, but now we need to

deliver. what did the president say the other day, i am itching for a fight? i hope that we do not end up with a big fight. i hope we can agree that increasing the cost and size of government is not a good thing, that we have to start getting the deficit under control. i have to believe the deficit and debt is the single greatest threat to this country. great civilizations collapse from within. weekend collapse of ourselves from within if we do not tackle this. -- we can collapse ourselves from within, if we do not tackle this. host: we have that clip of the president itching for a fight.

>> i would be happy to see the republicans test whether or not i am itching on a fight on a range of issues. i suspect they find that i am. and i think the american people will be on my side on a lot of these. but right now, i want to make sure that the american people are not hurt because we are having a political fight, and this agreement accomplishes that. and there are a bunch of things that they are giving up. from the republican perspective, the earned income tax credit, the college tuition tax credit, the child tax credit, all those things that are so important for some many families, those are things that they really opposed. so temporarily, they are willing to go along with that, presumably, because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two

years. host: can you give people a sense of what you see in these planning meetings? what will the next six months look like in this town? guest: i think we are likely to lock horns with the president in the next six months, in fact, in the next three, four months. that will probably set the stage for the rest of this congress. when the president said that -- i never doubted that. the president has his own opinion, he is well rooted in them. i expect him to defend them. i am well rooted in mind. i intend to defend my own ideas. that is politics, that is democracy, that is government. he presents his position, we

present hours, we battle it out in the court of opinion, and we see where it goes. i have often said, when we were in the minority -- actually, when we were in the majority -- democrats are just sniping at you. tot is the minority's job, criticize when they think you are wrong and then to offer an alternative. that is what we tried to do the last few years. i have had a feeling that we will be clashing on spending. i had first thought that it would come in the summer, but things are shaping up, perhaps in march.

host: in "the washington times" -- this is not the first time congress has tried, and the pressure over the weekend builds. guest: so far, by the way, reaction for this calendar has been praised. i think the mistake that the pelosi calendar made is there were five-day work weeks but not much time in the districts. in the end, -- when i am in

washington, i see washington media, i listen to washington radio, but i do not represent washington, and i do not think my constituents want me to represent washington. i cannot represent them if i am never home. i think we need bigger breaks. when we are in washington, the there for longer periods of time, more time to get stuff done, but then have more full weeks where we are back in the districts to talk to our constituents, listen to our constituents, and remember that is where we live. otherwise, we will not represent where we come from. host: next phone call from st. charles, missouri. democrat line.

caller: you seem like a nice man but i have a problem with your party. it seems you all are not interested in governing, only turning it over to the private sector. they want everything in private hands, medicaid, medicare advantage. it costs them another 17% for them to administer the program. if the republicans were interested in lowering the deficit, they would eliminate tax cuts for the rich. over $700 billion, which we borrowed from china, is the cost of these tax cuts. thank you. guest: i suppose some people might say that democrats want to

turn everything over to the government, republicans want to turn everything over to the private sector, and neither is it true, but there is a debate between the two where we draw that line. that is what the debate is about. no question, republicans believe, the private-sector, because of the accountability of it, because of competition, if you do not perform, you will go out of business. the private sector -- because of that incentive -- does things more effectively and efficiently than government. that said, because there are certain things where we are interested in public policy, we do not want it all about efficiency. so therefore, we have a

government aspect involved but they are out there to achieve some public purpose. so where do we draw that line? i believe we have gone too far toward the public sector and it is costing the effectiveness of government programs. they are not helping people like they should because they are not effective or efficient. i will come back to something that i keep on mentioning. $700 billion on the tax cuts, maintaining the current rates for people making over $250,000 a year, $700 billion is the estimate. actually, i do not think it will cost anywhere near that amount. the tax deal they put together earlier this week is estimated to cost $900 billion over two

years, not 10. of that, less than 10% of it has anything to do with people making $250,000 a year. many of these are not tax cuts at all, they are direct payments from the government. host: joan from randolph, vermont asks in e-mail -- guest: 12, i am going to say there was job growth -- well, i am going to say there was job growth, up until 2007. a lot of that job growth came

after 2001 and 2003 when all the tax cuts went into place, in spite of 9/11 coming in, which was a great shock to the economy. from an economic sense, remember how bad the economy was in october, november, december of 2001 because of external influence? they did provide jobs. now what is happening is this uncertainty being created out there is costing jobs. businesses are afraid. there is a lot of cash out there, but they are afraid to invest it because they do not know what the regulations will be, whether they can get a return. those are the things we need to create certainty about. host: arlington, texas. tom, you are next. caller: this guy and every other

republican says that the government does not create jobs. tell that to all the people that make the bombs, tanks, ships, everything else the government uses, the military uses. he is a liar, a bald faced liar. that is all there is to it. guest: well, ok, tom. when i say government does not create jobs, where does government create the money to create jobs? they have to tax the private sector. that is where they get the money to pay for those things, unless we borrow it. unfortunately, that is what we're doing now. we are borrowing a $0.46 on every dollar that we are spending. i understand there is a lot we

need to make for the military, but $0.46 of every dollar is being borrowed right now, and that is unsustainable. nobody disagrees with that. at some point, they are going to stop lending us money. you cannot tax the people at boeing enough to pay for boeing, if that makes sense. host: our last caller for you is from asheboro, north carolina. ann. caller: good morning. you have hit on a lot of things. you touched on capital investment, credits, deductions for businesses. i would be surprised if a good accountant, if they do not get

that net income as low as they -- and we allusiness pay taxes on our net income -- the problem is the accountant works for the business. in other words, businesses try to punt everything back into their business >> we go live now to the british news program "bbc newsnight." this is live coverage on c-span. >> did the authority to underestimate the scale of the protest? we'll also hear from the architects of the plan to make students pay more. hear, the diversity minister

faces students. it has been an extraordinary day and night london. >> it does not look like this will be the last battle. >> from the slums of london? how did expect us to pay -- what is stopping us from protesting on the streets? >> we are live from the london school of economics. >> it is not always apparent what it is for. >> good evening. the day began with peaceful

protests and descended into the kind of trouble rarely seen in britain. protestors were arrested. government buildings were vandalized. the heir to the throne was caught up in the violence. we will get reaction to tonight's seen from david willis. debatedparliament mp's increases in tuition fees. when it came to the vote, the vote by liberal democrats meant the measure passed by 21 votes. the report contains flash photography. >> tonight substantial parts of central london have franklin then out of control. -- frankly, of control, with some of the most serious acts on

the british state since the war. hundreds of students and other protesters attacked her majesty's treasury, mashing windows. riot police stopped a full-scale invasion of the building. the supreme court was also a target. also under siege, the heir to the throne, prince charles. on oxford street, and mobile phone captured the moment when they attack the car carrying charles and camilla. the couple looked terrified and it shows how one of the windows was smashed and the car was hit with paint. >> they were kicking the door.

i saw them smashed the windows. >> the scene on the streets today, the appalling level of violence has nothing to do with peaceful protest. attacks on officers and property showed that protesters had no respect for londoners, and the police have done a tough job today in difficult circumstances. we thank them for their professionalism to keep london streets and students say. peaceful protest is acceptable. violent protests and criminal damage are not. trouble >> in central london began brewing this morning before that debate started. as mantled -- as mounted police still try to stop police -- students from protesting it outside the parliament.

inside, a secretary felt almost as a beleaguered as he struggled against intervention to make his case of raising the cap on tuition fees to 9,000 pounds a year. >> we could have made the decision to cut the number of university students, cut the funding to universities without replacing it, but instead, we have all heard for a policy that provides a strong-based university funding which makes a contribution to reducing the deficit and introduces a significantly more progressive payment. i am proud to put forward that measure. >> for labour, the mp encouraged others to follow his example.

>> it is very hard to stand aside with friends and colleagues with whom you have shared a battle. after you did you realize it was not half as bad as you realize it would be before you did it. the gains far outweigh any position loss. the truth is that any generous political party, and mine is not the only one, there is usually a way back. mr. speaker, this matter, this decision matter so much to so many people. if you do not believe the net, voted against it. -- if you do not believe in it, against it. >> members of parliament inside could not see outside.

>> it is not too late. there needs to be a rethink. there needs to be a proper review of how we can come up with the best system for higher education, and indeed, education in this country. >> i ask people to look again and think again and come back to this issue next year when we can have a proper conversation, because we only get to do this once. if we see that principal at 9,000 pounds, i'm concerned about the message that sends. >> after five hours of passionate exchanges, they voted. >> the ayes, 323, nos to the left, 302. >> a majority of 21. a quarter of what it should be,

indicating significant numbers of rebels in both governing parties. around half of all the mp's back leadership. meanwhile, six conservatives voted against the government and two abstained. as a result, some have resigned their posts. in the and, as expected, the government wanted a vote with reasonable comfort, and tuition feels are probably the most difficult issue on the coalition's immediate agenda. business managers will be aware that nearly 10% of the today failed tos

support the government. >> the votes in parliament may not deter her trusts -- protests. many demonstrations are inspired by what happened with the poll tax 20 years ago. that was agreed by mp's, but ministers eventually ditched it. >> we have just at the latest update on injuries after the disturbances. 43 protesters attended hospitals. 12 officers have been injured, with six requiring hospital treatment. we will go through the issue later on, but let's deal with the protests.

do you think they were prepared for this? >> >> i saw the metropolitan police preparing, and we knew that these protests look as if they were violent, and in some cases, a very violent, and people will be very shocked by what they saw. the police did an incredibly professional job in difficult circumstances, and many of the students who came wanted to protest peacefully, and it is such a tragedy that a small number of violent protesters can really completely spoil what should have been an opportunity for people to express their views. >> what you think of the point -- >> i am not sure about that. it does not seem to me that we're in the same situation. we are talking about something that is a reform proposal, and i do not think that these protests -- they are not something that

can be sustained because i do not believe the underlying grievance -- >> you do not believe their position can be altered? >> we have had the shopping violent protests by people who are not willing to participate in the normal democratic protests. >> what do you make of what happened in regent street, because apparently, the car was attacked from all directions? >> one should be very careful on commenting on operational matters. please have a difficult job to do across london on a day like this where we know that the protesters break up into different groups. >> he was taken right into the heart of the demonstration. should there have been an inquiry about that?

>> it is not right for a politician to sit here and making any judgment on the police. the police i saw being incredibly resilient and despite an extraordinary courage in the situation where protesters were behaving with extreme violence. >> thank you. the protesters urged on the capitol today. paul mason spent the day with some of the protesters. >> they began the day knowing it would be decisive. with up to 22 days here, they're thinking about bigger things than parliament. >> it showed on the people that if you are against what is being done, and you are organized, and you are public, then government listens to you. that message has been so strong

that people will follow it. there is a big backlash. and you can see it. the student movement is at the forefront of that. >> if it is about anybody, it is about people like chris, a student who just turned up from lincoln on his own. >> for me, being in debt is not being able to be free and been able to make choices. do i go to the university or not? why get a job at the end of that? >> you might not go? >> i might not go. i'm looking at different ways. i come from and not great, not brilliantly well off background. >> by lunchtime, and upwards of

20,000 people like him were marching to the streets of london. the official leaders of the protest could not bring themselves to take part. others thought they have changed the game of politics under the coalition. >> what has changed here -- people felt if there was no alternative, you cannot resist the government. it was an opportunity to change what was happening to the agenda. that is what was happening. people think it is possible. >> the driving force -- >> we are deferring to them. they are the ones who are immediately be impacted. they are the ones who are panicking about the impact of that huge amounts of debt if they have a university

education. >> when the march reached parliament, it reached a dead end. nobody knew where it should go. >> there is no where for it to go. [unintelligible] >> this is where the police began to lose control. soon there were skirmishes in front of parliament. with the majority -- the majority did not want the skirmish. they wanted to dance. this is the unlikely force that blew a hole in the coalition, and the first time many of them will get to vote will be the next general election. when students tried to break away from parliament, police

began a battle that lasted long into the night. police charged repeatedly into the crowd. protesters attack, through pain, and objects. -- threw paint and objects. at times the crowd over whelm the police. -- overwhelmed the police. the police suffered numerous casualties. through all, a sense of a -- the slums of london. how do they expect us to pay university fees and keep us in college? what is stopping us to protest in the streets? nothing. >> it is quite bad for the coalition government because the people here on the street, and fuel view of the cameras, or

ordinary young british people. they're going to have to pay for their education. the streets around whitehall passing classes before, and student movements, but never before has the government majority teetered under the pressure of a movement of protesters. >> the architects of the rise in tuition fees is a liberal democrat. i spoke to him or earlier. now people know that liberal democrats cannot be trusted? >> that is not correct at all. we had an agreement. we're implementing that agreement. we knew it was not going to be possible to deliver the commitment on tuition fees. we had a challenge which we responded to which was to enact policies which were to reduce the deficit while providing otherwise the fund universities.

also, to change the system we inherited from labour to make it more progressive, more are related to people possibility to pay. we have done these things in difficult circumstances. >> esther nick clegg -- yesterday nick clegg justin this is a way to work with the coalition. what happened? >> we are not in an ideal world. we're in a tough financial environment, where there are difficult, painful cuts. >> before the election, liberal democrat mp'voteds against tuition fees. is that because you believed in it or you thought you would never get into power and were never going to have actually stick to your principles? >> we all signed up to that.

>> did you agree to it? >> i supported my party's policies. >> you agree to getting rid of fees? >> i supported my party boss policies. we had to make compromises and we did make compromises. we knew that the tuition fee was going to be seen as a difficult choice. we agree to tied to make situation fairer. that is the issue i voted on, not on what happened nine months ago. >> it is inconvenient to remember, but the problem is that the liberal democrats then -- isn't it interesting that the democrats in power voted for

the policy, the liberal democrats not an hour, the biggest rebellion, and you could not care your party with you? >> no, could not carry all the party with us. a substantial number voted against it. we knew it was going to be one of the most difficult challenges we would have to face. i inherited a system based on tuition fees that were almost certainly going to rise substantially. the last time the government was committed to making deep cuts in my department, tuition fees were wrong to rise, my job was to try to make the system fairer, better, and that is what i have -- >> if you cannot convince your 0 backers, you can hear the noise outside. people see it as a betrayal of

principle. the liberal democrats have failed. >> no, the first as we had was joining the coalition, and it was difficult because if you remember the context, the country needed stable government. there was a financial emergency. the first big test we made was entering into a coalition by accepting compromises from things we believed in and were very committed to. >> this of the first evidence of the impact of that, and surely the evidence is liberal democrats is the guys in power and the guys on the back benches, and you are split now and this but will continue. >> no, it is not correct. we're sick of a deadly struggle. we have met several times in the last few days to debate how should be with us. people have strong views. we are still colleagues.

we got to work together as a team. there's no permanent division. >> you have got their fingers crossed on that. >> my colleagues are fully committed to the coalition government, including those who voted against it. >> the assertion that this will actually be good for poor students, because poor students are -- and what you are doing is condemning them to decades of debt and that would put a lot of them off from going to the university. >> that is absolutely wrong. we have built into this policy a series of commitments that that that will not happen. first of all, low-income graduates will not pay any contributions. we have lifted the threshold to 21,000. if people graduate they are low income, unemployed -- >> with this taking over their heads?

>> roughly half will not have to pay because of their ability to pay. some loans are not a commercial scale. people buying mortgages are not affected by it anyway. what will also help is low income families and other ways, the scholarship skiing, it will help with that. the available the of grants. the system is made considerably more progressive than it was. >> thank you very much. after the vote and the trouble, what happens now to the student movement? matt? >> this is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and all evening people have been coming back from the protest, students filing through

here through the entrance of the university at appear on the right is where they have been occupying for the past week. it has not distracted studies here. the british students have occupied this room here. as you can see here, is where they have been preparing. and in here now, they have been glued to the tv coverage tonight, seeing how it is going down. we have a group of them here to see how they feel about how processed -- protest is going. that's become one of the organizers. let me ask you, how the field as a protest that began as a peaceful protest against tuition fees and the headlines you're watching tonight, attacks on

shops and attacks on charles and camilla? how do you feel about it? >> i think it has been completely under reported. i did not have a glass of water. i did not see anything from kabul hot until 6:00. the only reason i went out at 6:00 is i faked a panic attack. it is not student violence. it is the reaction to the fact that we were stuck like i do not know how we were lawful that we were stuck there for so long. there were parents and tourists there. >> did you see people attacking the police? >> i saw people not moving when they were being pushed. yes, of course, people retaliated. they're angry.

i am out there protesting for them. it is a passionate issue. people are passionate and may have been a bit rough, but we are not terrorists. >> the police disagree with that account. >> the police -- a protest was a success. even after the vote, we were going to be there, still protests, still show we were on did everything we can to oppose this as much as possible. >> is the occupation of this part of the university, is this over now? no. what do you do now? >> asks the student union --

[unintelligible] >> so you are not moving from anywhere? there is a group here from sheffield, and they are going nowhere. thank you. >> we are joined from someone from the university of manchester. before i come to pick up on -- what was said there, she knows her brother custody of thursday, and they are going to carry on. >> i they are not going to pay the fees. the tax payers will provide the money for students. no family is going to have to reach into their back pocket. when they graduate, at that

point, that they will make a contribution. i do not think that should be -- i very much hope that it will not deter her brothers from going to the university. >> that is exactly the point. people will be deterred from going to university because of the perception of the headlines be. the question is about whether -- is quite clear from the point -- the protest that they did not. >> you have to find your living. >> you end up with that 50,000 by the time you leave the university. >> i have a problem with it. it makes me feel like i do not have the freedom to go do what i want to do. >> if you look at a three-year

course, is to and on that course cannot expect to graduate with up to 40,000 pounds of debt. i do not call that progress of. you might argue. being in debt for 30 years is not progressive. you said yourself a short while ago, universities have not made the case for being able to charge higher fees. as these have gone up over the last decade, the quality of our education has not gone up. are you telling me that would be troubling of fees -- >> you have put your finger on one of the key challenges. i do think there is an issue about universities providing high-quality teaching experience. i do not think they always do at the moment.

there are large numbers of students who do not think they get enough contact time in academics. they do think that the big-name professors are not around to teach them very much. we do want to see that change. i think that these provoke -- these proposals will address precisely that issue. >> you are replacing state funding by pushing the cost on to the students. >> it is not on the student. it is a contribution from a graduate. the money should come through the choice of this did it. what this will do -- what i want to see it is universities thinking, what exactly is the teaching experience that we offer prospective students? how can we make sure that it is world class?

they will not be able to get money. >> universities have low standards of teaching. they have -- that is not going to change. it can rely on having loads of students applying. students are angry that the grants in social sciences are looking to be cut by one under%. we are angry about that. i ended up being crushed in to police barriers. we are angry about the social science is being cut. is it acceptable that we are being treated in this way? >> a number of officers were

injured as well. >> sadly, innocent people who wish to protest democratically have been caught up in violent protests. a small proportion of the people are demonstrating. i think you are a bit harsh. the director wants to focus more on the teaching experience. we are not against social sciences. these are changes that offer across all disciplines. i am not trying to the students that -- to pick the subjects that students should do. >> thank you very much. fees andising tuition the cuts in direct funding are likely to have a profound effect on universities in england.

how will the culture on campus change? >> there is a joke -- if an experiment is green, it is biology. if it stinks, it is chemistry. if it does not work, it is this 6. -- it is physics. that is hard to calibrate, but academics here are clear on one thing, it is very much an experiment. >> the government is so radically changing the rules that we do not know what it will look like. >> focusing on the rise in tuition fees, it distorts the wider picture. if the fees that students will be charged, does that mean that places like this will not be

awash with cash? that extra income from students will be offset to buy reduction in the amount of money that comes from general taxation. at present, universities get paid by central government per student. the top vent for courses like medicine and dentistry pays a 14.5000 per student per year. the lowest band, arts and humanities, only gets 2,641 pounds per student per year. look at what the changes will mean it. in the future, that hotbed has been cut. the bottom band goes to zero. the government will not be helping to fund those courses at all. when tuition fees were set at their current levels back in 2004, they were referred to as fees. now there is no government

contributions to talk up. the professor is the principle between mary university of london. he is concerned that there will be too much in this is on earnings and not enough on learning. >> i think we should be asking the question, what is the fundamental purpose of higher education? it is to improve individuals employability, but there are bigger functions than that. we become too focused on it university skills, and increasing income. it should also be about the benefit to society. >> how might this impact to comes to university? what courses they choose? >> students are not only going to -- they are going bare to

learn a subject that they love. if there week -- if there will be a rise in tuition fees, the majority of students will work only to improve their future yield of income. >> i am worried about the nature of this policy. it seems to me like a rather huge gamble with a future hedged bets in a progressive direction around the edges. a gamble which the government cannot assure us how it will turn out. we can plan for the various outcomes. we can conjecture and duke market analysis. we can do planning budgets for the next couple of years. we do feel that this is not necessarily -- this is an unnecessarily large gamble. >> the farmers' market at queen mary suggest a more

businesslike administration looking for ways of maximizing revenue. the students who chose this institution a workshop in for an education, spending their own cash. a couple of decades ago, the state experiments was to preserve now it is part of a lives of half of young people. the result of these current changes will be a further move toward commercialization. >> there is no problem with the verdict -- universities be more businesslike. they are not businesses. there are core values that will continue for hundreds of years. those are to do what the generation of new knowledge, the creation of knowledge, the dissemination of knowledge through multiple channels. there is a risk in the current debates about forgetting that this court values. >> what impact of the changes is

that universities will have to offer better facilities to attract all those paying students. queen mary has just opened a shining new library. some worried that the real cost of these radical reforms might be measured in the books that will not be written. >> what a momentous day for education. >> for education, for the country. these are very different. there was not a direct attack. government buildings were not targeted. this -- there have been scenes like that.

most people do not care. the poll tax affected every family. students do not. >> people were talking about their own education and their brothers and sisters education. do you think what universities have to offer will change as a result of this? >> absolutely. today marks a very profound shift. parliament was given a very little time to discuss this profound move which we're going to have. because of the nature of the cuts, for all sorts of subjects, the humanities been taken to task, social scientist, the cost in total laid upon the graduates. david, has some interesting

thoughts about his generation, the baby boomer generation. we thought it was a critique. the manifesto strategy. what we have seen today is a remarkable assaults on the english university and the postwar settlement of education. >> first of all, the taxpayer funding is not being taken away. the taxpayers funding will go via the student. as people graduate, they pay it back. the public money will flow through. the teaching grant is going to go through the hands of students. it is all go into the hands of the stated. this is not an attack on the arts and humanities.

>> of course, they will continue to choose to study them. the problem is that you are incentivizing students taking humanities because what you are doing is what you need to do is to find jobs that will lead to higher employability to be paid back their debt more quickly. >> time we really address the fundamental question? just one second. you have taken -- by transferring its funding by direct teachings grant to putting it by the students, what you've done is to say, every university will have to charge either at the top or almost the top. >> of course, it is. >> let's follow through.

this seems to be a -- and a rational discussion. what you was then -- what every sensible tourre would argue is to stop using this word university. what we once -- i would like to see a proper markets. i would like to see a highly diverse university system. i would like to see -- >> cambridge is not competing with uea. >> t. barrett -- thank you very much. the public benefits is that they protect precisely the values that the market does not protect.

to say that it is didn't demand is to shift -- it is to presume that they know before they come to the university of what they should know. it presumes that they know they have it all mapped out at the age of 18. >> a lot of people go to university in order to get to an education. universities are a whole range of institutions. that is what you need to do. that is not the only role of the university. there are also people to go because they want to study the arts and dramatics and they love them. that can carry on. we are not reaching into the jar and saying that should be --

>> you did not exactly know what you wanted to do at 18. >> of course. what you do have to note is exactly how many seminars will i be able to attend. how many essays will i be expected to write? how well-equipped lab be? >> he talks about the different degrees. i detect a bit of condescension. art is there a worry that people who are worried about debts -- >> there is a whole host of different issues. they have now got a school of furniture. they do upholstery, they did the

craft, they do the history. i very much expect that people have stronger links with businesses. there is much greater flexibility. that will be part of the mix. >> you raise a point about how we protect research. how do we protect the humanities? at america. the state's have been an extraordinarily bad protector. >> the labor party certainly does not. we actually have in the british university system a very successful model. why do we want to -- i believe in the contribution. i.p. we would be naive if you do

not think that university departments across the country are going to be looking at their humanities courses and will be withdrawn a great deal of support. >> i.p. status will continue to choose those subjects -- i think students will continue to choose those subjects. >> another 20 seconds. >> even if we bring in the american system, what you are not allowing for are the scholarships. >> the endowments, exactly. >> thank you very much. i wish we had another hour. we have a new picture of the attack on prince charles and camilla tonight. you can see more on that on the news channel. it dominates the state pages.

an assault on the capital. rioters attacked the car. there are just pictures of the protestors. pure terror in her eyes, charles and camilla car attacked. that is all for tonight. we thought we would leave you with some scenes from 50 years ago on its 50th birthday. good night. >> they would not spend nearly as much. >> do not do it.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> david cameron addressed questions from members of parliament about proposed budget cuts and the economy. see id sunday starting at 9:00. undaunted >> a fourth amendment rights an illegal search and seizure, saturday, on c-span radio. >> all those that claimed that there was a search warrant, there was absolutely no evidence of any magistrate that ask for a search warrant >> listen to the argument on c-span radio. >> u.s. security and law enforcement officials met with their european counterparts today to discuss

counterterrorism, cyber crime, and other issues. speakers include attorney general eric holder. this is 30 minutes. >> commissioner for home affairs. also with us are the minister of justice of belgium and minister of home affairs. we also welcome representatives of the next presidency from hungry -- hungary.

over the past two days, the secretary and i have had the opportunity to once again participate in the european union-united states justice and home affairs ministerial. i truly believe that the work that we do together is a testament to the importance that the united states attaches to its justice and law enforcement relationships with the eu and its member states. the topics that we have discussed that are meeting, counterterrorism to the understandings on testing the privacy of personal information to air transportation security and immigration. it illustrates the extent and depth of the relationship. that relationship is paying dividends on both sides of the atlantic. over the past several months, we work together on cases involving major fraud, corruption, and

bribery, narcotics trafficking, a computer crimes, and child expectations. i corp. has had a real impact in putting criminals behind bars and protecting our citizens and has made both the united states and europe safer. as our colleagues return home, i hope they know we look forward to continuing the strong partnership in the years ahead. >> thank you and let me just joined the attorney general in san that we had very productive conversations with our european college -- colleagues on confronting the common threats that we face. the threats environment that we confront particularly involving terrorism committed in the name of islam is constantly evolving. it requires that we continue to be partners and that we evolved

and adjust our methodologies as well. we discussed a number of issues. one of them was cyber security and the establishment of a united states-eu working group. we actually created this in lisbon it during the summit there. now we are off in terms of the actual collaboration. we talked about aviation security and all the things that have happened since the january 2010 meeting in spain. between the united states and the eu on improving and building on international cooperation were passengers security is involved. we are now embarking upon the actual negotiations of the agreement which will build on the agreement that we had in

2007, but will allow us to continue to share critical information for the protection of passengers and aircraft. that gives you a sense or a flavor of some of the issues that were raised and discussed. i want to thank the attorney general for hosting the meeting this time and to our colleagues for coming to the united states, coming to washington d.c. -- washington, d.c. >> ladies and gentlemen, we had a very fruitful discussion starting during this meeting of the new commission, which we had in the spring of this year in madrid. we are continuing to advance the very quickly and we have taken

very seriously what two weeks in the lisbon on the eu-u.s. summit our leader has been discussing the necessities to advance on security issues and we have underlined the need for working toward a protection an agreement in order to make it easier for the security transfer of data. it is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the security of our citizens and have the protection of personal data. today, we have centered our discussions on the immediate next steps. there is a mandate, there is a chief negotiator.

our chief negotiator together with the u.s. counterpart is having exploratory discussions in order to see how we can advance on this topic. we hope that until the next meeting, we will have advanced material so that we can link together security expectations and the protection. >> thank you very much. i am very glad to be here. we have discussed a lot of extremely important things today. regarding security issues where we do have a common agenda. we can only move forward by doing this together. i am very happy about launching of the group.

we also discussed terrorism and how we can address this issue of increased radicalization and we launched the negotiations and we will move as quick as possible in order to set up an agreement that takes into consideration the need for security, but with the passenger protection. we also have concerns about -- we have sent them into the relevant american authorities. to increase -- this is creating -- it has been a very good meeting and i am very thankful to our american colleagues for organizing this. thank you. >> would you like to make some

remarks? >> thank you. belgium is present -- it will be coming into the end of the six months. we are very glad to be here and to continue discussions. we had a council of ministers together last week and we discussed plenty of items and we have repeated it here. the political action in the european union and the action in the united states is converging in a very positive way. the fact that we have a mandate to discuss some data protection at the weekend -- it is a very positive scenario. we made to decisions last week on sexual abuse and pornography.

we discussed today. you are discussing human trafficking. we are happy to be here. we need some more dialogue on some items to be more effective in our cooperation and to be more creative. one of the main items that we discussed is the cyber community. that is a huge objective and a real big problem and we have to be very cooperative to find a good solution. we are very happy to be here and to see that cooperation is going. we hope that it will continue. >> thank you very much.

i am very glad that last week we could approved a the mandates of the european commission to start in negotiations with the united states. i hope that we will have as soon as possible an agreement on the that issue because it is so important in our fight against terrorism. i have also explained during this meeting all the measures that european ministers have taken last week concerning the cargo security and how we can improve the cargo security trade i think it is important that we can always exchange the measures that we are taking. there are measures that kind improve our common fight against terrorism. because i do not want to repeat everything, we talked also about

the prevention of radicalization. here we have a very good exchange of best practices between our two continents. we had some very concrete examples during our belgian presidency concerning that prevention. how we can involve more of the civil society in that prevention. how we can -- we are going to give that manual to our policemen. how they can protect. we had a very good exchange of information on that prevention of radicalization. that is the most important thing, taking the measures possible that something does not happen. >> i would now like to at -- invite the hon gary and minister

of justice and the minister of interior to speak. and minister of justice and the minister of interior to speak. >> there are a lot of shared concerns and problems. we need shared solutions. it can be a good turning point in the cooperation. we will have the meeting in budapest and we will have a chance to have a debate on the data protection, how to tackle a cyber crime. we have to find solutions.

>> before we open ourselves up to questions, i would like to express our collective thanks to our american ambassador to the eu. he was an integral part of our conversation today. he is an old friend and a great ambassador. is great to have him back in washington. >> we will be happy to answer any questions. >> i have a question for the secretary. i believe several months ago, you were saying that the existing agreement was working very well. why do you feel that the eu is coming here at saying that they want a new agreement? on the other agreement, the

state of protection agreement, i believe one of the eu key issues is the fact that european citizens do not have the same right of recourse as u.s. citizens under the privacy act. what do you think are the prospects for any change to the data privacy act? >> the nice thing about pnr is that we do have an existing agreement. it can always be improved, particularly in light of the systems that are in place now, which have been improved since 2007. some of the issues that have been identified that we need to address together. i think the purpose of the mandate is to make sure that the agreement between the eu and the united states takes care of some of those issues that have been

raised over the last few years and also it sets us up for the future as we move forward on passenger security. >> the united states and the european union it share the same values when it comes to the protection of privacy rights. the systems that we have in place have been effective in protecting the privacy rights of our citizens. with regard to the privacy act that exist in the united states, one of the things that we have discussed the possibility of coming up with at the history of measures that might deal with the concerns that you've raised. >> [inaudible] you mentioned that private security was discussed. what discussions did you have?

what type of pressure have the funds from companies like mastercard? >> i am not going to talk about the ongoing investigation that i have described over the course of the last week or so. again, we have an active ongoing serious investigation of that matter. we had informal conversations about the wikileaks matter, the concerned that it has raised in the minds of all of us and the hope here is that the investigation that we are conducting will allow us to hold accountable the people responsible for that unwarranted disclosure of information that has put at risk the safety of the american people and people who work on behalf of the united states.

>> [inaudible] paypal [inaudible] >> i am not going to comment on any of the investigative steps we have taken. >> related to that, as part of this operation, with the computer intrusions, having directed the fbi to look at these incidents? is there any investigation into this matter? >> we are aware of the incidents that you have described and we are looking into them. >> [inaudible] >> the investigation is ongoing. >> the latest in a string of undercover stings attacking

radicalized muslims. some organizations have expressed concerns regarding entrapment and the infiltration of mosques. how do you balance the need for security with the concerns of such organizations? what recommendations did you have coming out of your meeting? >> one of the things that we do hope -- we are bound and determined to protect the american people. we will use every legitimate lawful technique that we have in order to do that. we are very mindful of the rights that people have. we do not engage in tactics that in trapped people. make them do things that they are otherwise not disposed to do. i think you will see that in the case yesterday in baltimore, the other one in oregon, on any number of occasions, the people who were arrested but given the

opportunity to turn away from their stated desire is to harm american citizens. the techniques that we use are legitimate. we are very sensitive to the way in which we use these tactics and these techniques. >> did you get any recommendations coming at of the meeting? the last week meeting. >> we are on an appropriate course. i will be gone to california this afternoon and speaking to a muslim group tomorrow in san francisco. i will undoubtedly talk about this in some form or fashion. i am comfortable with the way in which we have been conducting ourselves in connection with these investigations. >> would you address the legislation in congress that would speak to block civilian --

[inaudible] >> i sent a letter to senator reid and to mitch mcconnell. indicating that the administration opposes the proposed measure, that i, as attorney general, and in opposition to the proposed legislation. it simply does not make any sense to take away from the president options that he needs, options that i need, to keep the american people safe. to remove from us the ability to use the article course. it is an unwise move in with the american people at risk. this is a tool that has been used successfully hundreds of times. most recently, in new york.

the inability that we will have if this measure was to pass is something that is unwise and puts the safety of the american people at risk. >> what else are you doing at this stage change it and would you recommend that the president to veto the legislation? >> this is the statement that is contained in the letter that goes to the senators. it is an indication that the president opposes that provision. in the strongest possible terms, on a very personal level, and as a person who knows these cases better than anybody, this legislation is unwise.

it takes away from the the justice department's, up from our investigative agencies, takes away from the american people the ability to hold accountable people who have committed mass murder, people do intended to harm, kill american citizens. this is an extremely unwise piece of legislation. it is our hope that with this very forceful statement of opposition that is contained in the letter that i signed and sent to the congress, that the bill would not become law. >> what about a veto? would you recommend that? >> my hope would be that this law will not become effective. >> did you and your colleagues in your meetings today reach an agreement about [inaudible] >> we did not really talk about wikileaks in any formal way.

>> secretary, recently, the ambassador had to undergo a pad down. she was wearing a story. -- saari. the thing that searches like that go too far? >> -- do you think that searches like that go too far? >> we have spoken with the ambassador. it was by the book. it was a pat-down that followed our procedures. it was appropriate under the circumstances. we do have protocols in place if there is for warning before somebody gets to an airport. that they have special credentials and we can work with

them on that. in this particular instance, that protocol had not been utilized. again, what was done by the officer was done appropriately and by the book. >> do you have any countries be a focal point for wikileaks research or an investigation? connections that iceland has to wikileaks? >> i do not want to go into the specifics of the ongoing investigation. >> some have suggested the response by those in support of wikileaks to attack amazon and other companies is a cyber war between the two sides. what you all are doing -- cyber

issues are in your purview. what are you doing to mitigate that? >> i think the attorney general has already said that he does not want to comment on any ongoing investigations with regard -- with respect to wikileaks. with respect to the protection of the private sector, we are working very closely with them on a whole variety of matters. i think your question of race is the importance of cyber, that is why our discussion to formulate a u.s.-eu cyber working group and to focus on issues about intrusions into critical and the structure and financial markets and into other areas that are cyber dependent.

that working group has already begun and i think we will see some very important measures that come out of that that will be between the united states and the eu. >> the next release of documents on wikileaks could be confidential threat assessments? are you concerned that the information may come out as a result of that? are you concerned that there could be some additional questions? >> i am concerned -- we are all concerned about the united states -- concerned about the nature of the release. the release of this information has put at risk american national security. whatever is to come, i think

will be consistent with the concerns that i have expressed. >> [inaudible] can you address that? >> use all the report that was issued yesterday. one of the things that i take from the report is the substantially smaller number of people who have returned to the fight. we had an interagency effort and analysis of each of the detainees before a transfer decision was made. a unanimous vote was required. you have seen a much smaller number of those people who are transferred by the obama administration return to the fight. there is a concern. anybody who returns to the fight, it is our obligation to

hunt them down and bring them to justice. that is what we will do. >> can some of that just be contributed to -- attributed to time? >> i am pretty confident that the back and a sense that we put in place, the interagency effort that we put in place, the painstaking examination of all the paper that existed, the fact that we really required unanimous votes with regard to how each of the detainees was going to be handled, gives me a great deal of confidence that the numbers that we have seen should remain fairly constant. >> the believe that the officer's professional responsibility is adequately and

dressing misconduct? >> they do a really good job. the vast majority -- the overwhelming majority of federal prosecutors in this country and handle themselves inappropriate ways. -- in appropriate ways. the people who represent the united states on behalf of the united states department of justice do so honorably and do so with in the rules. >> thank you. >> they are trying to get their hands on the founder. [inaudible] >> the crimes he is accused of,

if you have been sent to sweden, that he will be prosecuted accordingly. i am not part of the swedish government. i trust that the independence of this will be conducted. >> thank you. >> new orleans judges only a federal judge to be convicted and removed from the federal bench by the u.s. senate. watch the entire process online at the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> a senate hearing on the state of the credit union industry. the witness is the chairman credit union administration. chris dodd chairs the banking

committee. this is 50 minutes. >> [inaudible] >> all federal credit unions -- this hearing is an important opportunity to explore the health of the credit union industry as we emerge from deep financial crisis and recover and grow. i want to welcome and thank

chairman debbie matz for being here today. they have taken unprecedented steps to stabilize the credit union system. the system has also shared many of the same challenges as the fdic. these steps have made a significant impact on thousands of credit unions across the country. we can have a serious conversation about the current state of the credit union industry and the impact of the increased assessments on credit unions that serve millions of

americans across this country. i have certainly heard concerns from my constituents in south dakota about this matter. this is not the first and certainly not the last hearing on this financial condition of the specific sectors of our financial services and history. the financial crisis took a toll. >> it is important for these hearings to become a common occurrence. i look forward to your testimony, chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to be brief here

today. this is a very important hearing. like other financial institutions, credit unions have faced unprecedented challenges from the financial crisis and are weak economy. five of the largest corporate credit union suffered substantial losses on mortgage- backed securities and had to be placed into conservatorship by the national credit union administration. the ncua had to take extraordinary action to prevent the failure of these credit unions. given these events occurred more than one year ago, an examination i believe is long overdue. i hope that today's hearing will shed light on the reasons for the failure of the corporate credit unions spread the adequacy of the national credit union rescue plan and why -- and whether these failures pose any

risk to our taxpayers. i also want to hear their assessment of what steps need to be taken to prevent large-scale failures from happening again. there are a number of legislative measures that had been proposed by the national credit union administration. this hearing will provide us with an opportunity to discuss their merits and whether they should be enacted into law. because credit unions place a valuable role in providing loans to american consumers, a strong and vibrant credit union industry will be an important participant in any economic recovery in the future. we can failing credit unions will only further erode our nation's already struggling economy and prolonged unprecedented levels of unemployment. thank you for calling this hearing. >> i want to thank you for calling the hearing and then look forward to the witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i, too, appreciate that she is here to talk about the state of credit unions. i would just say that i think that the ncua has done a great job with not burdening taxpayers would help for the credit unions. i want to hear what she says about the assessments and the cost of the credit unions of those assessments because we do not want to work their capability to be solvent and successful. >> mr. chairman, my time here today is somewhat limited so i think i will just offer that if i have anything in terms of an opening, i will submit it in writing. we will get right to the witness. >> she has a distinguished

public and private career. she served in the department of agriculture where she was deputy assistant secretary and also chaired the the tax force, which was charged with the responsibility of resolving over $1 billion. prior to your service, she was an economist with the economic committee of congress. she served as a board member of ncua. in the private sector, she was the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the large credit union. she was confirmed as chairman in

august 2009. before you begin, please be assured that your read this statement will be part of the record. if you could confine your remarks to 5-8 minutes, that would be greatly appreciated. any other materials that we have received will also be added to the record. you can begin your statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for inviting me to appear before this committee. >> i will update you on major developments. as with other sectors of the industry, the credit union industry faced unprecedented threats to stability in 2008 and 2009. when the housing bubble burst and the value of mortgage-backed securities plummeted, several of the largest credit unions were

in danger of insolvency. this posed a grave threat to the industry, because corporate credit unions provide needed liquidity for 70 to 100 credit unions. five corporate credit unions held extremely high concentrations of what were once highly rated mortgage-backed securities. when the market for those securities dried up, it froze their liquidity and threaten their operations. if these corporates had not beeenforced to sell their asset, $30 billion in losses would have flowed through the system, causing thousands of consumer credit unions to fail. from the onset of this crisis, ncua worked in consultation with congress, treasury, and the fed to design a comprehensive plan to stabilize, result, and reform the corporate system.

on behalf of the board, i sincerely think this committee for the instrumental role you played in creating the temporary corporate credit union stabilization fund in 2009. the stabilization fund permitted ncua to stabilize credit unions an. with concurrence from tim geithner, [unintelligible] this means credit unions will reimburse the funds for an additional seven to $9 billion in the next 10 years. let me emphasize this point. these losses were being paid for entirely by credit unions. throughout fall of 2010, we have taken aggressive actions to remove long-term threats. we can served corporates that were no longer viable.

least -- seized control of impaired securities and began an orderly disposition. we securitized cash flows from those impaired securities to raise billions of dollars in liquidity. we created four corporates to -- with no interruption in service to consumers. we finalized a new rule to ensure that remaining corporates operate with much stronger stand -- soundness. our actions made the strategic objectives we set from the beginning of the crisis. we prevented any disruption in service to 7400 consumer credit unions and 90 million consumers. we preserved credit confidence in the credit union system. we resolve the problem at the lowest long-term cost consistent with sound public policy, and we facilitated an orderly transition to a new regulatory regime. even as we managed the corporate

resolution, we have been working to protect the safety and soundness of consumer credit unions. despite the challenging economy, america's credit unions remain strong overall. total assets are over $900 billion. net worth is holding steady. delinquencies are showing signs of moderating. charge-offs have inched lower. credit unions have not escape the effects of the economic downturn. millions of credit union members are suffering from falling home values, business failures, and implement, and bankruptcy. some balance sheets reflect their members struggles. this has caused us to reevaluate our research needs and examination procedures. since 2009 kamala we have hired more than 100 examiners. to be effective, the field staff needed to be reinforced by more frequent exams. we have examined credit unions at least annually. by conducting more frequent

exams and increasing offsites supervision, we are identifying issues earlier. to this end, ncua enhanced are early warning system to resolve issues before they come material concerns. examiners are reviewing credit union did of sight. when the find them holding high concentrations of fixed-rate mortgages, they follow up with immediate corrective action. we are taking these actions in an effort to save as many credit unions as possible. ncua's increased supervision has contributed to the credit unions' ability to withstand the extraordinary economic shocks over the past two years. our experience demonstrates the value of rigorous regulation, diligent oversight, and a healthy insurance fund. equity in the national credit insurance fund is up to 9.2%, near the high end of its normal operating range trade to improve

the tools for surprising and injuring credit unions, we have a package of three technical amendments that would clarify provisions and the stabilization fund. the first amendment would strengthen the ability of ncua to complete [unintelligible] as a result, the troubled credit union has to be liquidated. we are requesting ncua assistance be counted as capital by the surviving credit union as in the past. this would reduce the cost to the insurance fund and provide members of a troubled credit unions with services from healthy credit unions. the second would prevent credit unions from the assessed premiums. the language clarifies the equity ratio of the insurance fund is based on its own and consolidated financial statements. this would eliminate any

confusion about whether the insurance fund is required to consolidate statements with the stabilization fund or with credit unions under conservatorship. it would ensure that independent accounting would be consistent with the original congressional intent. the third amendment would allow us the option of repaying expenditures from the stabilization fund without having to borrow from treasury. current statute requires us to borrow from treasury before making assessments. we are requesting a modification to permit us to assess -- assist credit unions when necessary to satisfy the stabilization funds obligation. avoiding the cost of interest payments. with this legislation, america's credit unions will be better positioned to help consumers take advantage of opportunities that are recovering -- a recovering economy will offer. i appreciate this opportunity to come before you and look forward to answering your questions.

>> if you have additional questions, you can submit them for the record. i ask chairman matz to respond in a timely manner. as you have noted, losses by some corporate credit unions have led to conservatorship sand also to significant losses to the national credit union insurance fund. one is the extent of the losses to the shared insurance fund in 2010, and how did this compare to previous years? also, to what extent do the losses result from corporate [unintelligible] >> the losses to the -- that

have occurred in the corporate sector have been separated from the shared insurance fund and those are reflected in the stabilization funds. the losses to the fund this year, is $250 million. it is not far off from what we had last year. we realized the losses from the credit unions. we expec the losses to total $50 billion. credit unions have paid in about $7 billion of that through the was in the corporate and through assessments that totaled $1.30 billion. over the next 10 years, credit unions will be assessed between

$7,000,000,000.410061593 dollars. >> what new steps is ncua taking to ensure that credit unions do not accumulate a concentration of high risk [unintelligible] ? >> in terms of corporates were there was a problem, i should indicate that when we passed the previous corporate ruling, i voted against the rule. it did not contain limits on concentration risks. the board approved a new rule which brings limits on concentration limits by sector, satisfy that issue going forward. as far as consumer credit unions, we are currently working on a proposal that will

probably address concentration risks in natural credit unions. we have put out guidance to credit unions and to examiners dealing with that issue. >> what will be the ultimate cost to federally insured credit unions [unintelligible] >> the ultimate cost is between $7,000,000,000.410061593 dollars over 10 years. >> you indicate in your written testimony that ncua has shortened the examination cycle from 12 months to the previous 18 month cycle in order to stay ahead of developing problems at credit unions. as -- has the agency taken any other steps to detect problems

in the credit unions in a rapid or effective manner? >> excuse me. yes. we have hired 100 additional examiners in the past two years and are intending to hire 61 more examiners this year. in addition to doing the annual exams and federally targeted credit unions, we are going to be examining all state credit unions over $250 million every year. we have also enhanced our red flag alert system. reviewing thener's called reports of credit unions, and those are the reports that require all financial data for credit unions. if they see any aberration, a sharp increase in delinquencies or some other red flag that

catches their right, they will not wait for the next exam. there will go in and address the problem. -- they will go in and address the problem. i learned there were some credit unions that were repeatedly being cited for the same infraction. the most benign section is a document of resolution. there were getting the same document of resolution over and over again and stopped last year at this time. our examiners were given guidance and told that the credit union gets one shot at addressing a document of resolution. they're going back within 90 or 120 days. they will escalate the administrative action. the we're working very diligently to address problems as early as possible and to keep costs to the system as low as

possible. >> the october ncua inspector general report said that credit union management actions greatly contributed to the 10 largest credit union failures. specifically, there were significant actions that management was either unwilling or unable to effectively manage or mitigate. that exposed these credit unions to significant amounts of risk. the ig identified several shortcomings related to ncua efforts. deficiencies in quality control and examination procedures. had problems been identified sooner, the losses could have

been stopped or mitigated. do you think this assessment is accurate? >> i do. >> second, what is the ncua doing to address management and risk management within the credit unions and efficiency and examination? >> i would like to point out that the ig provides material loss reviews on an institution that incurs losses of more than $10 million. to put in perspective, over the. that was studied, there were 10 such institutions out of 7500 credit unions. i wanted to put that into perspective. it is a small number of credit unions that caused material losses. we are working closely to

address those issues. i wanted to point out that the 10 credit unions are federally insured. only four of them are federally charted. the others are state-chartered. their primary supervisor is the state supervisor. i wanted to make that distinction. the ig pointed out the management overall in the credit union like strategic thinking. there was fraud in several instances. as far as the examiner supervision, they felt we should be improving our examination and regs as related to concentration risks, in terms of third-party vendors, our quality-control reviews, our examination of new business strategies, and we should step but administration

actions when documents of resolution have been issued. we have begun to address all these issues, as i indicated before. we have put guidance on concentration risks and are working on a new reg to address that issue. we do not have authority to examine third-party vendors, as all the other agencies have. we work with the credit unions to get the data we need. if we find a problem or suspect areas, we can only request that credit union stop doing business with that third party vendor. we do not have control over the third party vendor. we are working to improve our quality control reviews. those are reviews we do of examinations to make sure they're being done properly and

they have sufficient supporting documentation. staff has been working on reviewing all the national standards, and that should be in effect relatively soon. again, the ig commented and we believe that our annual exams will help catch any problems that develop with new lines of business. we are pleased we have such a good relationship with the ig. >> thank you. >> i want to read into the record part of the report. it said and i am quoting, had

examiner's work more aggressively in their supervision actions over these critical issues, the looming safety and soundness concerns that were present early on in nearly every field institution could have been identified sooner, and the eventual losses to the national credit unions could have been stopped or mitigated. i will ask you again. do you agree with that assessment? you indicated you did. that is important. what steps specifically have you taken? it has been over year. what steps have you taken to identify the problems will be corrected? we will not go down this road again. perhaps will never visit the taxpayer, so to speak. >> the biggest change we have made is going from an 18 month

xm cycle to an annual exam cycle. we get into the credit union every 12 months and can catch problems earlier. that is the single biggest change we have made. not allowing credit unions to receive and repeat the administrative sanctions. complying with administrative sanctions is not optional. they get one shot to comply and if they do not within 90 or 120 days, we take more aggressive action. those actions in and of themselves will go a long way to preventing any of these problems. in addition, we are in the process of overhauling our quality control review process that should be done soon. that will make sure that the actions have the same standards

for verifying the accuracy. we will be putting out a new reg on credit unions. >> aren't they getting more into commercial loans and small business loans and so forth? that is the trend? >> there are more credit unions making business loans than there were several years ago. >> is that dangerous to you? from your perspective? and many of the banks have gotten in trouble with lack of supervision and lack of control and quality control and so forth. >> all lending is risky. >> we know that. >> from your perspective, to protect that fund. >> i do -- think it is more important how they manage the risk. business lending is an extremely important service to credit unions to offer their members.

the average credit union business loan is about $250,000 which is a small loan. those are loans to people who do not have access to capital from other institutions. it might be to open a car repair shop or a small boutique. it is an important service they provide. it needs to be done carefully. >> scarlotta these loans you make to small businesses, are they what we would call covered loans? do you do that with part of your capital? use of these loans, or what do you do? >> some of them are sold. some are not. >> what percentage kenya fresh that for the record? >> i can. ? you talked about the assessment as part of the plan to resolve the corporate credit union

debacle. you intend to impose assessments on credit unions to pay for the losses. you expect to suffer on $50 billion in troubled mortgage- backed assets. you stated the national credit union administration expects a libby, approximately $8 billion in assessment which is a good bit of money. what impact will these assessments have on credit unions? can they still be viable? >> yes. the credit union industry is well capitalized. they have capital and that is under 10%. i do feel that there are some credit unions -- no doubt the a burden.s are

the corporate stabilization fund -- we appreciate your support. it allowed us to spread out the costs to the credit unions. it will affect the roa of some credit unions. we feel because of the significant capital, credit unions have, there will be able to meet those assessments. >> your insurance fund, what is the value of it today? >> it is about $800 billion. >> you have $800 billion in hand. that would be a lot more money than the fdic ever had. >> $8 billion. >> that $8 billion in shares how

many -- the value of your accounts today. the first of december. >> the assets are bad. $800 million. >> it insures the credit, the integrity of $800 billion. you think that is adequate? >> i do. >> especially in today's world? >> i do. >> ok. is that $8 billion shrinking or growing? or are they remaining constant? >> it has been constant. >> ok. my last area, and i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. the national credit union regulationsion government governing credit unions rely heavily on the use of credit

ratings. specifically, the regulations allow corporate credit unions to invest in securities rated aaa or aa by credit rating agencies. we know now the credit ratings were deeply flawed on mortgage- backed securities. the dodd-frank act requires agencies to review and modify regulations to review and remove any reference to a requirement of reliance on credit ratings and to substitute a standard of credit worthiness. what steps are you and your administration taking to ensure that credit unions do their own due diligence, so to speak. when evaluating investments to make them creditworthy rather than investment based on the opinion or the reading of an

agency which we now is flawed? >> when we voted on the role on september 24, it had been put out for comment and finalized before it was consistent with when the act passed. the language in the corporate rule says the credit unions need to get ratings from multiple agencies and -- >> say that again? you are going to get ratings from the agencies that are flawed? >> we are modifying that role. >> are you going to do your own due diligence? >> we do not have the proposed rule out yet. >> a you thinking about doing that? are you thinking about doing that?

looking at financial institutions that have weathered the recent debacle. they did their own due diligence, they are viable, no bailout. you -- it is important to you to do your own due diligence. that is my message. that was a message of this legislation. do you disagree? >> i do not disagree. we are in the process of drafting a revision. >> do you have or will you have the personnel in frustration to evaluate the credit worthiness of your investment? you have been -- a lot of people

have been relying on the credit ,ating agencies, moody's, s&p fitch. we know the history of that. are you going to have the proper people to do that? this is important. that you have personnel that can do this in lieu of outsourcing bid to somewhere we know is a dead-end. >> it means, i do not have an answer to your question. >> will you let us know in committee? we want the credit unions to remain viable and strong and not ever come up here for problems. >> i appreciate that. we will get back to you on that. >> thank you. >> does ncua have a list of

problems? how many of these institutions are on the list? >> we do have a list of credit unions we watched. i am guessing there are institutions -- 50 institutions on the list. we have 7500 institutions we insure. >> is there any geographical concentration or business model concentration that is more prone on this list? >> credit unions that are located in the states that are most distressed. florida, california, arizona, and nevada. they have been hit the worst. >> let me ask a question that parallels some of the comments made by the chairman and ranking

member. in your testimony, you indicate there is a growing level of member business loans that are delinquent. they are a primary or secondary contributing factor. the first question, are you concerned with this increasing number of business loan delinquencies? >> i am concerned but it is a relatively low number. >> would be your view of these proposed legislative actions? i support that. >> given the indication there are increasing, not as yet

decisive, but increasing delinquencies? >> i believe it is a small number of credit unions. there is 2200 credit unions that make member business loans and there are 270 that fall into the category where they are troubled. the business lending is the reason for their being there. it is a manageable number. we do not like to have credit unions in that category, period. we feel that business lending, done properly, is really an important tool for credit unions to have at their disposal to serve their members. also, in terms of the legislation, if they get listed, we would anticipate coming

through with rigor is regulations. it is not an opening of the flood gates. it would have to demonstrate their ability to make low level of loans. once they demonstrate that, we would increase it by a small amount and keep working with them, supervising them and let them gradually increase to a higher level. >> do have a notion of the number of credit unions that have reached their limit? is this a situation where a huge majority of the credit unions have no extra capacity? is this a few members or concentrated in a few areas? >> it is a small number. that are at their cap. >> that have reached their cap. is there any area of the country

where this has reached or is this disbursed somewhat -- dispersed some randomly? >> i will get back to you on that. >> there's another aspect want to explore. the only regulator subject that does not have the authority to examine vendors. now with the increasing role of management systems, computer systems that are provided to vendors, and concerns about money laundering, i do not have to tell you about the concerns. are you concerned this lack of authority affects your ability to fully implement your statutory responsibilities? >> absolutely. >> you would like to have that authority in place? >> i think we could do a better

job if we had that authority. >> i think we will get the same answer. are there instances where you have seen significant problems at credit unions causing you to step in and because of the contracts and other arrangements, that you might have been upset about or could take no effective steps until the institution became insolvent? >> yes. >> would that apply to the corporate credit unions as well? >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. let me get a little perspective. the institutions that went into conservatorship, their problem was real-estate lending, would

that be the case? >> the corporate credit unions? >> yes. >> it wasn't overconcentration of mortgage-backed securities. >> it was real estate related? >> yes. >> when you look at the other issues that you were talking about, the commercial lending, you said that was a relatively small number of credit unions out there that were dealing with that. let me ask your opinion on something. would you describe that as something that normally you would go through in a recession, that is what you are saying? are you saying something bigger and greater and more problematic than that description? >> with the business lending? >> yes. >> it might be -- it is probably somewhat larger, higher than it

would ordinarily have been. some of the loans were collateralized by real estate. >> yes. and again, we get back to that problem everyone has dealt with. the ranking member read into the record and ig report that basically said, if i could summarize it. if there have been better oversight kamala of these problems would not have occurred. you agreed with that assessment. >> yes. >> i'm going to offer an observation that if the system, whether it is banks or credit unions, whenever, if there had been better oversight, we would have avoided a lot of these problems. do you kind of agree with that? >> b.i.t. was addressing these

10 credit unions. i agreed with that in terms of the 10 credit unions. i think in terms of the consumer credit unions, i think we have done an adequate job. no one could have foreseen the significant drop in the value of the real-estate and the havoc that has created. certainly in terms of those, we could have done a better job. >> as i talked to small businesses that i interface with, we have had small business round tables and a host of efforts to be attuned to challenges they're facing, one of the things i hear and i am sure every member is hearing it. that is that credit is still

very tough for a small business. i was just in a small business over thanksgiving. that was the message, i can i get credit. i see your efforts and i do not disagree with them. you are trying to make sure that your fund is stable. i think you are trying to do those things to rebuild from what was a fairly disastrous situation. it does occur to me that as we pulled that capital into whatever fund or tried to minimize risk by requiring margin and so forth, that capital is not available to be lent. does that appear problematic to you? >> we encourage credit unions

that are interested in making business loans to make sure they have commercial lending staff that can do solid underwriting. we also are concerned that credit unions reserve for losses adequately. that does protect the share insurance fund. if it could prevent losses, it also prevents additional assessments, ultimately. we do make sure that credit unions are adequately allowing for potential losses. >> as we should. that is -- that describes what small businesses are struggling with. they are struggling to find somebody who will be their lender. because the system quickly became risk adverse.

would you agree? >> credit unions have always been conservative and perhaps they are being more conservative now. i do believe that credit unions are still making business loans. i think business lending might have gone up in the last quarter. of course, there are only 2200 credit unions making business loans. it is not a lot of capital out there. in the communities they serve, they make an important difference to the small businesses. >> just to wrap up in this vein. just for my education and may be other members would also be interested. i would like to see what ever charts or analysis you have available of what happened over the last two or three years, relative to lending. again, that would be good

information just in terms of trying to work with small businesses who are continuing to describe this problem of getting access to capital. >> are you interested in lending in general or small business lending? >> whatever you provide will be helpful. >> credit union lending has grown over the lot -- past few years, despite the downturn, expect for their most recent quarter were it has leveled off. that is not specific to business lending. >> i would be interested in business lending if those numbers can be extracted from the hole. >> we will get that for you. >> thank you. >> i would like to thank you for testifying.

to accommodate the senators, we -- senator burr and senator higgin, come to the table. >> the indian ambassador to the u.s. was reportedly is subjected to a pat down last saturday at jackson-evers international airport in mississippi. it was one of the main topics at today's state department hearing. we heard about efforts to restart milly's police talks. .his is 20 minutes dawdl >> the secretary had a discussion with israeli chief

negotiator. the meeting lasted for more than an hour. he met with george mitchell and our middle east team for about three hours. he will have a meeting with secretary clinton tomorrow morning. additionally, the secretary spoke with president abbas twice yesterday to work through issues in anticipation of the meeting tomorrow morning. surely, the secretary will meet with the nigerian foreign minister and it will discuss regional issues, particularly

the everytion in could jabba coast, including the election and the progress of the u.s.- nigeria binational relationship. we command good look jonathan for convening the summit. -- goodluck jonathan for in meeting the summit. -- convening the summit. day to he meeting to day t review the situation.

they talked about a range of regional issues, including the situation in the western balkans in kosovo and ongoing efforts in which albania has been a very constructive player in working for european integration. albania itself has elections coming up in may of next year. the secretary welcomed perspective on that. albania has a special forces -- special forces troops deployed in afghanistan and continues to make significant contributions isaf.sel finally, usaid and nancy lindburg traveled to darfur.

they met to discuss security access and the ongoing peace process. he will continue the three day visit to darfur as we seek to build a durable peace for their people. barry white will attend the nobel peace prize ceremony, reaffirming the importance we place on the award. we welcome the decision to award the chinese dissident and for fundamental freedoms, including his role in the drafting of charters 08. we respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of chinese citizens. we continue to call for his

immediate release. >> can you give us more of a flavor of the meeting this ?orning wit >> my understanding is the review process, getting a perspective on the israeli side of how to move forward. the secretary and he engaged in substantive issues. i will leave it -- leave it there. >> it did not know what the israelis perspective is? >> their perspective has been pretty clear from day one. >> that is all i will tell you. i am sure when you see the secretary you will ask her about this as well. >> what about in terms of her speech? the you expect her to say anything that advances --

quex in her speech, she will give our current perspective on where we are and what we believe should be the way to move forward. i will leave her speech for tomorrow. >> [unintelligible] when he arrives, he will meet with our middle east team. he will meet with the secretary tomorrow morning. >> will there be any meetings between the palestinian negotiator and his counterpart? >> as we said yesterday, i am not anticipating there would be a three sided meeting in washington. >> what are the things you are

exploring? >> we plan to begin a more substantive engagement to see how working on the core issues themselves, we can move the process forward. perhaps regain some confidence in the process that has been stalled in recent months. through this progress, continue to impel the parties back to negotiations. >> the ambassador was subject to pat down in mississippi. >> we have just learned about this. the department of homeland security and tsa are in a better position to describe what happened. >> have the indians made any formal complaint?

there are indications she was pulled aside because of the way she was dressed. >> as far as i know, they have not. >> could you explain to us because there are a couple of things that came up. the polish president mentioned he had to fill in a vase of form and was asked about -- a visa form. what are the rules for diplomats? >> they do fill out visa applications because they're coming here on a business trip. there are countries who are participating in the waiver program. a british diplomat would have to apply. these were the programs that were involved. trouble for tourism. >> is there any special way they

are treated when they are at the airport? >> there are guidelines that have been published on diplomats. there are subject to basic security. everyone at the airport goes through basic screening. i will defer to the department of homeland security. >> that means -- where the guidelines published? does that mean they are subject to basic security, that includes the enhanced pat downs? >> again, from the tsa standpoint, they followed their normal procedures. i would defer to dhs to explain

what happened. to assess each passenger and work through security based on what they see. i'm going to defer to dhs on this one. there was -- we were aware of the fact that the ambassador was subject to a pad down. as to the rationale that tsa used, i will let them explain. >> is there any reason for the foreign diplomat who was traveling domestically to identify themselves as a foreign diplomat while traveling, if they do not have to go through

any kind of customs or immigration control? >> i am trying to understand the question. >> if i am a foreign diplomat and i am here on my diplomatic passport with a visa, and i am traveling within the u.s., i am not going through any immigration accustoms control, is there any reason for me to identify myself as a foreign diplomat? >> the fact that you are a diplomat does not necessarily mean that you are not subject to basic screening, as is other anany other passenger on any particular flight. >> has the state department been in touch with tsa or dhs about people -- what to do in the case of a diplomat who can prove they are a diplomat, being pulled out of line or going through -- just going through security in

general. >> we recognize -- there is a policy that all passengers, whether a diplomat or non- diplomatic, are subject to screening before boarding any flight. we understand -- recognize that. the diplomats themselves recognize that. as to this particular case where the investor was pulled aside for secondary screening that involved a pat down, i will refer to tsa as to -- what factors went into that decision. >> in general. the state department issues guidelines to local police departments about what they do when they arrest of four national in terms of notification and consular access. you are in touch with other agencies about how to deal with -- like the new york city police -- you're in touch with them on how to deal with u.n. diplomats. i am curious if you have been in

touch with tsa about the treatment of diplomats in airport security lines in general. forget about this case. >> there is -- on our website, there is guidelines published on diplomats and what they can expect as they travel around the united states. i have one more. are you aware of whether india has complained not? the foreign minister said they were. whether you have received it or not? i recall there was a case with some pakistani visitors, official visitors not so long ago. is that the last one that you recall? that there was a complaint lodged? >> i will -- i do not imagine this is necessarily unique or we have had misunderstandings in the past few months with

different diplomats and security procedures at airports. the pubs of from time to time. dhs has its own office of international affairs. we -- it is our understanding of the ambassador was pulled out and dhs has indicated they are prepared to talk about this. >> external affairs minister of india has commented. >> i understand that. we have had meetings with officials from the embassy since the incident in mississippi. as far as i know, they have not raised it with us yet. >> it happened before including

with the former president of india and other officials in the u.s. airports. when ambassadors, and the ambassador when they travel to different states and different places, do the inform you or the state department or any local authorities that the ambassador is coming or high-level official from international visitors? >> their posts that because of specific rejections -- restrictions that are placed on travel need to inform us our request permission of their traveling outside the parameters for the mission. i am not aware that a diplomat traveling has to inform us. sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. >> did you learn about that today? >> i believe today. >> what is the reaction from india? >> their reaction, i will defer to the indian government. >> is the secretary of state scheduled to meet with mr. fayyad tomorrow before the

appear in the event? >> you will meet with the prime minister tomorrow as well. i think it will be here. >> any other middle east related meetings -- >> do we have information like in the morning or afternoon? >> that when the dust that one is in the afternoon. >> any other mideast related meetings? >> that is all i am aware of right now. >> on the phone call that the secretary made to a boss? >> they had to phone conversations. it was to inform -- to follow up on other meetings that president abbas hand in the region and to encourage president abbas to dispatch ssaeb erekat here for follow-on discussions. president abbas agreed. >> does she plan to meet barak

when he is here? >> i do not know. if there is such a meeting, we will let you know. >> mask to mr. steinberg will meet in china next week -- may i ask who mr. steinberg will meet in china next week? >> i am sure he will have >> i am sure he will have