go. we don't know what's going to replace him. we may have an oppressive regime replaced by an extremist radicalized regime, who knows? but this war is not in the interest of the united states and it's now congress' responsibility to cut off the funds for this war because this war violates the united states' constitution and it is not in the security interests of the united states. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i rise to honor jeremy murray and today on this house floor, we renamed the post office in portage county, ohio, rootstown, ohio, where jeremy grew up. and he served our country and at

28 years old he lost his life. and his mother has worked at this post office forever 11 years. it was a a special day to say thank you to him for his service and to thank his parents, pam and harold, for raising such a great young kid who was willing to go off to war because his country asked him and serve us in such a noble way. i say thank you to jeremy, to his parents, rootstown, ohio and his high school who instilled his values and thank you to him and we honor him for this post office. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota rise? >> permission to address the

house for one minute. >> today, the residents of north dakota and vouppeding communities are preparing for a devastating flood. the water levels in the river have never reached the levels they'll reach in the next 24 to 48 hours. many parts of the city and surrounding rural areas will be inundated with water. more than 10,000 residents have been evacuated. in north dakota, we pull together in challenging times and we support our friends and our communities. the city and people around my district need to know when the water goes down, we will be there to help. we will be there to clean up and we will be there to rebuild. i ask everyone to please join me in keeping these residents who are fighting for their homes and their communities in your

thoughts and prayers and to stand with my communities up and down the river to ensure a strong recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests. seeing none. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rogers is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. rogers: i ask to revise and -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i stand with pride with my republican women on the floor tonight and we stand with you from every corner on -- in america to tell you the story of the republican women while our backgrounds and

professions may be different, one thing is not, we are conservative reformers committed to leaving america better, after all, women in this country know better than anyone the the harmful policies. women-opened businesses are the fastest growing seeing metropolitan in the united states economy and generate revenue a year. they manage 8 % of the household income, spend two out of three household dollars. women are at the center of this debate and the house republican women are committed to leading it but when our country has accumulated $14 trillion in debt and face 28 consecutive months of unemployment, we know this is not an easy task. yet despite the obstacles and

opposition, we are committed to fight this fight, to creating jobs, the land of opportunity, innovation and ingenuity and that's why we ran for congress and stand in the halls of congress. some of us for many years, others are brapped new, all of us bound by the commitment to real reform, we have seen the numbers, 81% of americans know someone without a job. the average unemployed american has been searching for over 38 weeks and since president obama took office we lost over two million jobs in this country, we refuse to sit here and watch the numbers rise. as eastern washington's representative i ran seven years ago to keep that dream alive. i spent years working with my mom, dad and brother. i was the first in my family to

graduate from college and i had the honor of serving as state representative while continuing to work in our family business and learning firsthand the value of hard work, the value of opportunity. from the first standing in settle falls to the halls of congress i'm here because i refuse to let that opportunity be threatend. i come home every night to two children, cole and grace and i want them to have the opportunities that i have had and want them to not only the american dream and what it is, but i want them the opportunity to live it. america stands at a crossroads like never before. last year at this time, the administration was talking about a recovery summer. this year, we should be talking about a reality summer. the reality is clear and unprecedented. i was home in spokane where the unemployment is over 9% and one

thing on the forefront of everyone's minds, jobs. so tonight, we republican women are here to remind the american people that creating jobs is our number one priority. our g.o.p. plan for job creators will empower small businesses, fix the tax code, encourage entrepreneurs, encrease competitiveness and pay down america's national debt. we will debate in committee hearings, work with our colleagues across the aisle and continue to listen to those at home until we get americans back to work and we will. we are on the road to economic recovery and the house republican women are committed to ensuring we get there. with that, it is great pleasure to yield to the great woman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you so much. and thank you mr. speaker for allowing us tonight to come as

republican women to speak out to the american people. you know, i came to washington as one of the new freshmen here and i'm very horpped to be part of this group. we are a group of women who believe in our country. we believe in the rights of every american to achieve. there are no guarantees, but if you put your mind to it and work hard, everyone can achieve. i came from a family that was not wealthy. my parents did not really see the value in a college education. i am a second-generation american here in the united states and i'm first generation college educated haven't i basically put myself through college with many different jobs and nursing school. i became a nurse and i have been a nurse for over 21 years. and very happy to do so. i'm a wife and mom. my son is 16 years old.

and when health care became such a huge issue in this country and when our president spoke about changing it, the best health care system in the world, i knew that was not only going to be detrimental to health care but to the economy, because it is a large portion of our economy. so i put myself forward to run for office because i believe if you are going to change things in washington, you have to change washington itself. so here i am, proud to be serving with these great women. we have have -- we have many issues in this country that we are faced with. and we need jobs. unemployment has been above 9% and our colleagues put forward their plan over a year ago, that plan has failed and it is time for a new plan and as a woman,

being a multi-tasker, mr. speaker, you know how wonderful womenr we can put our minds to it and we can solve these problems. speaking as a nurse, i have always taken care of many patients. but none more dear to me than my seniors and what they are faced with today because of the destruction that has been put forward by our democrat colleagues across the aisle in obamacare, it has done just that, destroyed it. and it is or job to rescue it back for the american people so it will be there for our seniors and will be there for generations to come. as it is right now, $500 billion has been taken out and 15-person panel will be put in place to decide what kind of health care you receive. that right will be taken away from you and your physician. imagine a group of individuals

without any health care background whatsoever deciding for you whether or not you will be able to have surgery or whether or not you will be able to have a treatment, imagine to explain that to your family, imagine sitting at the bedside of your loved one and saying i'm sorry, your doctor can't do surgery on you and there is no way we can appeal it. and we are determined as republican women to pull back on this. we spoke about jobs. my colleague from washington has a wonderful illustration of what we need to do. that is the answer to the problems that we face here in america today and as a woman i'm dedicated to doing just that. and again in closing, i'll just say it is an incredible honor to be here and i'm getting emotional with my fellow women who are going to stay tonight

and speak to you out there in america about the importance of being a good conservative women and how we all, if we work together, come up with the answers to our problems. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield to the gentlelady from south dakota. >> i rise this evening to join my fellow colleagues on this side of the aisle to highlight what it means to be a republican woman. i grew up in a family that didn't believe there were certain tasks for boys or girls. my dad taught me to drive a semi-struck. iowa expected to help with the chores. i grew up thinking that i could do anything anything that the boys could do. over the years i helped run my family businesses and the farm and the ranch and the familyries taurnt and our hunting lodge.

our businesses never grew so large that i was one of the women who controls 51% of the new york stock exchange, i remember what my dad said, i could work just as hard as the guys could. my contribution was just as valuable. a few years ago with young kids, i saw that i needed -- we needed someone with business experience and someone with ag experience to serve in our state legislature and i ran and i won a seat there. i realized if i was going to be away from my family, i wanted to be as effective as i could and that meant running for a leadership position. i soon realized that the place that a person with common sense and business common sense and someone who worked in agriculture and ran businesses and someone who isn't afraid, it

was in washington, d.c.,. i ran last year to represent people who had real life experiences, balancing checkbooks, dealing with regulations and paying taxes. i didn't run because i a woman and i didn't expect people to vote for me because i was a woman. that never entered my thought process as the person i was running against was also a woman. i talked about what was important and talking about our life experiences by -- and my position on the issues and that's what mattered to me. mr. speaker, my agenda is pro -women and it is pro-small business and pro-job creator, pro-economic growth. just as my dad taught me years ago, women in my home state, we care about the same things that men do. they are worried about the

security of their jobs and their children's future and finding a job if they need one. we are worried about the excessive spending that this country is engaged in and the overwhelming debt we are accumulating and going to leave to our children and what new government regulation is going to come in and hinder our businesses and what is going to control our lives or hurt our small businesses on the street corner. our republican conference has rolled out a jobs plan, it is pro-woman and pro-man and it does what we need to get our economy back on track. it fixes the tax code. it increases american competitiveness and maximizes our production of american-made energy. i thank my colleagues for this opportunity to speak on the house floor tonight on what it means to be a republican woman and what it means to serve here with common sense, business experience and life experience

who cares about children and grandchildren in this country and i thank my colleagues for organizing this special order. it is my honor to share and speak in this special order tonight. . >> thank you. and i too want to join my colleagues here tonight and like my distinguished colleague from south dakota, my father always taught me that you can do and be anything you would like as long as you're willing to work hard for it. mrs. adasms: it had nothing to do with your gender. so i took this to heart and it is something that has stuck with me throughout my life, whether it's when i joined the air fore-- air force at 17 or when i was a single mother working two jobs trying to keep food on the table or as a person who was putting myself working during the day and paying my way through the police academy at night or later on as a state legislator and now as a member

of congress. i know what it's like to struggle. and i understand how difficult it is for women and families across this nation during these tough economic times. i never aspired to be in public office but a strong sense of justice and a love and appreciation for our great country led me to where i am here today. now, i ran for the florida legislature years ago after i lost my second husband in the line of duty as a deputy sheriff. because i was always there testifying on behalf of victims and citizens rights issues. one year i couldn't believe what i had heard and i got involved so much with legislation that had passed think a felt tied my hands as a police officer to do what i was sworn to do and that was protect and serve the community i was hired in orange county, florida. so i decided to do something about it and i ran and was elected to florida's 33rd district. eight years later as i was preparing to come home and

retire and be back and reaquaint myself with my family, i witnessed what a lot of people, a lot of families witnessed throughout this country and that was our country was accruing an astronomical amount of debt. they were wrl recklessly spending taxpayers' hard-earned money and the passage of the obama healthcare plan was just too much to bear. so i knew our country was heading down the wrong path and not the sustainable path and something needed to be done. the trajectory of the nation's fiscal path was clear, like so many mothers across this country, i saw the future of our nation and especially our children's future at risk. i couldn't sit by and watch as our country continued down this reckless fiscal path and it was -- i had the strong desire to change our nation's course and that's what led me to this nation's capitol. the truth is that our nation expects more from its leaders in congress. i came here to make a difference, to remove the

barriers to job creation that have been imposed by this administration's addiction to spending, taxation and regulation. only by giving more power back to the families and small businesses that make this great nation can we put our economy back on a sustainable path and help the private sector, help the private sector, i'll say it again, help the private sector put people back to work. i made a promise to the men and women in district 24 that i would fight to end the spending -driven debt crisis that led our nation's dire economic state. i will continue to keep this promise and i will continue to fight for families across this country by working towards fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and removing job-killing regulations that have stifled our nation's economic growth for far too long. we need to get our people back

to work. we want jobs and that's what we are fighting so hard to do. and as republican women, we understand and we will continue to fight to empower small businesses and reduce regulation that is hurting our businesses and with that i yield back. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: let's hear from the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, let me thank my colleague from the state of washington for this very special, very special, important special order. when the obama administration took office, many americans were so concerned that the administration was too inexperienced to know how to even govern this country. but we soon understood that they were too mistaken to learn and too arrogant to care. ms. buerkle: americans continue to see the unveiling of various provisions of the president's

health care bill, such as the creation of the independent payment advisory board to ration health care, a disastrous half trillion dollars in medicare cuts for new benefits, the betrayal of our friendship with israel and the willful pursuit of little bitian action in -- libyan action in defines of the war powers act. we have been betrayed by the choices of the leaders we depended on to steer this ship safely through troubled waters. but i have hope, just like the other republican women here tonight, that while we have to accept the democratic leadership choices for a time, nothing says we have to live with them. i am here in congress, mr. speaker, because i have watched the american dream become increasingly fragile and i said to myself over a year ago that i would not sit this fight out. and, mr. speaker, this is a fight. this is a fight for the very

united states we love so dealer. both sets of my grandparents came here from itsly. they worked hard, they raised dish from itsly. they worked hard, they raised -- italy. they worked hard and raised their families. i am a registered us in, an attorney, and for the last 13 years, represented a teaching hospital. i am the mother of six children and the grandmother of 11. mr. speaker, i am a proud republican woman. we republican women stand here tonight not as an anomaly, which represent millions of republican women who say that we are not going to accept being marginalized because of our political party. we are real women, we are real republicans, we are here to restore the american dream. i yield back. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: next i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from illinois.

mrs. biggert: i thank the gentlelady for having this tonight. mr. speaker, i thank all of the republican women that are here and especially the freshmen because they have brought so much enthusiasm, so much talent, so much intelligence to this body and have really been such a help to us. when i was elected to congress i was the only republican woman to be there and it was kind of lonesome so i thought, well, at least i can be the president, the vice president, the treasurer, the secretary of the freshmen republican women that year. but there was nobody else to be there with me. so i had to do it all alone. but i've been here a long time. this is my 13th year. and to see what's happened and the enthusiasm and what is going on and the changes that are happening is incredible. but i came from a family that, my father was the first to go to

college, his parents were -- immigrated from finland even though they were swedish and he went to college but he always said to my three siblings and me, you can do anything you want to do if you get a good education. and he made one mistake, maybe, because he said he would pay for it. so my older sister went to medical school, i went to law school and my brother went to law school, my little sister got her masters in latin and greek. she doesn't use that too much anymore. but it was true. because i had never, never expected that i would be in congress, i never expected that i would be a lawyer. and in fact i went to a wonderful school, stanford, undergraduate, and then applied to law school. my first year i went to the university of california and the first thing that greeted me was a professor who said, you're taking the place of someone who belongs here. and that was a man. and that really has really

changed my life because i exceled in everything i did and i transferred law schools by the way and went back to illinois. my first job out of law school was clerking for a judge in the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit and the reason i got it was because the young man from a different school where the judge had always hired, the judge didn't particularly like him so he called over to northwestern and they sent me over there and that's how i got that job. and continued in the legal profession. but i found that i got involved in a lot of volunteer work along the way, too. and all of that, being chairman of boards and whatever, and then running for and being elected to the state assembly, but all of that, the reason that i wanted to go into the state assembly and into congress was what i learned from volunteer work and having four children, first of all, and then being president of

the high school school board. i wanted my children to have the best education and the way to do that is to get involved and to participate. and with all of the others like being chairman of the visiting nurse association of chicago and i got into medicare and medicaid so, all of these things led me to want to go into congress, but i was asked to do those things. and finally when a seat opened up in congress and i said, i'm going for this and i was elected and i've been here and in three committees that are really important still with the financial services, the education and labor and the science committee. and let me just talk just a little bit about tray. as has been said by so many members, so much more eloquent than me, is that government does not create jobs. it's the private sector. but government needs to act to reduce and get rid of the

barriers that they have put -- that we have put on so many of the businesses, so that we can have economic growth, so that we can have those jobs. and one way is to look at the trade issue. we cannot have protectionist trade policies. free trade agreements are one of the many ways to improve all american standards of living and to get our economy back on track. and the administration has three trade agreements that are on the shelf. already negotiated and already -- all ready for approval. and these trade agreements alone has a potential to create 250,000 jobs for americans in america. and what's been so concerning is that the president has not acted. the failure to act means that we will continue to lose sales and jobs to other countries who do not face the trade barriers that our goods and services are

facing. on many products, tariffs that would come down immediately upon enactment of these agreements, giving boosts to exports and jocks, let me just tell you about one company that has traded with colombia. it's a big company with big machinery and every time they sent one of the machineries into colombia, it's $200,000 tariff which shouldn't be there while we have open doors, we have trade, we have wasted so much time, we have wasted at least 2 1/2 years for not doing this, so i think with these trade agreements, such an increase would provide a tremendous boost to the national economy, especially to my home state of illinois and we rank number five for exporting, in the exporting states for manufacturing and agriculture products. so i would encourage the administration to immediately send out those trade agreements. doing so would immediately put people back to work and provide a much-needed boost to our

economy. and i think all the women that are here today -- i thank all the women that are here today and i thank you for doing this and giving us the opportunity. i yield back. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: great point. next i'd like to yield to the first woman from alabama. mrs. roby: thank you so much and to the gentlelady from washington, i appreciate so much the opportunity, what an honor and privilege to serve with each and every one of you and be here on the floor tonight to just share with americans about who we are and what we stand for and why we're here. and the question that i'm most often asked in the district and certainly here is why in the world would a 34-year-old woman with a 6 nrled and a 2-year-old run for congress -- a 6-year-old and a 2-year-old run for congress? i will tell that you margaret and george, my two children, are the very reasons that my husband, riley, and i decided to enter into the race for congress, to represent alabama's

second district. because we are committed to leaving this country best we can , better for our children and better shape for our children than it was for us. and that's why we're here and what a privilege to serve. in college i studied music and thought i was going to work in the music industry and went to law school to further those aspirations where i met my husband, riley, and we were married shortly after law school and we both went into private practice and about two years practicing law, i was watching the news one night and my predecessor on the city council said that she wasn't going to seek re-election and i felt this lurch in my stomach. it was a gut-check moment for us and i tapped riley and i said, that's what i need to be doing. i want to serve my community. of course i had a wonderful example in both of my parents, my father is a public servant and my mother served in many capacities as a volunteer in our

community, all growing up. . and we didn't have children yet and we know we wanted to but if we are going to live in this city and state, we wanted to be part of it. i served on the montgomery city council and after my son george was born, we started praying about this opportunity to run for congress to serve alabama's second district and our country. little george was eight weeks old and i felt as a mom of these two small children and as a wife, that i had something to bring to the table. that it was an opportunity to bring a perspective as the one that goes through the grocery stores and gas pumps as to how much americans are hurting with the lack of jobs right now.

again, what a responsibility and a privilege. riley and i wake up every single day and know that we have a real responsibility to serve the people we represent. i had the privilege of going with you, my colleague from washington, to afghanistan, for mother's day. i serve on the house armed services committee and what a an honor to serve my time, and particularly the men and women serving overseas away from their children and as a mom who is here on congress, on a plane doing my best serving my constituents and my country, i realize looking into their eyes, the tremendous sacrifice they make, what we do doesn't hold a candle to. but truly an honor to understand

what our men and women sacrifice. i'm committed to removing -- doing my part to remove this cloud of uncertainty that is hanging over job creators over the united states of america. as i travel throughout my district, i hear story after story about what is the government going to do to us next, a manufacturing company in my district put a $1 million addition to their manufacturing facility, only to keep up with the regulations that are imposed on them. and this is where we are and how in the world can we expect the private sector to be creating jobs when the heavy-hand of government is that strong. i'm committed to that and i'm committed to real reforms that will allow for the private sector to do what they do best.

that's what our country was founded on. i'm proud to serve my state and country as a republican woman, but more importantly as a conservative committed to doing my part to get our country back on track, not for the next generation, but for the next generation. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: let's hear from the gentlelady from ohio. schmidt schmidt i rise -- mrs. schmidt: i that i sank you to my parents for instilling in me to live the american dream. my father didn't even have an education, but he grew up in a place where he could live his dream. he knew if he worked hard that he could live and do what he wanted to do and that was to provide for his family, buy a farm, own a business and give us the opportunity to lead our

lives in the way that we wanted to. and i instilled that hope in my own daughter. over five years ago, i decided to run for this office, march 23, 2005. i'll never forget the date. the day my daughter got engaged and as we celebrated both decisions, i realized the decision i was making. government was spending too much money and we had to do something about it. but now that she is married and i have been here over five years and administrations have changed, i realize that we weren't spending as much then as we are today. the accelerated spending is really hurting our american dream. my daughter owns her own business and she has two wonderful little children, but i fear that they won't be able to have the american dream that she is trying to hold on to and that

i was afforded to by my own parents. and i look at today and i say to myself, what has this administration done to help us move forward? well, a year ago, the president announced that in 2010, june 17 was going to be the summer of recovery. how is that recovery going? hmh? still over 9% unemployment, we have sent over $1 trillion in stimulus money to no effect, our unemployment is at 19%. we have over 14 million people looking for -- they are underemployed and looking for work and nine million people have part-time jobs. but in addition to those statistics, our economy is not growing and it's not growing because this economy is getting in the way of the growth and it is with overregulation. i worked on the house

resolution, h.r. 872 which took a court decision and put it in its place. but it is more than just that bill that is in our way. i'm alarmed that the usda getting into our any grandchildren's lunch boxes with overregulation, telling schools what they can provide for their students. they are taking potatoes out of the lunch room. and not just eliminating potatoes to one cup a week, but the anormity of the burden of expense on our circle system, over $5 billion and and that is on schools that can least afford it. i could go on and on on the overregulation that is stopping our country to grow.

it's michael and anthony, they mean everything to me and i want those little boys to have the hope and dreams that i had as a child fulfilled as an adult. i want them to have the same hopes and dreams that my daughter had fulfilled. i want what my father gave to me, the belief that with got and living in america, all things are possible. we have to stop the overregulation, the overspending that is occurring in this country today. our fute furnish is at stake. -- our future is at stake and the republican women in the house get it and i applaud them for fighting with me for their children and grandchildren but most importantly for my michael and anthony and i yield back. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield to the gentlelady from kansas.

ms. jenkins: my name is lynn jenkins and i'm a republican woman in my second term from the second district in kansas and before entering public office, i worked for over a dozen years in public accounting as a certified public accountant helping businesses and individuals with their tax planning, their tax compliance and i did that so they could focus on what they did best, and that was create jobs and be successful for their local economies. i originally ran for office -- i ran for the house of representatives in kansas because i was frustrated by the burdens the state government placed on my clients and the families. as a member of both the kansas

house and the senate and then as a state treasurer for a term-and--a-half i secured sound economic policies. but several years ago, i was concerned about the policies of the federal government and about how they were holding back our citizens and our job creators. so i ran for congress. and i'm honored to be here this evening with my fellow republican women to highlight the republicans' plan to promote job growth. over two years ago, when i came to washington, my goal was to pass policies, to stimulate the slagging economy and get us back on firm, financial footing. unfortunately, one of the first things that the democrat majority did at that time was to ignore our proposal for economic growth and chose instead to pass

a stimulus package that we republicans opposed. and just as we predicted at the time, it has failed. let's look at some of the facts. the white house advisers said that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. the unemployment rate is current over 9% and has been above 8% for more than two years. i got a visual aid here that shows a new stud by by an economist from ohio state university, that the president's failed stimulus, the largest stimulus in american history, destroyed or forestalled roughly one million private-sector jobs. taxpayers will end up paying 1. 16 trillion dollars forestalled

by the democrats' stimulus. the total cost by the congressional budget office is over $820 billion and the debt will be $350 billion for over a $1 trillion price tag. the number of net jobs the economy has shed since the democrats' stimulus was signed into law, reaching almost two million. in the last two months, entrepreneurs have started the least fewer businesses. the national debt has increased by $3.5 trillion. 9 federal government shouldn't be in the business of job creation. we should be focusing our efforts here in congress on putting policies in place that encourage private sector job growth. and that's why i'm so proud of

the republicans and jobs proposal before us. money reforms. some include an opportunity to fix the tax code to help job creators spur more american jobs by streamlining our tax code, by increasing competitiveness for american manufacturers, by reigning in this unsustainable debt and living within our means and addressing the issue of regulatory overreach and encourage entrepreneurship and growth. so tenth with my fellow republican women, i'm calling upon my president and the democrat majority in the senate to work with us, help us pass our jobs plan so we can get americans back to work. i yield back.

mrs. mcmorris rodgers: next, i would like to yield to my classmate, a member of the rules committee from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, and i want to thank my colleague from the state of washington for organizing this special order tonight. and mr. speaker, i am a republican woman and so proud to be a part of this great group of women that we have heard from tonight. growing up in a poor family in rural north carolina, there were many opportunities in life that simply weren't available to me. but there was one important opportunity that has always been available to me, and to all of us, and that is living in the freest land on earth, where working hard, taking chances and per servering are catalysts for

success. i'm a republican woman because over the course of my life, i have seen how the incentive to succeed and the guarantee that the fruits of your labor are your own and have haped a people and a nation that accomplishes great things. before i came to congress, i worked in higher education and as a small business owner. over the course of my career, i encountered good government and bad government. each is a powerful force. . good government allows us to spend our money as we see fight -- fit, to grow a business or even to fail in our endeavors. as a small business owner i also observed firsthand how government has the power to crush people under high taxes and oppressive rules. or it has the power to unleash creativity with a light touch

and low taxes. i came to congress as a republican because my life experience in business and education taught me that by easing off the rule making and the tax hiking government can help foster an environment where hardworking, innovative and dedicated people can succeed. i'm a republican because i want to be part of creating a federal government that is nimble, focused, responsive and aligned with the constitution. i believe that such a government will capitalize on our strengths as a nation of innovators and entrepreneurs by removing barriers to job creation and wealth creation. as republicans, we're going to put our government on track to spend less and live within its means. just like women across the nation do every day with their family budgets. when government is right sized,

our economy grows and businesses create jobs. we know that the constitution guarantees the rights of the people, not the rights of the government, mr. speaker. that's why as a republican woman i'm focused on making sure government doesn't stand in the way of the people and that the laws we make here in congress expand freedom rather than expand government. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you. next i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from missouri. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, and thank you very much, my friend from washington state. this is so exciting to get to be here tonight to visit with the american people about what it means to be a republican woman and i am honored to represent missouri's fourth congressional district and as i share with people about the great district that i get to respect, it's a story of the -- represent, it's a story of the heartland.

we are made of small towns and farms and we work hard and we hunt on weekends and go to church on sundays and we just want the government to leave us alone. ms. hartzler: and basically what we have seen over the years is washington getting bigger and bigger and pushing out private enterprise and threatening our basic freedoms and so that's what we have to push back against and restore america's greatness. who i am and the reasons i align myself with the republican party is a reflection of my background and experiences that i've had over the years. i wanted to share just a few of those things with you. i grew up on a farm near archie, missouri, and as my mom and my dad and my sister and i, we raised corn and soybean and we had a lot of hogs and a caffle operation and one thing that strikes me -- calf operation and one thing that strikes me as pivotal to my life is my parents in january, would sit down and take several days cash flowing the year, projecting for what

they thought the yields on the crops would be, the prices on the crops, looking at the expenses, the payments that we had, seeing if we'd be able to make it all work. and after a few years my mom and dad called my sister and i over and said, you need to sit here with us and learn this process. well, i can tell you as a little kid that wasn't the most exciting way to spend our evenings. but it was a wonderful experience because we learned how hard it was to make everything work and to pay for everything and to live within your means and i learned that you have to, you can't spend more than you take in. i learned fiscal responsibility, that is so much a part of the republican party and what we're here trying to do, is to restore that. because washington keeps spending money that it doesn't have. and we can't do that at home. we don't it do it on our farms, we don't do it in our businesses and it's time that washington learned some lessons from the heartland and from ordinary families like mine.

something else i learned on the farm is that hard work pays off usually, of course there's a lot of things dealing with weather and other things you can't control, but one thing you can control lately is the amount of government regulations that's threatening agriculture. now the e.p.a. is trying to regulate dust. well, i still live on a gravel road and have news for people at the e.p.a., if you farm, if you drive down a gravel road, you're going to get dust. so don't try to fine us or tell us that we can't have that, that's just lack of common sense. so washington needs to listen to us ordinary people and not do that. something else i learned growing up, was a lot of our country and a respect of our military. my dad served in the u.s. army reserves and that really made a huge impression on me, that he was willing to serve his country and all those brave men and women that today are putting their lives on the line for us, deserve our highest respects. you know, according to the constitution, there's only a few

things we're supposed to do and one of them is to provide for the common defense and i'm so honored to sit on the house armed services committee where i can work hard for those men and women and keep our country strong and safe and secure. i grew up and became a teacher and i taught home economics. now they call it family and consumer sciences. i loved that, i chose that profession because i believe in the family. and believe i want to make it as strong as possible and i love young people. one thing i taught was a class dealing with finances in the home. and i taught the kids how to balance a checkbook. and the kids got it, i would say you can't spend more than you take in. they understood it. and i don't understand how come washington doesn't understand that same principle? so that's why i'm trying to bring here, how we need to have a balanced budget and that is one thing the republicans are fighting for. i also taught a class called food services, a vocational

staff which are trained them in how to have a job and a lot of food service jobs are beginning career opportunities for young people. and they can move forward. but i taught them, if you work hard and you do an excellent job and become skilled in what you do, you can move forward in life and in america anything is possible. and i'd want that to still be the mantra that we share with our young people today and make sure and preserve that opportunity that we had. later i was a state representative and then after that the governor appoint med chairman of the missouri women's council and i enjoyed that for two years and in that council was an agency, we helped women connect with and meet their economic goals and that's jobs. you know, women, mr. speaker, are starting businesses at twice the rate of men which amounts to 400 new businesses every day are started by women. and women-owned businesses are the fastest growing segment of the united states economy. there's 10.6 million businesses

owned in the united states by women that employ over 19 million american workers and women-owned businesses generate some $2.46 trillion in revenue each year. women are smart, they're able to own their own businesses and we here in washington need to help them meet those goals, not provide hindrances for it. and clearly from the last speaker you see that president obama's plan has failed. throwing money at something does not create jobs. there's a better plan. i'm also a small business owner now, my husband and i own a company where we sell farm equipment. and we employ about 50 people at three stores, so i know the challenges of day to day operating a small business in america and you know most jobs in america are created by small business owners. the same people that president obama is trying to tax. what he doesn't understand is that if you tax job creators more they're not going to have money to be able to hire a

worker. it doesn't make sense. we've got to change course here. you know, a couple of stories quickly i wanted to share with you from businesses in my district. reflect how the policies here in washington are killing jobs. one is when i was in the campaign trail a couple of years ago. i met with a business who told me that they wanted to open up a second location, things were going pretty well, they had about 30 employees at the time, but they ask about this new health care bill that was being debated, that the president was pushing through and they said, if this passes, our business would fold. we provide health care for our employees, as much as possible, we provide them a stipend, so they can go buy their own policies but if this bill passes we can't afford that. so they told me they had decided not to open up a second location because of the government's takeover of health care that washington was forcing down the throats of americans. that is tragic because in this town there are hundreds of people out of work and it broke

my heart that what is going on here in washington was directly causing people to be unemployed back home. another example, i've been visiting with a lot of my companies in my district who manufacture goods and thank goodness we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs here in america -- america. but as i visit with them, she share with me the hurdles that they're having to overcome, just to stay open because of washington's policies of high taxes and regulations. their competition is over's and -- is overseas and they told me, we do not want to move to china, we do not want to take those jobs there. but yet if we move there, we're not going to have to pay near as many taxes and we don't have to live by these awful regulations from e.p.a. and all these other government agencies. and so we're going to try to stay here as long as possible, but please, please help us get government off our backs. and i assured them i certainly would do everything that i can because you know as house republicans we know how to create jobs and that's what we're putting forward. we're putting forth a plan to

lower taxes, we're putting forth plans to push back on this government regulations that are out there that are killing jobs, hurting our farmers, we are promoting trade overseas and want to get these trade passed and we're also getting rid of that huge uncertainty of debt that is hanging over our country and promoting a balanced budget like my mom and dad did around the kitchen table at home, like i taught my kids at school how to do. but the last thing that influences me is being a wife and mother. and that is what inspires me to continue to fight for faith, family, freedom and our future, that's what we're all about. thank you, madam, and thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker. i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 316, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2021, to amend the clean air act regarding air pollution from the outer continental shelf activities and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1249, to amend title 35 united states code to provide for patent reform. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield to the inspiring representative from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you. my name is diane black and i represent the sixth congressional district in tennessee. i am hearing more and more from women in my district, more and more women are decision makers in their households. as a matter of fact, statistics

show us that 84% of women are primary decision makers today. they set their budgets, they buy groceries, they take their children to school and to doctors and they also work outside the home. i hear from women all over my district who are on the frontlines and they say that the economy is making life tougher and that they're constantly trying to do more with less. they tell me that when they go to the grocery store, how much the rising food prices are cugget into what they buy. gas is more expensive and their budgets are shrinking and their choices are limited because washington is deciding for them. as these past few years got harder, government stood in the way of our economy getting back on track. and in tennessee we have an unemployment rate of 9.6%. i also hear from women in my district whose husbands are looking for jobs and these women

are working two jobs to make ends meet. a struggle that is very real to me. as a nurse for over 40 years i worked two jobs when my children were little and our family was trying to better ourself as my husband was working on his degree. i worked not only as a nurse but i also had a home health care -- also had a school for children in my home. my fellow g.o.p. women here tonight, we are all with similar stories of struggles and challenges and working hard for our families. government needs to get out of the way and allow businesses to grow so that jobs are created and america gets back on track. i am a republican woman and i am proud of that. i am proud to say that i am not only protecting children and their families but also working

to make sure that our country gets back on track so that we have jobs that will allow these families to be strong and grow. i believe that i am not only speaking for myself but also for the women back home and across this country. i yield back my time, madam chairman. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you very much. i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from florida, chairman of the international relations committee. ms. ros-lehtinen: well, i thank the lady from washington for yielding me the time and i'm inspired to hear my wonderful colleagues, proud women women, proud to be -- republican women, proud to be republican as well as plugging our gender because we have a very positive story to tell our country and as the -- my wonderful friend, the colleague from the state of washington, pointed out, my name is ileana ros-lehtinen and i represent florida's proud and beautiful 18th congressional district that covers from ball

harbor all the way down to sunny key west, 265 miles of coastal beach area. i'm a daughter, a mother, a grandmother a wife of a vietnam veteran a former educator and a former small business owner. i fled castro's communist cuba with my parents when i was 8 years old. i'm proud to be a naturalized american. cuban by birth, american by choice. i am also a republican woman. i enter public service after talking to my parents, at a small, bilingual school we operated together. after hearing from the parents at the school i operated about their hopes and dreams and the problems and concerns that they

had, i decided that the best way to help them was not just to help them individually but to help them in a bigger way by being involved in the legislative process in order to change the policies that were causing them difficulties and as we have said here tonight, mr. speaker, our nation faces grave economic dissatisfaction and a sluggish economy and no job recovery and republican women understand and recognize the need for creative and bold solutions to get america moving in a positive direction once again so that small business owners such as the ileana ros-lehtinen's in south florida who have a small school or have a small business, so they are not hampered by burdensome regulations that inhibit their growth. we know how small business

suffers due to this growing bureaucracy and this unnecessary regulatory wrangling that goes on and that has occurred in the last three years and the previous speakers spoke on this issue of the regulation that is -- that has run amok. republican women recognize that economic prosperity cannot be created because small and medium-sized businesses are the engines that fuel the economy. republican women are in unison to say we don't want to leave this burden, this financial debt to our children and grandchildren, we want to leave them with a more prosperous and secure nation, that's why i'm proud to be a republican woman. i thank the gentlelady from washington for yielding the the -- me the time. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you very much. i'm proud to yield to my

colleague from washington state. ms. herrera beutler: thank you very much. as the youngest woman in this caucus, i'm proud to join this topic. the women are cops, attorneys, they're moms, some of them have served in public office like myself, flst a tremendous group of problem solvers here and that's what we need. we know that we need solutions and the most important solution we can find right now has to do with bringing more jobs to folks at home, making sure we have good, strong american jobs that will support our families. as congress looks for the job creation sloughs that so many americans are craving, i believe we republican women will bring a special skill to the table. one of my woman colleagues summed it up best when she said, women take technical

problems and come up with creative solutions. we're better at looking at the issue from outside the box. i believe much of what she said and i believe that's one of the reasons you see us here tonight fighting for those back home, whether it's home back in southwest washington where people are out of work whether it's the mom who knows how much it costs to put gas in the tank, who is worried about her older parents and making sure they have access to health care and thinking about her children and grandchildren. it's these women throughout our nation who have borne the brunt of this economy. it's important that we are at the table here tonight pushing back on that label because we do represent those american women and the solutions that we're bringing and that we're fighting for are going to make it so that those women who have dreams to start their own business, to plan for retirement, who want to see

less of their paycheck going into the gas tank, those are who we're standing up for tonight and the solutions we're going to push forward will help them and help our communities and help our country. i recognize that we are in a limited time here tonight so thank you for allowing me to stand up and speak on this. ms. mcror -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker, we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would be pleased to entertain a motion. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i 3450u6 that we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adjourning. been some speculation

that texas governor rick perry will join the race. [applause]

>> thank you. . . i'm jon huntsman and i'm humbled. i've been a governor of the great state of utah. i've been a businessman. i've been a diplomat. i'm the husband of the love of my life. the greatest human being i've ever known, mary kate, for 28 years. i'm the father of seven terrific kids. i'm the son of great parents. who are here with me today celebrating a very important anniversary, including a birthday. i'm from the american west. where the view of america is limitless. with lots of blue sky.

i've lived overseas four times where the view of america from 10,000 miles away is a picture of liberty, opportunity, and justice. people secure in their rights and in love with their liberty. people who have done more good for more people than any other nation on earth. and today i'm a candidate for the office of president of the united states of america. t of the united states of america. [applause] thank you, thank you. my kids cannot believe i just said that. [laughter] i am asking for the greatest privilege and american can bestow on a fellow citizen and

you are entitled to know the reasons why. today, americans are experiencing, through no fault of their own, something that is totally alien to them, a sense that the deck is stacked against them by force is totally beyond their control. no matter w hard they work, sa, and plan, the opportunities are not there for them that were present for previous generations. perhaps saddest of all, we have lost faith in ourselves. for the first time in history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, ls competitive, and less confident than the one we got. this, ladies and gentlemen, is

totally unacceptable and it is totally american. [applause] -- it is totally un-american. it need not, must not, will not be our permanent condition. we will not be the first american generation that let down the next generation. we have the power. we have the means. we have the character to astonish the world again by making from adversity a new and better country, this inexhaustible land of promise and opportunity. we have everything and nation could ever hope for. we have our freedom. law, theule bloof longest surviving constitution, and their personal belief in personal responsibility. we have freedom of speech, religion, and press. we produce 1/4 of the world's

gdp and we are the most productive society on earth. we have the finest colleges and universities and the most skilled, powerful, and selfless armed forces. [applause] thank you. we have character. we have character thatade a new world from a well-, a character that made the desert bloom and the city's rise to the heavens, character that made the world safer, freer, and more prosperous. what we now need is leadership that trust in our strength. we need leadership that does not promise washington has all the solutions to our problems but rather looks to local solutions from our cities, towns, and

states. leadership that knowweeed more than hope. leadership that knows we need answers. [applause] we must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster. if we don't, in less than a decade, every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the cost of medicare, social security, and interest payments on our debt. meanwhile, we will sink deeper into debt for everything else from national security to disaster relief. our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. our influence in the world will weigh in. our security will grow ever more precarious thanhe 21st century

will then be known as the end of the american century. we cannot accept this and we want. [applause] we won't. [applause] here is the challenge -- we must proceed at a time of weak economic growth and a very high unemployment. we desperately need jobs and the opportunities they carry. must play to our strengths and give the most innovative society on earth the tools they need to succeed. we must make broad and bold changes to our tax code and regulatory policies, seized lost opportunity of energy independence, and a stamp -- and reestablish what it means to be a teacher in society. we must reignite the powerful job-creating engine of our

economy, the industry, innovation, trail blazing genius of americans and their enterprises and restore confidence in our people. we can and will own the future. [applause] we did many of these things immigrates did you tell when i was governor. we cut taxes. balance our budget, we worked very hard to maintain our aaa bond rating status which few states can come when the economic crisis hit, we were preped. by many accounts, we became the best state in america for business. we also were named the best managed state in america. [applause]

we proved that government does not have to choose between fiscal responsibility and econom growth. i learned something very important as governor. for most american families, there is nothing more important than a job. [appuse] internationally, we will lead the world in a way that speaks to pre-eminence and let us not forget that we are a nation at war. this came home to me as i spoke to the vfw convention recently in the state of new hampshire. i was joined by my good friend john chevalier, a marine. we looked at the greatest generation, all of whom were there in their output to and ribbons that had earned during a time of conflict. i saw in their eyes stories about which you could make great

movies and i saw america's greatest generation. they lived throughhe depression. they lived through world war two and beyond and they delivered to this country in ways that protect and preserve our liberty and freedom. i am here to tell you that we have another of america's greatest generations coming up. they are ready to rebuild america jt like earlier generations. [applause] we are at war, ladies and gentleman, and we must manage the end of these conflicts without repeating past mistakes that made our engagement laundered and our sacrifices greater than they should have been. it is not that we wish to disengage from the world. don't get me wrong, but rather that we believe the best long-

term national-security strategy is rebuilding our core here at home. [applause] let me say something about civility. for the sake of the ynger generation, it concerns me that civility, humanity, and respect are sometimes lost in our interactions as americans. our political debates today are corrosive and not reflective of the belief that a blanket has bounced back in his days that we are a great country because we are a good country. you know what i mean when i say that. we will conduct this campaign on the high road. i don't think you need to run down someone's reputation in order to run for the office of president. of course we will have our

disagreements. that is what campaigns are all about. i want you to know that i respect my fellow republican candidates and the respect the president of the united states. he and i have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love. the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who is the bter american. [applause] behind me is our most famous symbol of the promise of america. president reagan launched the 1980 general election campaign from this very spot. it was a time of trouble, wary, and difficulty and he assured us that we could make america great

again and through his leadership, he did. today, i stand in his shadow as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty. for 125 years, three tramps and hardships of all kinds, her lamp has been a beacon reflecting america's highest aspirations and values, america's promises have been kept. each generation in their turn has worked very hard to keep her lit. now it is our turn. our challenges are many and they are urgent but our problems are no bigger than our opportunities and they are not insurmountable for a people who have always used our freedom to make the future better than the past. we are a resourceful, ingenious,

determined, problem solving people. we don't settle for less than our character and talent will achieve. we choose our destiny as. a as we always have and we always will. this is thatoment. we're not just choosing new leaders, we are choosing whether we are to be yesterday's story or tomorrow's. everything is at stake. this is the hour when we choose our future. i am jon huntsman and i am running for president of united states. thank you all. [applause] thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you all. [applause] >> thanks, everybody. >> thank you all. ♪

>> following this announcement, jon huntsman traveled to new hampshire which holds the nation's first primary. later this week he'll campaign in south carolina and florida. c-span has launched a new easy to navigate website for politics in the 2012 presidential race with the latest c-span events from the campaign trail, bioinformation from the candidates, twitter feeds and updates from candidates and political reporters and links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, visit us at c-span.org/campaign2012. next, treasury secretary tim geithner talks about the debt

ceiling negotiations and the u.s. and global economy. he spoke with gerald sibe of "the wall street journal" for 35 minutes. >> welcome. how are you doing? >> good. >> secretary geithner has taken some time out from his calm, trouble-free existence to spend a little time with us. i understand, you've seen his bioin your packets. among other things, he's the second treasury secretary to be a graduate of dartmouth college in distant hanover, new hampshire. i noted the other way commencement exercises happened recently at dartmouth and you would think they would have invited a distinguished alumnus such as you to be commencement speaker, instead they invited conan o'brien to speak. did he go to dartmouth? he went to a small college in cam brage, massachusetts but couldn't get in dartmouth. you're visiting dartmouth, i understand it, to conduct a seminar at dartmouth, i thought i'd tell you what conan o'brien said about visiting dartmouth

about the time you were a student there. he said dartmouth was a very different place back then. i made the trip up from boston on a mule and after asking the blacksmith for directions, i came to this beautiful campus, no dormitories had been built yet so i stayed with a family of fur traders in white river junction. it snowed heavily during my visit and was trapped there for four months. i was forced to eat the mule who a week earlier had been forced to eat the fur traders. so congratulations for -- on for surviving hanover, new hampshire, and good luck on your return visit. i have a lot of -- plenty of questions to ask you. but i thought i'd start by reading to you two things that were said from this stage last night by participants in the conference, and just get you to respond to them for starters. one comment was the most important thing government can do to promote innovation is get its own house in order. second related point, it was unimaginable a few years ago

the u.s. would be talking about default on its debt. so i guess the question for you is, can the government get its house in order and will we spend the rest of the summer worrying about default on debt? >> well, jerry, you know, i think two things are going to happen this summer. one is we're going to avoid a default crisis, no doubt about that. it's unthinkable people would contemplate that as a sort of viable strategy for the country. it's not going to happen. and we're going to have a bipartisan, comprehensive, long-term debt reduction framework. the question is what is going to be the shape of that framework. what we're trying to do is negotiate something good for the economy in the short term and good for the economy in the long run. what that means is we want to have a framework that restores gravity to our long term fiscal position and locks in things over time, does not do that so precipitously we add to the pressures on growth in the near term and we want to do it in a

way that creates some room for the government to do things only governments can do to help improve incentives for investment, make sure we're investing in things that really matter for the long term like education, infrastructure, things like that. so we want an agreement that's going to be good for growth in the short term, good for growth in the long run, and i think we have a good chance of doing that. you know, in the room in these negotiations, despite, you know, it's a political town and political moment, it is a very pragmatic, very realistic, very constructive spirit, and we hope that results in some compromise, the kind of compromises you need to make a broad deal work. >> so you're describing an outcome that essentially will be two-tiered, down payment now, longer term agreement later? >> yeah. we don't see a realistic path to solving all this at once in the next few weeks, it's just not possible. but what we're trying to do is do a framework where there's a substantial down payment of spending the reforms that lock in spending, save deficit

reduction over a 10-year period of time and then a framework of constraints, we call it a debt fail-safe or a set of targets and triggers that will force the remaining deficit reduction to happen soon enough so we don't fall behind the curve in this. so we're looking at what we call a debt cap, meaning a constraint that says we have to get our deficit down to the point where a debt burden is falling over the next three to five years. so whatever we don't do in the down payment, we'll have to do in the next couple of years. if congress can't act, we want an automatic enforcement mechanism that locks in the deficit reduction savings we need. >> will that package include additional revenues and will it include entitlement reductions and savings. >> for it to work for the economy, you need to have a balanced framework. if you try to do this debt reduction in 10-20 years, you

do it only on spending cuts and of course the budget is -- would be irresponsible and really not -- you can't pass it without that. you need a plan that has moderate increases as well as near-term spending savings and long-term entitlement reforms. again, i think if you look at the structure of our budget and what's driving these long-term deficits, if you look at the scale of challenges we need in terms of creating room for things that matter for investment for long-term growth, you can't do it through spending reductions concentrated on very narrow slices of the government where the economy sort of depends on the government doing things only the government can do it. so the target is $4 trillion to $5 trillion the next 10 years. in other words, is that something all sides agree? >> some very important things

happened in the last six months in this town, hard to see from a distance, hard to appreciate from a distance. but you have republicans in the house, the president of the united states, a bipartisanship deficit reduction plan all agreeing on a broad target for deficit reduction in that magnitude, $4 trillion to $5 trillion, all with similar targets for the deficit itself over the first three to five years, and that's very important because once you have both sides of the aisle committing to that basic objective, it's all about the composition, it's all about the composition of the changes. that's all important. if you look back to 1995-1996, last time we had very substantial, very important bipartisan reduction plans set in place, the most important change when you had both sides, republicans and a democratic president at the time saying we need a balanced budget, so with that basic change we have a pretty good chance of doing something useful. again, what matters is we have a deal that locks in some long-term savings but that's

going to be good for the economy in the short term and the long run. >> you set the deadline for this in many ways and said august 2 is the day the treasury cannot do any more. >> i don't set that deadline, it's imposed by reality. you know, we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend now. and congress has to raise the debt limit before we run out of that room. and i think there's broad exceptions by the leadership of that constraint, and i think it's very helpful to have had senator o'connell and the speaker of the house and the majority leader in the house all saying that they want to get this done, they don't want to take it too close to the edge. i think they recognize the damage it would cause the country to take it too close to the edge. >> how close are we to getting this done? what's your gut tell you? >> we're meeting i think every day the remainder of this week, and we're making a lot of progress in flushing out the shape of a sort of down payment

with this broader framework of constraints, debt cap, forced mechanism, and you know, we're getting closer, we're getting closer but we need to make some progress this week to give everybody more confidence that there's a framework that has the votes. ultimately what matters is how do we get the votes to pass something in the house and the senate? >> i guess the -- in a perverse way to do it is -- [inaudible. [inaudible] >> i suppose perversely the good news is there are countries who have worse problems to deal with than we do. greece comes to mind this morning. this may in many ways be d-day and d-week in greece to determine whether the immediate crisis can be averted. what's the latest reading on greece? will something happen today that will allow the e.u. to renew payments on the loan package, and will there be a short-term problem averted in

greece? >> i think there will be. of course this is obviously europe's problem to solve. we're very actively involved in helping them get to a sensible place, make sure the i.m.f. -- i spoke to the prime minister of greece over the weekend and we had two g-7 calls over the weekend, at least on sunday and monday and i spent a lot of time on the phone with the principals in europe on this issue, but ultimately they have to find a solution that works for the politics of europe now. let me just say a couple things about what's important as they manage through this. i think it would be very helpful to have europe speak with a clearer, more unified voice on their strategy. i think it's very hard for people who invest in europe and outside of europe to understand what that strategy is when you have so many basic people talking and a simple rule of crisis management is you want to have a simple, clear, unified declaretive strategy. that would be helpful. the second thing i would say is that they have a very

substantial financial arsenal, firewall that they've laid out, and we want to make sure -- i think they want to make sure that that's available to be deployed to do the kind of things they need to do to make this process work, that means make it available to make sure banks can be recapitalized where they need capital and make sure there is funding for a banking system because no economy can function without a banking system to fund and make sure the countries undergoing these very difficult reforms have a financial backstop to make these reforms work. these countries in greece, ireland, and portugal and spain are undertaking incredibly difficult, very ambitious reform plans, you know, to fix the fiscal mess they created, to make sure they strengthen and restructure their financial systems and figure out a way to grow. but those things are going to take years, not months. it's going to take years and they're not going to work unless there's a broader financial backstop behind them. but absolutely they're going to -- they have the ability to

avoid a short-term crisis but are still feeling their way towards a more comprehensive strategy that the markets will have confidence in. >> and what voice should be that single voice explaining europe's position to the world. >> who should it be? they have to make that choice. they have a complicated set of institutions in that concontext but have to agree on a plan and have clarity so people understand what the basic plan is. >> what was your message, what was the american mess 9/11 those g-7 phone calls? >> same thing i just said today which is that you want to make sure this broader financial arsenal that they constructed last summer after watching europe start to burn, you want to make sure that architecture, that arsenal is available to be deployed to do the things necessary for them to get out of this. that means where necessary there's capital available to recapitalize banks.

they're going through another stress test to sort of assess what those capital needs are. they want to make sure they can be filled if the market won't fill them, that there's funding available in the banking system and there's a broader financial box available to help those countries going through the reforms. >> isn't somebody going to have to take a haircut, is it going to be banks or german tax parpse who end up doing that? >> good question. and, you know, no easy answer to that question. ultimately again for these things to work, you have to set reforms in place that people can look at and say if the government sticks to that path, then at the end of that time there's going to be enough growth and resources to meet their commitments over time and that's something you can only earn confidence with over time. again, people will look at what can the political systems of those countries deliver, and is there a scale of resources behind them to help make sure they can reinforce that process for a transitional period while

they're trying to get their act together. >> is there a long-term path for greece emerging? i can see the short term crisis management. i'm not sure i see the long-term solution. it seems they're in a hole they can't climb out of and that maybe no one is willing to pull them out. >> that's exactly what they're trying to work through, the european lead thers week. of course they've been grappling that for more than a year and are still working through what mix of ultimate solutions are going to be helpful but they have to make that choice. >> again, i would emphasize that what those governments are committing to and what they've already delivered in many ways, they've got years to go, are very substantial, very difficult set of reforms and there's no path without going through those reforms. >> is there a firewall between greece and spain, italy,

ireland, or is the contagion danger high through the rest of the year? >> it's important this financial arsenal they put in place is available and deployed to make sure they have that firewall. one of the most important things that's happened over the last six months or so is that spain has been able to earn more credibility with its own people and broader investment community by putting in place a set of reforms that have distinguished it from some parts of europe and obviously they want to make sure they can sustain that but ultimately again, you need a broader financial backstop that people view as credible, that sort of clean commitment to make sure government and the banks can fund as the countries go through these reforms. >> do you think the euro will survive this moment, this crisis? >> i do. >> in its current form? >> there's no reason why europe cannot manage these problems

within the basic framework of monitoring they laid out. they are absolutely worried about how to make sure they have a set of policies for coordinating -- fiscal policy for budget policy with a stronger set of disciplines in place to monitor. and that's obviously the absence of those is one reason they're in this mess and would like to fix that and you know, they've been spending the last year trying to build the architecture of a broader fist cal framework that provide that but there's no reason they can't preserve the basic elements of mantra union. >> let me pull you home and ask you about a subject that's important to this audience, particularly corporate tax reform. it's been interesting as an observer of washington the last year or so to see what seems to be a consensus emerging that the corporate tax rate, the corporate tax system is probably not sustainable in the long run and needs to be addressed. you said that yourself a lot. how close are we and in what --

by what bath does this country get to genuine corporate tax reform? >> let me start by saying we agree the current tax code of the united states is not something we should not be living with for any longer. you know, you all live in this world. you know, we have a very bad combination of high statutory rate, some broad-based and their -- narrow tax expenditures that create distortions and huge divergents across the u.s. business community. it's a politically driven tax system that fails that basic test of letting the markets and economics of business allocate investment. so we should change it. it's got this terrible uncertainty around having this year by year uncertainty about which tax preferences get extended. so you want a tax system that can lower that statuteary rate, do so in a revenue neutral way

and create more certainty on conditions that make the u.s. a more attractive place to invest. that's something absolutely within our capacity to do as a country and should not be inherently a partisan endeavor. there should be a lot of common ground on both sides. again, the basic test is how to make it more likely american companies and foreign companies are investing in creating things in the united states. now, it's a difficult thing to do, and there's the question about what's going to be feasible in the near term, we have been spending a lot of time putting together a broader framework that meets that basic test. but we decided we had to sort of wait to deploy that to begin the broader conversation until we were through the budget negotiation we're going through right now, for obvious reasons, those require all the oxygen this town has hat the moment and we want to get that right. if we get that done, then we have an opportunity to begin the process in the corporate tax reform.

>> in the negotiations you were describing earlier on a deficit deal that gets you past the debt ceiling, the one vice president biden is running, this is not on the table in those conversations? >> no, we're not doing detailed redesign of the corporate tax system as a whole or the individual in those discussions. we're trying to think about how to set up, you know, a longer term, balanced fiscal arrangement. but again, our hope is, our expectation, once we get this broader deficit reduction agreement done, then we can move to laying a foundation for comprehensive corporate tax reform. should be possible to do. there's a lot of people who say that you have to wait for an individual, you have to do them together. i don't agree with that. you could decide to do it that way but i think the risk for the american business community is that that will just confine you to years of unnecessary delay because ultimately we're probably going to have to do broader based individual tax

reform, too, but that process as it did under president reagan is going to take years, again, it would be good for the economy for this economy at this time for the just to put in place a sensible pro growth, long-term fiscal deal but to find things we can do together in the near term to strengthen vin investment -- investment in the united states. growing exports by passing trade agreements, there's no reason we can't do those things. >> to be realistic, you get the deficit deal done, it's august, august to september, you're just over a year out of the presidential election. you're basically in campaign season. can you do corporate tax reform in a campaign environment, let's face it, by this fall that's what this town is going to be in? >> you know, we're the united states of america. we got a lot of challenges. if we decide nothing is possible, until we resolve all

our fundamental disagreements on the political front, we'll be weaker as a country going forward. again, these are not difficult things in comparison to the things we've just been through. again, the president came in right at the ship, prevented a second great depression, incredibly difficult set of things required to make that possible, and i think these things on corporate tax reform or infrastructure financing, trade agreements are not nearly as difficult as those things. we should be able to do those and make progress on those fronts. >> let me ask you about three details. if you had a blank sheet of paper and could do the corporate tax reform you wanted, what would you do about a rate, repatriation and territoriality. >> i'm going to deprive you detail of that at the moment in the hope of -- just because we don't want to jeopardize the potential for progress on this. i think, again, my view is for this to get moving, ultimately

somebody, and i think it will be us, has to lay out a proposal. we'll lay out a proposal with options and people can look at the proposal and how we balance those particular things and decide whether they have a better idea, better idea to getting votes for something. the right test should be, what's going to strengthen incentives for investment in the united states. so that we're improving the chance that more of the huge growth and demand we're going to see over the next several decade from emerging markets as a whole is met by things people are creating and building in the united states and corporate tax reform is part of that. it's not the only thing but why education matters so much and why infrastructure matters so much and why other incentives the government can create for innovation matter so much but corporate tax reform is part of that. >> but this process is going to be kicked off by you, which is to say -- >> maybe. likely be. usually is -- we haven't made exactly that judgment. what we want to do is figure out an approach that maximizes

the chance for legislating something. so we'll choose the tactics based on the way that the playing field looks once we get through the fiscal negotiations. >> but you've got an idea, it's on the shelf and ready to go? >> yeah, we have a good sensible package with some good options for people to take a look at. there are tradeoffs in these things. people should look at the tradeoffs. >> let me give you a last chance to make news before we turn it over to the audience who probably have better questions. you want to endorse christine lagarde to be the manager of the i.m.f.? >> we have two incredible candidates for the position. we want to have the succession resolved quickly and i'm confident we'll have somebody who will not just come with experience, technical experience and credibility that matters but able to command very broad support across the membership, not just among the major economies in the g-7 but

emerging economies in the well and want to get it done quickly. >> great. thanks. i think you all should have a crack at the secretary. allen, you want to be oprah here? >> sure. right here, larry meyer. >> mr. secretary -- >> you are ineligible. >> so how much of the challenge of crafting a long-run solution to our budget is not about the numbers, but about broader policy, defunding, a.p.a., defunding health care, and rolling back policy, for example, that democrats have promoted and achieved over the last two decades? how important are the writers on the budget proposals as opposed to the numbers? >> i think it's very likely we'll do this thing in two stages of the next few months.

those questions you just referred to which go to how policy issues in the form of writers are revolved in the budget process, the precise com position of a bunch of other changes and the discretionary budget, i think those things will probably be resolved in the classic appropriations process later this fall. in the room where we're negotiating the broader framework, we don't have the time or ability to get into that level of detail, and we shouldn't try. i think at this stage. so we'll have to two-step that. you're right there are big things that divide both parties now. and that's not going to change in the next several weeks or so. our challenge is to try to figure out a way to lock in some reforms that allow us to make a substantial down payment on fiscal consolidation over time and in a growth frendly way and set up an enforcement mechanism that forces to confront the broader things before we fall too far behind the curve. >> can i jump in here. >> yeah.

>> just to throw you out on what you just said to larry and something you said earlier. you're describing a situation in these budget talks which is foreign to those of us who have been in washington the last few years. you're describing a constructive, non-- >> outside of washington seems foreign to everyone. >> a nonaccusatory environment. but that's what you experience? >> i think in that room, you have people focused on the overwhelming pragmatic imperative of how to legislate, meaning get the votes, to legislate a comprehensive long-term fiscal consolidation program that allows us to go back to recognizing that we are not going to be able to agree in the next few weeks about ultimately what we're going to have to do to make our longer entitlement problems more sustainable, what mix of reforms of medicare and medicaid are ultimately going to be necessary, and we're not going to resolve in the next few weeks the precise shape of

tax reform, not feasible. but our job is to figure out, given that reality, how we can do enough to make sure we can get people more confidence that this country will be able to live within our means over time. and again, this is a very important long-term problem for the country. people are all saying the right things about recognizing the imperative, managing the deficit reduction we have to engage in. it's all about the composition. and the composition really matters a lot so the composition will determine not just the composition of how much is phased with the pace of the phasing in a debt reduction, but the composition of changes on tax reform on entitlement spending, other spending things will determine whether we have a deal that will be good for growth, good for the long-term growth of this country and good for the short-term challenges trying to make sure we dig out of the crisis definitively. >> other questions? right here.

identify yourself for the secretary. >> good morning, steve londy from dexlon corps. what do you think the role is no immigration reform in fixing the deficit challenges you're describing? >> thank you. well, i think i would just say that, you know, as a secretary of the treasury that one of the great strengths of this country , past and will be in the future, i hope, that we remain a compelling place for people to come and build a business, not just go to graduate school but stay afterwards and build a business, and i think it is very important for us to try to make sure we preserve that fundamental strength, which is to make this place the most open place for townspeople to come. and if we do that well, we have an economy that is going to grow at a rate that will be substantially faster than that of the other major economies. it's likely if you look at us versus europe and japan, the other major developed economies that underlying potential growth rates for us will be

between 50% and twice the rate of growth in part because we have a better tradition of openness immigration and better incentives for a capital growth and proximity growth and are those things that matter for long-term strength. >> so do you see changes on the immigration front? >> i'm not close enough to the politics of that. i recognize how daunting it is, but you guys are probably in a better position to speak to the feasibility of those things now. >> other questions? jeff, hang on and let's get a microphone to you. >> mr. secretary, can you identify what actions the administration has taken to support a strong u.s. dollar. r excellent question. >> my view on these things --

you're familiar with it because i've been saying it for years and years and years and i hope people in my job say it forever, which is that a strong dollar will always be in the interest of the united states. ultimately what matters to confidence in the united states is making sure we are focused in strengthening the basic fundamentals of the american economy. that means for us now as a country is not just repairing the damage caused by this crisis, it means not just trying to make sure we get our long-term fiscal house in order but we continue to focus on doing things to make the underlying fundamentals of our country stronger over time. ultimately if we get those things right, then we will continue to preserve what is a very substantial amount of confidence in this as a place to invest long term. and i think if you look at how people price relative credibility across markets today, there's a lot of confidence in the capacity of this political system to ultimately act on those fronts, but we have to earn that confidence over time. we can't count on it indefinitely and it requires

demonstrating that politicians in washington can come together and solve some of these long term problems. >> we have time for another question or two in the cfo's? any questions from any of our members of the cfo network? >> hang on, bob. we'll get to you. >> christy mattis. mr. secretary, we have opportunities at the federal level right now but many states are also in crisis. you know, how do you see the likelihood of a state default and what do you see the federal governments' role in that? >> it's very important for you to remind people that states are still under a lot of pressure. in many ways those pressures are diminishing because revenues are starting to come back as growth recovers. and i think that means their pressures will be more manageable than they were over the last three years or so. but still, a lot of pressure on them. it will take a long time for them to work through that. important to remind people about this, though, because if you look what's happening to the american economy as we dig out of this mess, as you see in

the last six months, there's important transition happening, you know, in the early stage of the crisis, as the broader private sector was pulling back in a state of broad panic and concern about the global economy, the government stepped in and filled that gap, cleaned up the mess, stabilized the system right at the ship, and now the government is receding and what you're seeing state and local governments doing, significant short-term dragging the economy as a whole and it is bringing down the overall growth rates a bit. but over all, as the government is receding, you're seeing the private sector step up again. you've seen reasonably strong rated growth from private investment, pretty good export performance and those things are sort of important as you look to rebalancing our economy over the longer run. >> chuck, microphone right here. >> chuck nosky from bank of

america. obviously they're in a period of high unemployment, some factions of the economy desirous of protectionism, obviously trading with important partners is key to growth. could you comment upon prospects for progress there? >> well, we're in i think the last stage of negotiating a solution for how to legislate these three trade agreements, korea, colombia, panama. it's very important we do that, very good for export growth and help make sure we don't lose market share in those countries but they have a bigger importance to make sure we have the capacity to negotiate broader trade agreements with asia, the fastest growing parts of the world which are going to be very important to sustaining the pretty healthy growth in exports we've seen in the ear early stages of recovery. if you step back a second, we have an economy that where growth was too dependent on

housing investment no a long period of time and borrowing to sustain levels of consums and we're in the process of shifting how we grow as a country going forward. and ultimately future growth in the united states will have to be more investment driven, more export driven, and that's exactly what we've seen in the first 18 months of the recovery so far. and two years of recovery, i think that's very encouraging. you know, still, this is a very hard economy. and any countries caught up in the economy most effected by the economy, real estate, housing, businesses exposed to the fact that individuals are borrowing less, they're trying to reduce debt. those parts of the economy are still weak.

>> you think by the end of the year all three trade agreements will be ratified? >> i do, yeah. >> yeah, right there. final question. >> as we try and improve the state of this economy and you work on these important issues, i'm concerned a little bit about the balance between what you're doing and some of the offsetting things that might be happening elsewhere in washington. some of the regulatory things that aren't really pro business, that are perhaps forcing some of us to look offshore and do things elsewhere, how do you balance those two things? >> you want to give an example

so i can be responsive? >> please identify yourself. >> scott spinlove. the whistle blower laws and rules. some of the regulatory rules relative to energy, we're an energy company. just those kinds of things. >> i got it. let me tell you what i think the president's view on this is, and it's certainly my view, too. ultimately thisis about balance. the financial sector is a classic example. you live with the consequences of when countries get that wrong, damaging consequences to growth and basic business help when you get that the mention of regulation wrong. in those areas, there is a whole range of public safety things

where regulation lags behind, and we have to get that better. we also have to be careful we do not overdo it, that we do not add to much too quickly, to substantially burden on an economy that is still living with the shadows of the crisis and trying to dig out of a deep hole, and we are trying to get that balance better. that is to make sure that people who design regulations bring a comprehensive approach at looking at burden, benefit, and submit themselves to a higher bar. i understand why you are concerned, and we are trying to get that balance right. >> thank you very much. >> or from toronto -- more from

the "wall street journal" conference. >> she does not need an introduction. there were a lot of people who were saying the fcc would never survive the financial crunch, that there would never be an fcc. the fact is the fcc is still here, and she has done a great job in rebuilding it and expanding it, and there are now a number of crucial tasks, including writing the detailed rules of dodd-frank.

do you think the financial system is safer than it was during and immediately after the crisis? >> it is a great question. not yet. we have a long way to go. dodd-frank was a great step forward. >> we are well through that process. until we have in place a regime around derivatives and until we have final rules around resolutions and the tools that will be available to the fdic in that context, until we had additional capital requirements in place, where on the path, but i do not think we can say we have necessarily cemented the foundation of the financial system in a way that we all hoped would be the case in the not too distant future when some

of these things are done. one of the things i think are better are i do think there is greater sensitivity and corporate management about risk. there has been a bolstering of risk management capability. i think regulators are very much on a point now watching what is the one on and being more inclined to step in and if not pushed companies to use the bully pulpit and persuade with tactics to make changes necessary. those things that are on the periphery are better. we are seeing some improvement in things like composition programs, although not nearly to the extent that we need to in order to get incentives better aligned. until we have implemented dodd- frank, i think we would be foolish to suggest that everything is fine. >> that could take years.

we will be in limbo for another few years? >> it will take some time. it was talked about the tremendous task and challenge taking a $600 trillion worldwide market, fully globalize, largely unregulated throughout the world, certainly in the united states, and turning that into a regulated market with full transparency, reduction risk through central clearing, and business conduct standards from market participatints. there are a lot of challenges ahead. >> your tasks with writing the hundred of detailed rules, there has been a lot of missed

deadlines. journalists are sensitive to that. there is an lot of misunderstanding about why the deadlines are missed. is it inevitable that there will be more missed, and so we have to accept that things will move slower? , when the statute costs that line, in the handful of them might have been achievable, but when we as an agency have to think about a hundred rules, many required to be done within the first year, it became clear there was a task to do not fully and carefully and have the process we wanted was not something that could be achieved within a year. the nature of our process, we have engaged in hundreds of meetings with industry and market participants on the rules. we have to go out for comments, we have to die just thousands of

comment letters, turn that around into a final rule. there are only five people at the toip that approve this, so we have to get through that rulemaking. it was almost inevitable from the beginning. we have made a number of the deadlines, but our goal is to get it right, to get it done in a thoughtful way, do have a maximum input, and work with colleagues in the committee -- in the community to make sure we are not out of step. for some rules, it is joined rulemaking. the act requires us to consult extensively with our international colleagues. all of that process which you should care deeply about takes a lot of time, and we are doing it as deliberately as we can,

try to meet the deadlines, but also where we cannot, we cannot, and they're not going to force through a poor quality results. >> one thing he did not discus the whistle-blowers' chart -- was curious to know what the results are. [unintelligible] >> this statute went into effect almost a year ago now. the rules were not in place until a couple of weeks ago, and are not effective yet. we have seen some uptick in the number of whistleblower complaints. we have gotten a lot of tips and referrals, thousands and thousands, at the agency. we are seeing better quality, more detailed information, information that is coming from people who have more direct knowledge of potential wrongdoing. we have set up a office to

manage that information within our enforcement division and the office of the whistleblower that will bring that information, figure out how to get to the right people, to staff the inquiries, and to keep track of the information. we have new technology which is not a surprise to any of you. at the fcc we do not have new technology nearly as often as we should have at given the capabilities of the market. all that is working pretty well. we have a new head of that office who was a corporate secretary, and was setting an office. we are moving ahead with it, but i would not say we are inundated. i think that measure is quality of referrals and tips. >> the real message is what you do with the whistle blowers.

your agency was criticized -- are you confident that york agency will be able to work off of tips? >> whistleblower is will have to keep on top of us. we have done a lot of other things to try to deal with the fact that the agency did missed madoff, including being a chance parent about that. if you could to our website, there is a section called post- madoff reforms, including new rules of investment advisers. restructuring of our enforcement program, new technology, whistleblower rolls, all these things we have put in place to

try to make a difference in our capability the handle the information that comes in, and the new skills sets that we have brought into the agency. if they come in with a to see -- with information, we had people -- we have people who will understand that. >> [unintelligible] >> i am confident we have taken significant steps to bolster our capabilities. >> a big area that you -- the you think the fcc has done enough to hold companies and individuals accountable since the financial crisis? >> it is and often asked question. at that time we have been engaged in record rulemaking and interpreting other initiatives, we have done a record numbers of and for some cases in 2010.

coming out of the crisis, we still have 60 individuals and entities and others who had significant post set -- a post- crisis cases. we do not have prosecution by party. that resides with the states and the justice department, and we work closely with them on a lot of those issues. we have a full pipeline of post- crisis cases. you will continue to see us bring those out. they relate to disclosure failures. we brought major cases coming out of the crisis, state street bank, citi, jpmorgan, a number of them, so you will continue to

see those coming through. >> is it fair when people talk about the fact that he took action against big firms for important products during the but then when it comes to individuals, you can charge individuals, but no senior executives is in the dna at enforcement lawyers to want to bring the biggest possible case they can and include as many individuals they can. it is not for lack of desire of they were not seeing as many senior people made in these cases. if we could, we would be needing them. it is mixed news in this audience to hear that. if we can name individuals, that is always part of our investigation, consideration, both at the staff level and the level of the commission when we

approved an action. that would be our desire whenever we can make that case. if we do not have the evidence and we cannot prove a violation, if we're going to have to litigate it, we will not bring the case against individuals. it is a matter of fundamental fairness. we do name individuals very often, hundreds of individuals every year, and we have a record number of officers as a result of that in the last year. but it is part of what we try to do, but we will only do it if it is appropriate. >> keep you think doing war against individuals makes news for this audience, but will have a bigger effect? of all our and for some cases are in part we hope to have a deterrent effect of conduct that will serve our investors. to the extent people understand and the insider-trading cases

are great example of this, this kind of conduct can lead to serious personal judder -- jeopardy, for an officer and director, the potential to lose your position, if you are working with a potential services firm, to be barred from the industry, those are important messages for people to understand and change, that out there on the ground. >> a broader perspective, but will there be embarrassing if no action was taken by any regulatory agency on the -- case, a big bankruptcy chemically and nothing has happened on any front. >> i would not rather not speak to that in particular because we are obviously not in a position to say the extent to which we

continue to have his shoes at the conduct there. i would go back to what i said before. our desire is for the facts and all are there for us to bring cases and to bring as inclusive as we can in terms of the people that we name. >> in terms of the timing, you hear a lot from the community, when can we move on? wendy you think we will be done with the bulk of these crisis time cases? >> it is hard to say. it is part of what injured it to the crisis in some areas because of lack of transparency and regulatory oversight, to girly difficult of the cases together. i cannot give a timeframe when we will be down, but we will

continue to work diligently on these matters and we have a full pipeline of them still,. >> let's talk about budgets, the sec got a modest increase in their budget for this year. is there a danger that the squeeze will hamper your efforts in the areas you are pursuing? >> it is a continuous challenge for us, and we are a pretty small agency. we have 3800 employees. regulators had a 1-1 ratio. we have to cover a vast are array of issues and institutions, so whether money market or mutual funds, where most americans have the bulk of their investment dollars, to public companies, to market structure issues, 5000 broker

dealers, transfer agents which are important, we have a vast responsibility handled by a relatively small number of people who have to specialize in particular areas. we have worked hard to be good stewards of the funding we have to grow our skills with our capabilities, to do more with technology. we have over-the-counter derivatives, hedge fund regulations, and a handful of other issues like you and i discussed earlier to deal with. we need significant additional resources to do that, and it is not of all clear what will happen to our budget for 2012. congress has not made decisions, but we have asked for a significant increase in dollars

and head count in order to operationalize the dodd-frank rule. this will be critical if we have these new responsibilities. if we have clearing houses for over-the-counter derivatives, were there will be an enormous concentration of risk, you have that the funding and the capability to do that. we are watching the congressional process and we will see. one thing i would point out is we are deficit neutral. every dollar budget did to the fcc by congress is directly offset by fees paid on transactions. not giving money to the fcc does not mean that money is ages -- is available to other agencies. >> what is the agency not doing if it had a full budget request granted? >> we can always do more.

we examined investment advisers once every nine years. six years ago we had 19 examiner's for every trillion dollars of assets under management of investment advisers. ,e now have 12 and examiners so we would do more examination. we would do more analysis and study that would help inform our process about what to do to stabilize our market structure. it is a -- we would do more in enforcement. we would be able to improve our capabilities across the board. that is before any of these dodd-frank responsibilities are fully visited on us. >> is there a danger that the

whole pose a crisis reform will be diluted or muted by the problems, that we will get to the point where we do not do anything that we set out to do? >> i hope that will not happen. i hope we have the resources we need to do what we need to do. we will work closely with the fed and other regulators who are self-funded and do not have their funding appropriated by congress. at the end of the day we will be transparent about what we are doing and not doing so the public understands. >> before we move to questions, i want to take a quick straw poll, so how many people here

think the fcc is doing a good job, and how many -- >> that is not quite fair. >> if you would all please raise your hands. >> she has surnames. >> be honest, and we will not take your names. who thinks the sec is doing a good job? >> we could do an anonymous 1. >> only one person? and the rest we will take you as not doing too much. that is a good segue into the question. >> who has questions for mary shapiro? >> i am not going to comment. there has been -- a general

trend in recent years to get shareholders more voice in corporate governance, and provisions in dodd-frank move in that direction. one of the challenges i find is when i tried to engage our shareholders who are under tremendous pressure to financially perform, when i tried to engage them in discussions around the government's, they are often not interested, and say i need to understand your company so i can make a decision whether to buy or sell your stock. that is what i'm going to focus on. a lot of them have tended to outsource proxy and governance issues, or to create separate critics within a larger and institutional shareholders that is somewhat independent of investment decisions.

the question really is, how you think about the dynamic of these independent agencies that play a very concentrated role, a powerful role, about corporate governance, but in fact are insulated from people making the actual investment decisions? >> that is a great question and one that we have been focused on, and i have said when we can catch our breaths, i want to return to the issues around proxy plumbing. very much associated with the issues about proxy advisory firms and the role they play. we feel the number of concerns and put out a concept release a year ago raising a lot of issues about their role of these firms, and a number of other issues like the infrastructure around how parties are voted. focused on advisory firms and

the role they are playing in corporate governance today. we got a lot of tremendous comments from the corporate community as well as from institutional and other investors, and the staff is working on proposals that i hope the commission can take up this fall will try to clarify some of the issues around potential conflicts of interest that they have with respect to advisory firms, how they are regulated, how they function, how they oversee their transparency, accuracy of what they do, those are all issues that we are focused on and i hope this fall we can turn our attention back to it. if you have not looked at the concept release, we welcome at any time at any point comment on this process, but we have proposals that will allow for comment this fall. >> schock?

-- chuck? >> good morning. looking at the title of the section, and struck by how much i read and have been reading over the years about the desire ability of all of us moving to a set of global accounting standards. yet consistent with the earlier remarks, i am not sure i ever heard a shareholder come to me and talk about the desirability of moving from u.s. generally accepted principles to a global sense standards. when you consider the ira of challenges that this group and our peers face and the demands on the job, the financial staffs, and that costs of some sort of a conversion overtime, you wonder if there is a demand from our shareholders, and is

this a problem we need to solve given the compelling issues that the commission faces? i would be interested in your thoughts about how we might expect this to progress and is there anyone listening to the shareholders on this topic? >> there absolutely is. i will take a step further, not only have we heard from a lot of shareholders saying we have got to go to ifrs, we have heard the contrary. why would we take a step to international financial reporting standards? i asked ceo's, one of the subject is, to talk about from multinational u.s. companies, is there a desire to go to an ifars, and some believe it is

important that it would be valuable for them to be on a system that will allow greater, for ability with international peers. even the multinationals have little interest in making a big change because of that cost, the destruction. the fcc started down a path of convergence with ifrs. multiple projects and exist to try to converge in major standard leasing revenue reckoning, and a number of others. those projects are on going. we have heard the community loud and clear, slow it down, we cannot expect -- we cannot afford the exposure draft, so you have seen us take a step back and put more due process and to the convergence work with the --

we put out a road map and talked about how we would think about ifrs and what would be important to us in making a decision to incorporate international accounting standards into the u.s. financial reporting regime. if you look at that road map, you will see first and foremost we will be guided in any decision making week to buy what is in the interests of the u.s. investors. and u.s. companies, particularly small u.s. companies where the cost and burden of this can be extraordinary at time when nobody has the capacity to take on additional costs. when we talk about it, we wanted to make sure the ifrs standards meet the needs of u.s. investors, that the profession is ready, that investors are ready, that our fellow regulators that rely on gaap accounting for regulatory purposes accommodate this.

there is a bond covenants and other contractual matters that have gaap requirements built into them are not going to be disrupted by a change to ifrs. we have a lot of work to do on our and before we are going to be in a position to make a decision when we make that decision. we recognize a significant transition period will be a corporate. -- will be appropriate. we have a lot of work to do. that said, we think there is a value to a high quality set of globally accepted accounting standards, but we've got to get the right way, and if we look around the world and see what ifrs china looks like ahmad versus in other countries, it is

not a monolithic set of standards, even if they are based on ifrs. we are cognizant about the situation around the world in what is supposed to be a single set of standards. a lot of work to do on our part, a long answer to your question, but i think it is an important issue for u.s. investors and markets. we continue to execute on our work plan and we will see where that leads us. >> we are just about out of time, but a quick question. >> i talk about people who talk about the high cost of compliance and given the context of the region, why many of them -- while there has been a lot --

laudable reasons why the whistle blowing under the dodd-frank is being enacted, how would you like to show the corporate world, which is to say in any of this escalations, it could result in unnecessary harassment, given a lot of things with data, and how would you like to show the corporate world that there is adequate balance in terms of the government's formation flow growth, with respect to the whistleblower roles, we worked hard to get that balance right, to build in incentives, encourage whistleblowers to go to the company first and not lose their place in line.

if we were to bring an enforcement case at the end of the day. after lots of consultations with lot of different companies, we try to build in a balance right from the beginning with respect to those roles. we think we struck the balance well in terms of not diverting people from internal compliance programs that were so important under sarbanes the osh oxley for corporations to build and to implement in a forthright way. at the same time, we did not feel like we could save whistle- blower's must go to the company first because there are companies that will not treat these complaints seriously, and i see that are instances of that. we hope we struck a balance correctly. we will be watching this closely as i expect you will. we have to fine-tuning and that

is something we are amenable to doing. more importantly, we have got to get the balance right. we want companies to list in the united states. we think that is an important thing. we want to make sure that u.s. investors have access to the information they need to make the right kinds of investing decisions, and if people leave u.s. capital markets because disclosure obligations are too great, that is unfortunate, and that does not mean we should be looking at our world to make sure we have the disclosure obligations right. at the end of the day, we need to make sure investors have the information they need to make decisions. the last point i will make, we're focused on this with small public companies and the burden on them. it is disproportionate from many of our obligations. we created a small business advisory committee, to help

advise us on these issues. we have to recognize the coming of age of capital markets around the world. one reason companies are choosing to list in their home markets when they did not before is because the u.s. is the only game in town, a lot of foreign markets are well developed now, they have good corporate governance, they have robust shareholder bases, that markets and infrastructure that supports the listing in the home market. we understand that is a natural evolution in markets which is a good that element for investors worldwide. >> more from the conference next. >> he has a half an hour to spend with us. i will ask him some leading questions, and i hope he will be thinking about some.

i thought we heard this morning from timothy geithner air, who i think sounded optimistic about getting a deal on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction before august 2. i am sure you have heard a line he is using about how it is going to work. could you give us a sense of how this looks from your point of view. is progress being made? are we going to avoid default? >> we need to, because we cannot fault -- default. the concern is, if you get close to that date without a deal, they are concerned if we bump up to close a that you could have some market reaction. we got to do it before. as much as the media has portrayed it, this is an important week. they had three meetings last week. the have gotten into detail.

this is an important week to really make some progress. i think the discussions that are continuing and are getting deeper, but there's not a deal, we did not have one yet, so we need to conclude that. >> what are the components of the deal that you need for you to feel comfortable and the rank and file of the house of ill comfortable? >> the speaker laid out the markers, which is at least the same amount of spending reductions that you see in that increase. and then structural reforms so we do not get back into this problem again. those are the two benchmarks. >> what kind of numbers? >> the only marker that has been put out there is more than $2 shirley m., because the debt ceiling has to go up $2 trillion. now is their right to be a short-term extension while these discussions continue?

this is not a good idea because it does not give you the certainty. ideally, you'd like to get that settled and not have to be a hanging over issue. , the secretary laid out a framework which i heard paul ryan layout which is a down payment now, an agreement on the target, and an understanding that there's something that cannot be resolved before the 2012 election, so we will fill holes later. is that your understanding? >> there's only so much you can do on the discretionary side. you have to do things that will have to take place over time, and many of those are in the mandatory area. you cannot do it all in one year. it takes a series of years to get the target numbers. we hear $2 trillion as the overarching number, but there is going to be some steps. >> is there going to be

legislative language or an agreement to get $2 trillion for the dow chemical -- for the down payment first? we have legislation that says this is on how we are by the cut medicare, medicaid? >> that part is not determined, but you are not going to be able to have every detail completed in time for august 2. that is why there's some talk for a short-term extension. how they deal with that issue -- will the committees do this work, will that happen hookah because this will take some time to do, you may see that. >> let's talk about the revenues. the white house says you cannot get the deficit down to a sustainable level without increasing revenues, and the republicans say we are not

interested in increasing revenues. where are you on that thing? >> i do not want to see higher revenues. they talk about let's start repealing health care, because it is a nonstarter, because the problem is spending, and we need to get it under control. if you raise revenues, it will take the pressure off the spending side, and we know spending has increased dramatically, and frankly under the president's proposal which will never get to balance, we never get rid of that debt. there really is a spending side issue on that. the president assumes -- of the argument comes because we have lower than historical revenues now, but the president's budget assumes much higher than historical revenue, without additional revenue. how much revenue ought to go to

the federal government is an important issue. >> do you think we can get the primary ballots, get spending equal to revenues, which is about 3% of gdp by 2015 without increasing taxes in some way, whether closing loopholes or raising rates? >> the house-passed budget does that. >> you think it can get to the senate? >> this is where we have a proposal. we do not seek a plan on the other side to do that. we offer a path to do that. >> what is your priority? would you rather see reaching 3% even if it may require revenue increases, or would you rather hold the line on revenues? >> what we wanted to is not have higher revenues because the issue is who is going to pay them? the id is rich people over $250,000, which half of that

income is small business income, which is the sector we need growth said. that is the problem. we're not seeing the kind of job growth. it is more than just bring you -- more than just revenue. there is all of these decisions that employers are trying to understand and deal with, and they do not know a path ahead on some many of them. the real problem on the revenue side is we have uncertainty on the business side with the expiring provisions. now we have interest a new facets to this which is uncertainty on the personal side. he had expiring provisions at the end of 2012, and in the few short years, there are 50 of these provisions. i am for fundamental tax reform. that is why i do not want to see the revenue side in this -- i

want us to see fundamental tax reform and deal with policy outside of that. >> your idea of " reform is to broaden the base, lower the rates, and end up with the same revenue that we have under the current law? >> i called the high school physics scoring system, which first assumes there is no gravity. they assume if you have a similar code, you will not see economic growth. what we want to see is economic growth which our system does not score, but we believe will occur in fact if you at our house budget plus the fundamental tax reform, economists say 1 million jobs. >> i just came back from china, and it looks like a food fight from the china. everybody says we will do it down payment and we will have a goal. at some point you will have to

compromise with the democrats to get this done, and i do not understand how we get there if this is more than just a negotiating position on oregano. >> we would like much less spending than we want. again, i think the fact that the economy is not recovering, we are not seen the unemployment go down, to raise revenues on those small business owners, i think is a big mistake. >> if you had to raise revenues, where is the least damaging place to look? >> i cannot think of one. you cannot do it on -- i think the approach they are looking at is not just on what they call-in come, but they want to talk out various provisions of the tax codes and and then, not with an eye to what this means for our competitiveness, what this means it the ability to do business in

a global economy. that is a dangerous prospect. what we need to do is to a fundamental tax reform on the business -- >> and what does that mean? what are -- what -- tax code would you like to see come out of this? >> what i would like to see and we are working on a structure to this, how low can we get rates, and that means where is the political consensus on how many, and you can call tax provisions or loopholes or expenditure, whatever you want to describe it as, how many of those can we change so we have a more constant, effective rate, and we need to move to a territorial tax system so we can compete around the world. how can we -- on the individual side i would like to do the same thing. most business is organized --

and a file as individuals. if you do just the business side you do not get at what is driving our economy. you do an important part of the economy, but not where many people are organizing their businesses. >> what are you talking about here? what would you give up in order to get the rate? >> we have a lot of companies come before the committee, a lot of hearings and testimony where we are doing a novel thing. we are having job creators tell us what they think we ought to do. we have had a lot of good testimony. the uncertainty of things have caused large as this to say we cannot count on this. the discount that in terms of what we are trying to do. we would rather have a lower rate. accelerated depreciation, we would rather have a lower rates. the repatriation issue is something that we need to fix: 4. -- we need to fix going

forwqard. if this is a priority, the rate will be hired. it may be a priority when we get to the end of the day. >> are you going to put down a bill or wait for the administration to >> i am not sure. we are still in the building block phase of having hearings and trying to make sure we have consensus. we are doing joint work with the sunset. >> how would you characterize business when they come to you. we would like lower rates, but not this -- >> you get a lot of different views. depending on the industry sector, what their model looks like i think there is a desire

to be competitive and uniform, and they know we are not. i want to see these companies headquartered in the united states, growing jobs here, and the headquarters jobs in any community are the best jobs because those are people who lead the communities, not just in terms of income, but they are the ones who had the and i did way campaigns, they are the ones to share the boy scouts, try to make sure we have the best schools. i want to see those jobs in the u.s.. we hear different things, but i am hearing, even in those businesses that do well with our system of tax provisions, they would like to see a simpler more competitive cove.

on the individual level, you got to try to be ready. we're trying to do the work so we are ready if factors come together. this is why, first of all, the economy is not doing what it should do, it is not recovering. the president is facing reelection. he does not want to go into 2012 if we do a narrative that taxes go up. i worked hard in 1996 where we said president clinton never would sign that. we are not competitive. we are facing competition from around the world and are hamstrung and our ability. we are relating to what people

tell you, when they make the comparison of what do, all those factors, regulatory burden and uncertain their -- we know there are jurisdictions that are promising uncertainty in tax policy. i cannot get six months of tax policy in the u. s. we want to make a more certain code. that is a positive goal. >> before the election, we get meaningful corporate tax reform? >> the odds could be different than the odds next summer.

now it looks like a long-term project. you do not know that for sure. i am not treating it as one that is not going to be done until next congress or at the end of the. i am trying to get business leaders to get interested to be engaged, to come in and testify formally, but make sure we understand how these policy changes may affect them and their employees. >> how the you increase the odds that you do something that lasts it was the congress that passed tax cuts that expired. it was the congress that likes the r and d tax cuts. it is the congress that does not want to take anything that is settled. what is the mechanism for getting a tax code he can assure

people that might look like the tax code three or four years away? >> all these provisions, many of them come in, to find a way for lower rates. my view is, why not lower rates for everybody? this comes in incrementally. we have seen all these incremental changes. that is what the legislatures do. we beat -- we need an overview at the tax policy. we need the administration to be engaged. secretary geithner is in gauge. we need to turn the levers of government happen because it is the kind of future we are having. it is also a trade policy. when you look at 40-plus trade agreements, we have three that we cannot get through.

>> 1986, we had landmark tax reform, congress was different. there were different kinds of people. a lot of people say there does not seem to be the leadership in the congress to say we are quite get this done, and we are going to have to be bipartisan and gore someone's ox. are you confident congress has the capacity to do something like that? >> times change, and i do not know. we are working. we have had a lot of hearings, and finance his having hearings every week on this. senator baucus and i are talking on this issue. we've had a meeting with both parties. you have to get up and do your job and at some point get there. a lot of people say, how do i

get this bill passed? you do your homework and build a consensus and move forward. there are a lot of people who are calling out for fundamental tax reform. there is a lot of people in the administration, the president at times says the right things about this issue. the secretary has. there is a lot of that coming together. for me, i was doing this when i was ranking member before i became chairman, but when i went to the tax deal at the end of the year, there were to have the provisions that we were trying to peel the onion back on each one of them and understand why did these get extended and what is happening -- it was clear to me that is not a workable way to have employers, individuals, families understand what their responsibilities are.

we got to make a change. it was driven home through that experience, and that is why i feel strongly about this issue. it is something i am working hard to try to do. >> what is the holdup in getting the korea, colombia, and panama deals done? >> right now we are trying to get common ground on taa. it is not something that is going to be easy to do. >> what is the issue? we note trade is good for the country as whole. we know some people benefit and some people get hurt. the economic justification for some kind of adjustment is that society as whole, as as society as a whole compensates the losers.

is it a specific program, or what is the issue? >> the way we have compensated people who have lost their jobs is disjointed. the problem with taa is it is extensive. 150 weeks of unemployment. if you're at a restaurant that goes out of business, you get 99 weeks, but if you were in an industry that went somewhere else, you get 150 weeks. there is a fairness issue that people are concerned about. i want to see the trade agreements. the benefits are important, even the independent itc says 250,000 jobs. the real problem is we are losing our place and the world on these things. >> are you putting forward -- there are lots of proposals to a different kind of worker adjustment. we had an oped saying why

should you -- is that on the table? >> the president said it has to be taa, that has got to be resolved, and under our system -- >> are you going to get it done this year? >> close, but that does not really count. i think the administration wants to do it. we have this new hurdle we have to get over. i agree, i think we will get it done this year. >> one final question. what is it like to be a leader in the house at this time. you have a lot of new members, a lot of them seem to be opinionated.

many of them did not have as much experience in government. how much of a challenge has it been for you as a member of the leadership of >> one of my early supporters, said he was not sure if he was being leading if or if he was being chased. >> we have a microphone, if someone wants to ask a question. >> to ask you an issue that has come up, not within the jurisdiction of your coming -- committee, but several people have talked about in terms of competitiveness, maintaining the united states position in the

global economy, the importance reforming immigration laws and the craziness that the best and brightest come here to study and as soon as a graduate there shipped back home, and many companies represented in this room feel compelled to locate facilities where the people are. what are the chances politically of actually getting something done about that? >> that is an issue that out very strong presidential leadership you are not going to see happen. the real issue there is -- and both for business as well as from agriculture -- the need for some certainty is important. the real problem is that those who have come here and broken the rules about what happens there, and that has been unresolved. untilha