where it was said that heavy users should pay a little bit more. what do you think about larger scale deployment? >> we don't have any plans to allow -- to rollout consumption based usage. those who use less should pay less. i think it would be great if we could lower prices or not take prices up as fast for people who use a lot less. we are delighted -- we are delighted that people are using more. internet growth is skyrocketing. it is a challenge to build enough capacity to keep up with all of the growth. it is terrific for us. people are getting more and more value out of their high-speed

data connections and that is exactly what we want. >> in the area where your job intersects with washington what would your message be to the regulators or to congress about what to do to encourage growth or to not stand in the way? >> not standing in the way is the way to put it. i meet with art -- with regulators fairly often. they ask how i would write the regulations and i have to admit i have no idea how i would write the regulations. things are moving so fast. i am sure whatever we right today will be wrong a year or write today ever we right toda

will be wrong and a year or two from now. i do not think we need to pick winners and losers in technology. >> so, just see where the market goes? >> yes. there are not problems right now. why would you try to anticipate problems and what regulations in place? >> we are just about out of time. as we are sitting here, all of this traffic is going by on day two. tell me what you are interested here on the floor. >> it is interesting to see what the other cable operators are doing. there are lots of new streaming technologies, which is important to us, how to get video over the internet or using technology to deliver video. those technologies are improving very rapidly.

and then i am encouraged by the other devices that are now capable enough. the >> is it possible to see five years in the future? >> i am not that good. [laughter] but it is fun to see it roll out. >> thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> look for more interviews from the cable show and other "communicator's" programs at our library had c-span.org. >> representative adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee discusses president obama's decision to drop down troops from afghanistan. and libya will be the first order of business after the july 4 break.

newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. in our series of reviews -- and our series of interviews with republican candidates for president continues tomorrow night with ron paul. "wrote to the white house" tomorrow night on c-span. >> this weekend, "book tv" and "american history tv" look at life in savannah, georgia. also, a tour of urban slavery sites with civil wars of amoco offer bonn had good-walker.

explore and develop and civil war savannah. c-span cozy local content vehicles in savannah, ga., this weekend on c-span3. >> next, the chairman of the federal deposit insurance corp. sheila bear giving a speech before she steps down next month. she criticized financial industry leaders for supporting "short-term policies that would overturn the dodd-frank and has regulatory law." this is about an hour. [applause]

>> that was a very nice introduction. i spoke recently to my elementary school daughter's principal. we got to talking about banks and interest rates and all the things they like to ask about. and i asked if they had questions and a little hand went up and said, who is number one? it was angela merkel, in case you were all wondering. and i did drop to 15 this year, behind lady gaga. [laughter] i think because the banks are healing, but not as much as we would like. i would like to thank some of the staff who are with me. rich brown in color to give our, our chief economist. he has been draft -- in to our chiefo give ou

economist. he has been drafted as a speechwriter very often. and andrew, who is out here somewhere. he has been with me the whole five years and done a fabulous job. and my chief of staff who has always been by my side. and finally, my husband, who has been with me through everything. on more than one occasion, i have had him review my speeches. he is a wonderful editor as well. thank you for inviting me to be at the national press club. it will be my last speech as the fed chairman -- as the fdic chairman.

our nation has suffered its most serious financial crisis and economic downturn since the great depression. the aftereffects will be felt for many years to come. there are many causes of this crisis, some of which i will address in my remarks today. but in my opinion, the overarching lessons of the crisis is the basic, short-term thinking that helped bring it about. short-termism is a growing problem in business and government. i would like to explain what i mean by this and discuss how i think it plays into the rising challenges in the crisis. what is a short-term -- what is short-terminm and how does it -- short-termism and how does that arise? the emerging field of behavioral economics goes further into --

passing up investment opportunities that could lead them much better off in the longer term. it is a market failure that leads to under investment in valuable projects with long payoff periods. part of our tendency toward short-termism appears to be biological. the more risk over time, the more primal and short-term parts are brain focus on the here and now. but we must realize decisions involving both risk and reward. it is the most primitive system that understands greed and fear, but is less focused on long-term consequences. short-termism also grows out of the institutional rules that govern our behavior when

executive controversial -- when and executive compensation -- if volume varies, as it often does, then the path of least resistance is to compensate managers on current results. but ask yourself, if this investment fund as part of your 401k, would you prefer that your manager be compensated at least in part on long-term performance? i probably do not need to tell you that short-termism also holds sway in the realm of politics. incumbents face market discipline at regular intervals. but the drawback is that those facing reelection have little incentive to take a longer view of this is to ration and issues -- of the issues that

constituency of. -- of the issues then the constituents do. americans are naturally cautious when it comes to the ability of government to direct capital to long-term investments with uncertain outcomes. and yet, we can think of many examples where farsighted government investments have yielded large returns for generations to come. think of a set aside land for national parks to permanently preserve the beauty and landscape of our environment. we have made investments that have allowed us to defend the peace, explore the moon, eradicate disease, and decode the human genome. while we can clearly see the investments in those in retrospect, there are many issues in natural life in

public and private life were short-termism seems to be on the rise. the average equity share publicly traded on the stock exchange fell from seven years in 1940 to just seven months in 2007. one powerful force behind the rise in short-termism is technology. we have more latitude to discuss for short-term preferences than we once did. there are more options for households to act on their inclination to bar from the future to meet short-term needs. credit cards can be either extremely useful or highly destructive tools depending on how they are used. well-developed capital markets have expanded the opportunities for financial companies to earn

returns from transaction fees and trading activities, as opposed to the patient work of lending and long-term investing. mse term "patient capital" see point. finally, unless you are too busy updating your facebook status, you have probably seen that short-termism is also determined by other factors. in a 24 hour news cycle we have constantly found ourselves on barton by media. the constant flow of information only heightens the perception of short-term performance at the expense of long-term goals. at this point, you may be asking what all of this has to do with the financial crisis. the answer is, plenty. the simple cause of this crisis with excessive debt and leverage across our financial system. in the decade leading up to 2006, when u.s. home prices

reached their peak, mortgage debt was at 81% -- rose by 81%. rising home prices caused mortgage lenders to relax -- to focus on easing standards and relaxing interest rates. the adjusted rate after three or four years frequently made the homes and unaffordable. fires could frequently refinance. but after prices start leveling off, the faulting happen in record numbers. the reason security issuers were willing to refund them is that they knew they would be paid up front. mortgage investors themselves would bear the long-term consequences. our ranges like this -- our

arrangements like this gave rise to the idea, i will be gone, you will be gone. homeowners, too, responded to rising prices and flexible taxes to raise their home equity. meanwhile, financial institutions frequently sought to maximize their balance sheet leverage. it sometimes left shatter we off-balance sheet structures where capital requirements were less stringent. that strategy worked brilliantly until the eventual collapse of investor continent -- confidence and market liquidity. there was not enough capital on hand with the balance sheets to support them. all too often, the seemingly innovative lending practices led to bad economic incentives.

it was to believe based on current year of loan volume with little regard to the risk building of the system. most damaging of all come some of the largest and most complex companies were made exempt from the marketplace because of their size and interconnectedness. there were too big to fail under the rules of the time. the managers of those companies were allowed to book short-term profits while ignoring the inherent risk in the complex market instruments they held. the expectation of government financial support vs six emmitt institutions became a reality. -- reverses systemic institutions became a reality.

it became almost $14 trillion by the spring of 2009. direct assistance to financial institutions east confidence in the market. our financial system began to function again. the policy makers failed to effectively attack the root cause of the problem, which was the enormous -- backlog of unaffordable mortgage loans i continue to slow the recovery of the housing markets and the economy. bailouts have resulted in a host of consequences for our system in the long term. the undermine the market's and private risk-taking. they keep sub management in place. the bailouts of 2018 -- the bailouts have affected the reputation of anyone in the industry.

the cost of earning assets is only about half as high for banks with more than $100 million in assets, as it was for community banks with assets under $1 billion. that is why the fdic was so determined to prepare for a more robust framework as the centerpiece of the legislation enacted last summer. it authorized the creation of just such a red -- just such a framework that would make this resolvable in a future crisis. to start, giving authority to certain banking organizations and non-bank organizations. and then to subject them to hire oversight and capital requirements. these companies will also be made to maintain liquidation plans, were living wills, to show how they will stop -- how

they will act brink of financial crisis without blowing out the system. these provisions are designed to restore the discipline of the marketplace to end the ability to take risks at the expense of the public. some of the rhetoric in the financial the -- financial reform debate has been short- sighted or simply inaccurate. as part of the reforms, we advocate an initiative like the result we have used for years. it is expressly designed to facilitate these facilities without the assistance of a bailout. where is that i keep hearing? bailouts as far as the eye can see. we need to see what is at stake if we do not see that the next set of authority is fully

implemented before the next crisis. this will be critically important to obtain the information we need to carry out an orderly resolution to place losses on shareholders and debtholders, which is where they belong. the fdic and the federal reserve will have to stick to their guns. this structure is necessary to ensure that it can be resolved without a bailout in some future crisis. that debate will most likely take place when the markets are calm and the possibility of crisis seems remote. once again, people are going to say, why now? wiry putting soap -- such onerous demands on the financial sector institutions? the alternative is to risk another financial crisis that could someday throw people out of work and rec our finances. -- wreck our finances. some are claiming that higher

capital requirements will raise the cost of credit and could derail the economic expansion. this is a terrific example of static, short-term thinking that got us into this place. there's a lot of research that shows higher capital requirements and the things we are talking about will have a modest effect on the cost of credit. it will create improvement in long-term economic growth by having more capital, less frequency in severity of financial crises. that is a pretty good trade off. the capital requirements that u.s. banks now face are mostly the same as those in place before the crisis. the reason banks are not lending more now is the common risk of risk aversion on their part. they have plenty of capacity to lend. they have been raising capital since the crisis started and if they do not already need to those standards, they are well

positioned to do so slowly through or earnings. banks that need more time for seamless transition to the new standards, including -- include the surcharge. risk retention is necessary to give insurers long-term interest in the underlying mortgages. given the controversy that has surrounded this rule, i regret that congress also carved out an exemption for all trucks safe mortgages as defined by ultra-safe -- for all xtr mortgages as defined by the predatory industry. the connection they are not making is that this small, extra cost is something we have to pay in the short term to put a little equity behind these mortgages to ensure that incentives are properly aligned

and to avoid a repeat of the mortgage crisis in the future. we also need a solid, long-term thinking on other important national policy issues. too often, the response to subpar economic growth is another tax credit for a cut in interest rates that feel good for a while, but do nothing for the long-term performance of our economy. it has appeared to have sapped our will to make public education something we can work on over years. we still see the ccc's handiwork in national forests throughout our country. the sense of pride in programs like this is certainly greater than costly stimulus programs designed to put a few extra dollars in pockets, much of which is used to buy foreign goods.

we need to make health care sustainable over the long run. blogger and healthier life that most of us will lead compared to previous generations is a wonderful and much appreciated historical development. but with that come choices that involve short-term sacrifices. we have to work longer, pay more into the system, and perhaps have an alternative means of benefits or for more, like the all three. we have to have a system that favors dead managing over equity -- that favors equity over debt financing. we need to reduce tax rates while raising more revenue that can help us pay down our national debt. some of us will have to give up something in the short term in order to secure the long-term advantages.

where will this question be as debated in congress, reported in newspapers, and ranted about in a blogs in a world obsessed with short-term gratification? we are in dire need of sacrifice now in return for a brighter future for us and our progeny. the media plays a critical role in all of this. you report the facts so that others can make informed decisions. you know better than anyone that getting a story factually correct is going beyond the sound bites to verify the accuracy of claims. there is no shortage of rhetoric for you to investigate. your efforts to dig down to the truth of the story will help get the public be on a sound bite of the day and will affect long- term public policy choices and the personal choices we all make. the public is already changing direction, at least in terms of

personal decision making. total household debt is down almost by 5% from pre-crisis levels when previously the have reached its highest level in 15 years. i am reminded of some advice i received when i took the job as the fdic chairman five years ago. it came from one of my predecessors. the fdic's foremost responsibility is to retain public confidence in the banking system, he said. we are the zero ultimate guarantor of the people's money. today, -- we are the ultimate guarantor of the people's money. as other institutions have failed over the years, nobody has ever lost a penny. bill emphasized to me that one of the keys to public confidence is transparency. as you might expect, one of the things that the fdic does is confidential as it pertains to

individual institutions. but the fdic chairman needs to be visible to the public, accessible to journalists, and fully engage in the policy debates of our time. i took this advice to heart. as many of you know, i have tried my best to reach out to the media, talk to reporters, and be a reliable source for information that you need to tell stories with accuracy and perspective. i think it has been a constructive relationship that has served the public interest. even at the heart of the crisis might even at the worst since the 1930's, you did not see runs on banks. we averted a panic. people left their money in the insured deposits. it is a good example of how americans can still be counted on to make wise choices that benefit themselves and their country when they are armed with the facts and the courage to consider the long view. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much. now we will engage in that give- and-take with the audience that you just mentioned. we have a lot of questions, some of which were handed to me before we came in. we have a mix this afternoon. we have a lot of focus financial journalist who can get in on the nuance and micro aspect of things. we have members of the general public, international visitors. one of the great things about your ability to speak directly is not -- it is not always shared by other regulators or politicians. you have talked about some of the lingering effects of the financial crisis. bernanke talked about some of the problems that seem to be continuing and may raise the

risk of a slowdown that we seem to be experiencing, that it persists. what anxiety level, do you think, is appropriate for the public and policymakers right now as we look out and things seem to be percolating over the horizon on any number of different fronts. it -- france? >> i think they are risks -- on any number of different fronts? >> i think there are risks. the housing market, we still have problems. these loans the to be restructured where they make economic sense, where the distressed are can make an economic -- the distressed borrower can make an economically viable payment. it is a big risk for the financial system if this does not get resolved. but that is within our control

and congress and the administration's control. they need to make some tough decisions. the same thing in europe, you know, perhaps that creek bed needs to be restructured. perhaps some people have to take some -- the greek debt needs to be restructured. perhaps some people have to take some losses. i do not think they should be anxious. most of these problems are ones that we are aware of and there are " -- there are ways to approach them and solve them, but it does take political courage to do so. i would be more worried about the political leadership in the world to take action, as opposed to these problems in and of themselves. there are solutions and people will take them. >> he went down a bit of a laundry list there in terms of -- you went down a bit of a laundry list there in terms of the risks. it seemed in 2009 we were

saying, boy, it would be great if we could get into the process and essentially tried to resolve the foreclosure crisis as soon as possible. is it fair to say that on the whole, the new government's reaction to that has been wholly inadequate? -- the government's reaction to that has been wholly inadequate? >> i would not a wholly inadequate. it could be better. we need to understand that the housing market became too big in a part of our economy and some of those resources have to be reallocated. debt is still a major part of our economy and it needs to turn and clear before we get on a solid footing. this needs very senior level attention. we need to streamline the modification process. servicers need to have more

staff at our quality control, tell lavar or where they stand. -- tell the borrower where they stand. do they qualify? if not, then they need to let them know. the government needs to step in more assertively because this is a market breakdown. but it needs much more senior level attention and focus and resources. i am not sure that is happening now. >> why is that? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> thinking back several years ago, the hope is that we could contain this by focusing on the housing market. but here we are, and you talk to foreclosure experts, and they can cite a data point and say, that is hopeful, but nobody is really willing to say, i see the end anywhere in the near future.

is it because there is a sense of intervention fateh in the public and there is not a political will on the leadership gue in thention fatiogu public and there is not the political will on the leadership spared? >> in a sense, yes. it was easy to write a big check and get the capital. as far as decisionmaking, i do not regret it. it save the system, but it did not solve the long-term problems with mortgages. it is harder to go in there and save these mortgages and rewrite them. >> mr. bernanke was asked this week what is the risk to our banking system if, indeed, a sort of worst case scenario in greece plays out. those processes are yet to be

resolved. it what you think the risk is to the banking system and to the broader economy with respect to the greek situation? >> that is a problem that is solvable. if europe can make the hard choices to stabilize the situation, if it gets out of control, it can get pretty ugly. there's a lot of direct exposure to european banks. obviously, a lot of relationships between our banking system and their spirit is another reason why i am so frustrated on the issue of -- between our banking system and there's. that is another reason why i am suffered on the issue of banking. the declines in back -- in capital levels they're basically allows banks to set their own levels. we have been pushing hard to

get a conservative ratio for constrained, to get these ratios higher and the quality of capital there. these are approaches to stop the decline and get the capital levels up in europe. but i find myself instead trying to defend having a capital base here in the u.s., where i wish we could engage of political debate. many of the banks are too highly leveraged. >> you are having discussions on this very thing in the near term, right? >> yes. >> is it fair to say that you are trying to set the highest are for the capital requirements? >> -- the highest bar for the capital requirements? >> we are trying to set a very high bar. the fed has the authority to set

capital levels wherever they feel they need to be for large banking organizations. but again, the bigger challenge is to make sure we have the capital throughout europe. i think it is achievable. >> here is a direct follow-up to your speech. one person asked, why do use the euphemism short-termism instead of greed? it has historically been referred to as greed. >> that is a good point, but i think it goes beyond agreed. our political process also suffers from short-termism. i do not think that is agreed. that is more concerned by your immediate reelection prospects.

if your concern about keeping your job, you could somehow turn that into agreed analysis. but that might be a bit of a stretch. bree is an example of short-term thinking about but there are other factors at play. >> certainly more congenial. [laughter] first quarter data from your agency showed a year-over-year revenue declined from 2003. short interest rates be raised to help? >> that is interesting. miser leader this from a lot of bankers, that a gradual increase -- i certainly hear this from a lot of bankers, that a gradual increase in interest rates could make lending more profitable and provide more incentive for lending.

the counter argument in terms of the economic impact is, maybe we should think about what we have been doing. this is not giving us the impetus that we were hoping for. maybe it is something to think about. >> a couple of weeks ago, the jpmorgan ceo jamie dimon asked about the forthcoming regulatory environment. the people have said, overregulation, less ability to compete, he said. is there any concern to that criticism? >> going back to capitol, i think we have done a fair analysis on this already. the overwhelming weight on literature is something that the german and i have been calling for. -- the chairmen and i have been

calling for. i think some of this extends more from the interplay of the derivatives regulation, the volcker rule. and perhaps under the auspices of the oversight council we could give some announcements of an inner relationship of these rules. to make sure that the rules, working together, will achieve the outcome that is intended. by itself, analysis is good, but i would not want that to be the reason as not -- the reason for

not engaging. >> if you get the implementation of efforts of dodd-frank, where do you see its potential pitfalls for its potential the real man? >> that is a very good question. -- for its potential derailment? >> that is a progression. i hope very much that congress gives these agencies the money they need for this transparency and oversight. cdf market in particular is far too opaque. it was a key driver during the crisis. i would hope that these funds would be available because i think there are very important. and in just maintain the

political will, it is a lot of and major right now, and a lot of push back on things that we need, like higher capital. i tried to engage the public more generally on some of these issues and try to engage them and explain them in terms that everyone can understand about why they need to be paying attention to what their elected officials are doing. >> one of the responses was to take some of the traditional brokerage houses and make them into investment banks. they are essentially taking depositors' money and investing it into the financial markets. is there increased financial risk there? >> that is what the volcker trying to address.

it strengthens those provisions on banks and banking companies as well. that is important, given the fact that a number of investment banks have become a bank holding companies. the tools are there to make sure that deposits are not used ever for a proprietary trading. some would suggest going further -- separating south commercial banks. i do not think it is necessary. but we do need to reinforce the volcker restrictions. >> but with regard to iodd- frank, does the debate about the

lack of job creation and a sense of recovery have the potential to overtake implementation? >> there again, i would implore the media to relieve drill down when people are starting to blame financial regulators for broader economic problems. i'm sorry, much of this has not been finalized yet. that has not had any impact. it seems to me this is an effort to blame the regulators for something that they have nothing to do with and it is completely outside our control. what the regulators are trying to do now is provide for a more stable system so when you get into the next inevitable downturn, you will not have -- it will not have this severe impact on the economy like we have with this most recent crisis. these financial reforms promote a healthy, long-term, sustainable growing economy.

they helped redirect financial- services toward supporting an economy in traditional credit the credit analysis is much more significant on the trading that on capitol incentives. what the financial regulators are doing supports a healthy, vibrant, sustainable economy, not the other rail around. i just -- not the other way around. i just encourage people to scratch below the surface. >> with banks being too big to fail and cases involving wall street billionaires' sometimes seemingly difficult to prosecute, how will these larger banks ever regain the confidence of the american public? and if not, is that a problem? >> i think it is. i would hope the more responsible members of the industry would work with

regulators. it is in their interest. what kind of horrible reputation of damage has been done to the industry by these bailouts? it is in their interest as much as ours. the intensity of cynicism and anger toward the banking industry continues to be quite problematic. i wish they would see it is in their interest to work with regulators. >> there is some speculator after president obama was elected that you might be tapped as treasury secretary, and you were critical of some of the policies of both the bush and obama administration in regard to credit to underwater borrowers. what advice would you offer to your cigarette -- successor in terms of speaking out in such a

way? >> i am not a part of the administration. i am the head of an independent agency. i was appointed by the previous administration. i do not think it is their obligation to -- i am not an adviser to the president and it is not his obligation to listen to me or give any credence to my views. i see continuing risks to the banking system, and i am hopeful to have some input on broader policy decision making. but the president has the right to choose who advises him and i am sure he has confidence in those who are advising him. there has been an intensity of effort on the housing problem, but i wish him well and the administration well. >> i was a very cordial save. [laughter] i asked someone else here recently in a comparable

position, what kind of grade they would give the current administration in, let's say, management of the financial crisis and the current situation. what kind of grade would you give them on the whole? >> [laughter] do you really think i'm going to answer that? >> you want us to drill down, right? >> [laughter] it is a good question and i am not going to answer it. i do not want anything that i say, or positions that i may articulate to look like they are pro-economy or any particular candidate or political party. i am afraid i am going to get into that. i will take a pass. >> the sec has passed rules to require money market funds to invest in assets with high credit ratings, but because interest rates are so low in the u.s., money market fund managers

have sought investment in european bank debts that have exposure to greece. are you worried that the banks will be hit if this situation conduce to unravel? >> -- continues to unravel? >> i worry that people do not understand where their money as. they should do some checking. the sec has improved disclosure rules. they do not have exposure to european banks without disclosure. people should check and understand where their money is. longer-term, unfortunately, folks do think of this money has somehow guaranteed, and that was reinforced by the crisis when the government stepped in. i think they can provide better clarity about the safety of the

investment. i think this is a problem that the leadership needs to solve sooner rather than later. >> in retrospect, do you think more should have been done to save lehman brothers, to the extent that the government ig, and you thinka that the government should have done more to save it? >> no, i do not think the government should have done more to save it. looking back at that situation, i think the original problem was at bear stearns. they created expectations. lehman brothers was an investment bank. we did not have direct

involvement in that. but i do think it surprised me when i saw the market reaction because the fate -- the place was so fed for so long and i thought everybody understood, and they did not. i wonder if that is because bear stearns had a government- assisted deal done for it. even though they took some lost, they were still kept alive and nobody else was protected. hindsight is 2020 -- 20/20, but one of the other problems with the bankruptcy in general was the way the derivatives contracts were traded. we can actually require derivatives counterparties to perform in a bankruptcy. -- to perform. in a bankruptcy, they have the right to pull their collateral out. perhaps the best lesson learned is trying to fix that going forward, which is what we tried to do.

i have tried to work on getting continuity in the operations that you just do not get in bankruptcy. >> the gop has a been accused of having watered-down reforms. are you disappointed in them? >> i am disappointed with republicans, and democrats, too. regulators will never be popular or glamorous people. it is easy to beat up on nas. -- on us. republicans are pushing back, but there are a lot of democrats pushing back as well. i was disappointed that we were so harshly criticized for an up to the crisis. some of it was justified, but now that we are trying to fix it, there is a bit of an asia setting in. i just hope the congress --

there is a bit of amnesia setting in. i hope the congress will let us do our job. this is what they pay regulators to do. this is why they set us up as independent agencies, so we can make decisions that will sometimes be unpopular. i just hope that they will step back and let us do our work. >> your at the national press club. you should not pay too much attention to the need for soundbites, which is a particularly painful thing for our fellow journalists to hear. but you have been subjected to scrutiny, as well as international scrutiny. how you feel you have been treated by the news media? >> fairly well. there have been a couple of times that i have had some issues. for the most part, i think we have been treated fairly.

and i think that in situations where we felt we fairly presented all of the perspectives, including ours, we felt the press was responsive to that. we have an emphasis on transparency. and i think is important for the public to understand what is that the fdic does. i want them to understand what we do. that is one of the reasons we have faired pretty well in public opinion as well. they understand what we do and they appreciate it. and if i do say so, in tribute to all of our staff, we have done pretty well. >> that played into the fortunate or unfortunate aspect that you were not successful at a congressional run, depending on how you view of fate. said about that,

that you were a single woman running for office. with your husband sitting over here, does that mean that you may be a more viable candidates for the future? >> scott and i were dating at that time, and he was a democrat. [laughter] it shows how much love for this man has for me and i have for him. he put the big bear costume on in the parade so no one could see who he was. the kids loved it. i do not think i want to run for anything again. the reason is, i will tell you, i love campaigning. i love interacting with voters. i hated the fund raising. i spent about half my time on the phone asking people for

money, and i think it was just about the most degrading thing that i ever had to do. i think is a shame, we put our members of congress through. i do not know what the answer is, but it is an awful process. >> we are almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of a housekeeping matters to take care of. first, i would like to remind you about some of our upcoming luncheon speakers. on june 30, gary sinise, the oscar-nominated actor will help with raising awareness of programs around the nation. we also know that the retiring astronaut mark kelly will be here the day. the washington capitals will be

here on the july 13. next up, i would like to present you with our highly sought after national press club coffee mug as a token of our appreciation. finally, are you planning to write a book -- you are planning to write a book after you leave office. we are wondering if it will take us behind the scenes. will it be a tell-all? or will there be an ankle or message -- angle or a message? >> it will not be a tell-all. there were certainly different perspectives and philosophies and i think is important for those to be explained to the readership. that is what i am trying to accomplish. and also, some of the things that have happened after the crisis. i hope very much that some of

these issues that have traditionally been just for banking regulators, it is really important for people to understand it is relevant and it impacts them. >> thank you. house about a round of applause for our guest? [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i would like to thank our national press club staff for helping to organize today's event. you can find out more about what happens at the national press club on our website. you can also get a copy of today's program at www.press.org. thank you and we are adjourned.

>> washington a result of adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee, discusses president obama's decision to drawdown troops from afghanistan. the house votes on the be on friday. and the defense spending bill that will be the first order of business after the july 4 break. newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. in our series of -- and our series of interviews with republican candidates for president continues tomorrow night with ron paul. he will discuss his strategy, as

was his years as a doctor, service and the military, and his views on congress. that is tomorrow night on c- span at 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> c-span has launched a new and easy to navigate web site for the presidential race of 2012. a visit us at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> you are watching c-span, bernie you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington -- "washington journal" connecting you with an elected officials, policymakers and journalists. weekdays, watched the house. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, signature interview programs.