before congress about sec oversight and funding. after that, the medal of honor ceremony at the white house. quex in an election marred by a moral scandal and corruption, james blaine lost in 1884. he is featured in "the contenders," friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn more at our website. >> nests, john boehner spoke at the economic club of washington, d.c.. he is introduced by the organization's president, at this 50-minute event.

[applause] >> could i have your attention, please? we are very honored today that the 61st speaker of the house as our special guest, john boehner. [applause] as speaker of the house, he is second in line to succeed the president, but he got to this position from very humble roots. he grew up in the cincinnati area and has 11 siblings, 12 children in the family, a 1- bedroom home, and one bathroom. he was a football player and played for the legendary coach. then boehner went to the xavier

university and worked his way to the school, and after doing so he went into the business world, joined a small packaging company, and rose to be president of the company. he got involved in civic affairs. he was elected to the board of trustees of his local township in ohio, and later was elected 1985 to the house of representatives in ohio. in 1990 he was elected to the house of representatives of the united states and has not been recollected 10 consecutive terms street as a member of the house leadership he has had many different positions. he has served as chairman of the conference. he has served as chairman of the house education committee, minority leader, majority leader. we're very honored have as our guest today john boehner. thank you. [applause]

>> david, thank you. and all their honored guests here today. thank you for the opportunity towe all know the economy is stalled, and it's been stalled. and it's not because the american people have lost their way. it's because their government has let them down. last week the president put forth a new set of proposals. the house will consider them, as the american people expect. some of the president's proposals offer opportunities for common ground. but let's be honest with ourselves. the president's proposals are a poor substitute for the pro- growth policies that are needed to remove barriers to job creation in america...the policies that are needed to put america back to work. if we want job growth, we need

to recognize who really creates jobs in america. it's the private-sector. this building is named in memory of president ronald reagan, who recognized that private sector job creators are the heart of our economy. they always have been. that was the america i was raised in. my father and grandfather were small businessmen. they ran a tavern in cincinnati that my grandpa started in the 1930's. i worked in that tavern growing up. a lot of things you learned working in a bar. i will tell you more about that later. i know what it takes to meet a create jobs in the private sector.

there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy that leads to a lot of bad decisions in washington, d.c. the reality is that employers will hire if they have the right incentives, but the incentives have to outweigh the costs. businesses are not going to hire someone for a $4000 tax credit if government mandates impose long-term costs on them that significantly exceed the temporary credit. in recent years, such mandates have been overwhelming. private-sector job creators of all sizes have been pummeled by decisions made in washington. they've been slammed by uncertainty from the constant control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that is always micromanaging, meddling, and

manipulating. they've been hurt by a government that offers short- term gimmicks rather than fundamental reforms that will encourage long-term economic growth. they've been hampered by a government that offers confusion to entrepreneurs and job creators when there needs to be clarity. they've been undercut by a government that favors crony capitalism and businesses deemed 'too big to fail,' over the small banks and small businesses that make our economy go. they've been antagonized by a government that favors bureaucrats over market-based solutions. they've been demoralized by a government that causes despair when we need it to provide reassurance and inspire confidence. my worry is that even after all of this, much of the talk in washington right now is basically about more of the same. more initiatives that seem to have more to do with the next

election than the next generation...initiatives that seem to be more about micromanaging economic decisions than liberating them. i think the american people are worried about this too. i can tell you the american people -- private-sector job creators in particular --- are rattled by what they've seen out of this town over the last few years. my worry is that for american job creators, all the uncertainty is turning to fear that this toxic environment for job creation is a permanent state. job creators in america are essentially on strike. the problem is not confusion about the policies...the problem is the policies. the anger many americans have been feeling in recent years is beginning to turn into fear...fear of our future. that bothers me, and it should

bother all of us. america is a land of opportunity. always has been. our economy has always been built on opportunity...on entrepreneurs, innovators and risk-takers willing to take a chance -- because they're confident if they work hard, they can succeed. over the past few years, government has made people less confident -- not more confident -- that they can succeed. more and more americans are realizing this, and they're speaking out about it. i've spent the past four to five weeks traveling through my district and across this country, listening to the people outside of washington who are the key to making our economy work. my message to washington today on their behalf: this isn't that hard. we need to liberate our economy from the shackles of washington. let our economy grow! we need to trust in the good judgment of the american people. the instinct in government, always, is to get bigger, more

intrusive, more meddlesome. and that instinct is directly at odds with the things that make the american economy move. job creation in america is facing what i would call a triple threat from government. the first aspect of this threat is excessive regulation. during the joint session of congress last week, i hosted about a dozen job creators from the private sector in as my guests in the house gallery -- all of them with a common story: they're trying to help create more american jobs, but the government is getting in their way. we all know some regulations are needed. we have a responsibility under the constitution to regulate interstate commerce. there are reasonable regulations that protect our children and help keep our environment clean. and then there are excessive regulations that unnecessarily increase costs for consumers and small businesses. those excessive regulations are

making it harder for our economy to create jobs. over the last couple of months we've seen two vivid illustrations. last month federal agents raided the gibson guitar factories in tennessee. gibson is a well-respected american company that employs thousands of people. the company's costs as a result of the raid? an estimated $2 million to $3 million. why? because gibson bought wood overseas to make guitars in america. the other example is in south carolina, where the boeing company recently completed a plant that will create thousands of new full-time jobs for american workers -- only to be sued by a federal agency that wants to shut it down. let make sure i have this straight: under current rules, american companies are free to create jobs in china, but they aren't free to create them in

south carolina? at this moment, the executive branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. that means under the current washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million -- 219 times. i think it's reasonable to ask: is it wise to be doing all of this right now? the current regulatory burden coming out of washington far exceeds the federal government's constitutional mandate. and it's hurting job creation in our country at a time when we can't afford it. government's threat to job creation has two other components. one is the current tax code, which is discourages investment and rewards special interests. it strikes me as odd that at a time when it's clear that the tax code needs to be fundamentally reformed, the first instinct out of

washington is to come up with a host of new tax credits that make the tax code more complex. the final aspect of the threat is the spending binge in washington. it has created a massive debt crisis that poses a direct threat to our country's ability to create jobs and prosper. there are some people in this town who still deny this...who still deny that the debt is a threat to jobs. but if you talk to anybody outside of washington who has to meet a payroll, they'll tell you that out-of-control spending in washington is one of the things that concerns them the most about our future. in new york city back in may, i warned that if we don't take action soon, the markets will do it for us. last month, the markets took action, in the form of a downgrade and the possibility of future downgrades that caused the markets to tumble.

it's going to keep happening, until we act. the responsibility for fixing this toxic environment for job creation is a bipartisan one. the situation was created by washington's inability to let our economy work. it was created by government intrusion and micromanagement. we have a responsibility to work together in the coming months to remove these barriers and liberate our economy. this is what the american people are demanding of us. everything we do in the weeks and months to come needs to start with asking: are we addressing these problems? or are we making them worse? the budget control act of 2011, signed into law last month, establishes a joint select committee of congress for the purpose of identifying $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. many have expressed doubts

about the joint committee's chances of success. the skepticism is understandable. a joint select committee is, after all, no substitute for a president who continues to control most of the arms of government. but i think the joint select committee has a huge opportunity. it has a chance to lay the foundation for economic growth, by dealing with some of the obstacles that are standing in the way. the joint committee's mission is deficit reduction, and that has everything to do with jobs. as the co-chairman of the joint committee, jeb hensarling, said last week at the committee's first meeting: 'our debt threatens our jobs...speak to any fortune 500 ceo or small business person. it is clear that our debt hangs like the sword of damocles over their hiring decisions...it should be obvious that deficit reduction and a path to fiscal sustainability are themselves a jobs program.'

the joint select committee can tackle tax reform, and it should. it's probably not realistic to think the joint committee could rewrite the tax code by november 23. but it can certainly lay the groundwork by then for tax reform in the future that will enhance the environment for economic growth. the committee can develop principles for broad-based tax reform that will lower rates for individuals and corporations while closing deductions, credits, and special carveouts in our tax code. yes, tax reform should include closing loopholes. not for purposes of bringing more money to the government. but because it's the right thing to do. and if we're going to tackle tax reform, we should do it all. making short-term fixes in exchange for long-term flawed policy is not tax reform.

tax reform should deal with the whole tax code, both the personal side and the corporate side, and it should result in a code that is simpler and fairer to everyone. tax increases, however, are not a viable option for the joint committee. it's a very simple equation. tax increases destroy jobs. and the joint committee is a jobs committee. its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country. we should not make its task harder by asking it to do things that will make the environment for job creation in america even worse. i hope the president will meet this standard when he puts forth his recommendations for the joint committee next week. when it comes to producing savings to reach its $1.5 trillion deficit reduction target, the joint select committee has only one option: spending cuts and entitlement reform. the joint committee can achieve real deficit reduction by

reforming entitlements and taking real action to preserve and strengthen social security, medicare, and medicaid. there is a myth that spending reforms aren't 'real' unless they happen this year. that myth is built on a healthy skepticism that spending cuts made today are going to be implemented tomorrow. but it is a myth nonetheless, and we need to make sure it doesn't stop us from doing what needs to be done. most of the entitlement reforms in the house gop budget are phased in over time. and that's the way the joint committee should do them as well. modest changes in spending programs today can have large effects tomorrow. gimmicks, however, are unacceptable. as i told the president's economic team during the debt limit negotiations: we're just not doing that anymore. deficit reduction shouldn't

just be about quantity; it should be about quality. a billion dollars in imaginary savings from war spending that was never going to happen is not the same as a billion dollars in savings that strengthens our entitlement programs. there are plenty of skeptics about the joint select committee's ability to accomplish its mission, and that's to be expected. there are always skeptics. there were skeptics last spring when i said in new york that we should have spending cuts larger than any debt limit hike we gave the president. but it happened. and this can happen, too. the joint committee can succeed, and it must succeed. and with success, it can help to lay the foundation for economic growth and job creation in america. if the joint committee does its work correctly -- addressing the structural problems in our

entitlement programs that have put us in danger of more job- destroying downgrades, and setting the stage for fundamental tax reform that will help to support private investment -- it will have begun to remove some of the biggest barriers to job creation that exist in our country today. as the joint committee does its work, there is a lot of other work in washington that also needs to be done. as i mentioned earlier, there are 219 major regulatory actions in the works by the federal bureaucracy right now. we know seven of them will each have an economic impact of $1 billion or more. the biggest is an epa rule that could have an impact of as much as $90 billion. the president acted wisely by halting the implementation of this rule. i would urge the white house to build on it by disclosing to the american people the cost estimates for the remaining 212 'economically significant' rules it has planned.

i would also urge the president to call a cabinet meeting, and tell every member of his cabinet: 'until further notice, i don't want anything that gets in the way of private-sector job creation. and i want you to report back to me in a month with how you've done.' the members of the president's cabinet are not doing their jobs if they aren't constantly focused on removing impediments to job growth. if they're not focused on that, they should be fired. in the house, majority leader cantor has put together a fall legislative schedule that reflects the concerns we've heard from job creators across america about unnecessary federal regulations that are hampering job growth. earlier i mentioned the situation in south carolina with boeing. today the house is working on a measure that will prevent the

federal government from meddling in that situation, and similar ones. the senate needs to follow the house in passing this bill, and we need to send it to the president's desk. the nrlb bill is one of a whole series of measures we're working on this fall to reduce the burden of excessive regulation on job creators. we'll pass the reins act, which would require congressional review for any new regulation that has a major impact on the economy. house committees have identified dozens of job- crushing regulations that are keeping our economy from producing jobs. we'll repeal the '3 percent withholding rule,' which serves as an effective tax increase on those who do business with the government. we'll stop excessive federal regulations that inhibit jobs in areas as varied as cement and farm dust. we'll work on other reforms

such as removing barriers to increased domestic energy production and removing barriers to trade, many of which are in the house gop jobs agenda at jobs.gop.gov. the united states senate needs to act, too. the senate cannot continue to sit idle on jobs and the budget. the house has passed an array of bills already this year to remove barriers to job creation, and those bills are piling up in the senate. the senate hasn't produced a budget, either. it must. there are a few other things i want to mention that we can do in the weeks and months ahead to free our economy and bolster confidence among our job creators. one is very simple. both parties can boost confidence and reassure job

creators by being clear: there will be no shutdown of the federal government, and we aren't willing to default on our debt. the united states will meet its obligations to its citizens and to its creditors. in congress, i've been clear about these goals since the day i was elected speaker. and we've been true to our word. another thing we can do is in the area of transportation and infrastructure. i'm not opposed to responsible spending to repair and improve infrastructure. but if we want to do it in a way that truly supports long- term economic growth and job creation, let's link the next highway bill to an expansion of american-made energy production. removing some of the unnecessary government barriers that prevent our country from utilizing its vast energy resources could create millions of new jobs. there's a natural link between the two: as we develop new sources of american energy,

we're going to need modern infrastructure to bring that energy to the market. we can also boost confidence and reassure job creators by sending a balanced budget amendment to the states. one of the most important things we did in the budget control act last month -- in addition to requiring a vote in both houses of congress this fall on a balanced budget amendment -- was establish caps on future spending. these caps are designed to hold back the growth of government while our economy expands and creates jobs. to ensure those spending caps are set in stone, we should ratify a balanced budget amendment. if the president truly wants to make a difference and change the dynamic in washington, he should announce his support for a balanced budget amendment and call on the congress to send one to the states without delay. and lastly, if we want to create a better environment for job creation, politicians of all stripes can leave the 'my way or the highway' philosophy behind. the all-or-nothing approach is

not a workable mindset if we're serious about getting our economy on its feet again. our economy is facing a broad- based, systemic crisis. as such, it will require everyone coming to the table with their best ideas first and leaving politics at the door, with the courage to listen to each other's critiques and questions. it means ending the name- calling, the yelling, and the questioning of others' motives. leadership is about ending that nonsense, buckling down, and getting to work. thomas edison once said that opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. we have an opportunity in front of us. the trick is to recognize it,

and believe in it, and act on it. we know the challenges we face as a nation, and we have a chance to confront them. if we put election-year politics aside this year and focus on our work, we'll leave our country in a better place. getting it done will require a serious effort by both parties. there are some in both parties who would rather do nothing. they'd prefer to sit this one out, waiting to be dealt a better hand down the road, after the next election. that's not what i was elected to do. this is the hand we've been dealt. instead of ducking from the challenge, we should rise to the occasion, and liberate our economy from the shackles government has placed on it. i'm ready. and for the sake of our country, and our economy -- i hope all of us are ready. thank you for listening. i look forward to your

questions. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. >> thank you very much. when you were negotiating on the debt limit extension, they you ever have doubt that an agreement would be reached, or did you fear we with the fault? >> no, i was the one with a glass half full. if you were not an optimist like me, you would not be here. i believed we would be able to come to some kind of an agreement, and i made it clear all year that not meeting our debt obligations was unacceptable. >> the white house and others

have said there was an agreement at one point, a grand bargain, between you and the present. was there ever an agreement, or not really? be not know, unfortunately not. there was a lot of discussion about what could happen, what may happen. the president wanted more revenue. i told president i would not put more revenue on the table. i thought we could get it from a flatter, more fair tax code, and a more efficient tax code. i thought there was about $880 worth of additional revenue that would be available, but i told the president i would only put it on the table if he were willing to make fundamental changes in our and, programs. unfortunately, we could never get the yes on those changes to the entitlement programs, and then the president decided he wanted more revenue, $400 billion more, which was more

than any tax increases. it was unfortunate we were unable to agree because it would have averted a lot of what effect did happen. >> would you be in favor of resuming negotiations with the president to reach a grand bargain, or d you think the committee is in charge now? >> i think the committee is charged with doing that. i frankly think it is time to put up the dump the back together again. >> when you played golf with the president, it did not result with the bonding? [laughter] >> lesson, the president and i have a good relationship. we come from two different worlds. i come from -- came to this job as a small business person, and i still look at myself as that same person.

the president comes from a different ideology. and while we have a good relationship, sometimes the conversations that we have would be like wo groups of people from two different planets who barely understand each other. i do not mean it in a derogatory way, but there is a reason why you have two major political parties with major disagreements. >> you mentioned earlier that you grew up in modest circumstances. what is it like to have a 11 brothers and sisters? >> chaos. same thing, every day. [laughter] i tell people, one of the lessons i learned growing up were the lessons i needed to do my job today -- to get along with each other, to get things

done as a family. i grew up, i played every team support. yes, my grandfather, my dad owned a bar and i grew up there, too. i'm not floors, did dishes, waited tables, tended bar, and you have to deal with every jackass' that walks in the door. [laughter] trust me, i needed all the skills i learned growing up to do my job. , i understand you still mow your own lawn in ohio. is that true? >> it is true, but i have to a knowledge that i am not home all the time. so on monday, labor day, i cut the grass, and then i promptly sharpen the blade of the war and made sure it had ample oil in it because when i am not there my wife cuts the grass. [laughter] >> let me ask you about sequestration.

under the agreement reached with the president, there will be sequestration if an agreement is not reached between -- among the committee. do you think there is a real chance of sequestration? >> the idea of building this fire wall behind the work of the joint committee is to make it so ugly that no one wants to go there. it is ugly. i am not agree -- i am a big believer in the committee process. in order to get something out how accomplished, by the senate leaders especially, who wanted this joint committee, and it is established -- it will work, and i think it will work because the leaders look at each other in the eye and made a committment to make it work. >> one way of solving problems is you can pick up revenue by

eliminating the bush tax cuts, which expire in 2012. would regard that as a tax increase, or your caucus regarded as a tax increase or you said it is not on the table? >> the current tax policy of the united states and policy would generate almost $35 trillion worth of revenue over the next 10 years. that is the current policies that are in effected a. the current law that is in effect would mean that revenues would be at about $39 trillion of the next 10 years. that is because the law already assumes that the bush tax cut are gonna. it assumes that increases in the affordable care act will go into effect. so it is going to be very the

vault for the committee -- very difficult for the committee to raise taxes because they would have to raise that beyond the $39 trillion. this the congressional business office, welcome to our world of the government doing accounting. the law already assumes those taxes -- all the bush tax cut are going to be eliminated. >> if they were eliminated, the republicans in the house without regard that as a tax increase, because they are going to be eliminated otherwise? >> i would call it a tax increase. when you raise somebody's taxes, it is a tax increase. [laughter] [applause] >> on capital gains, the rate is now 15%. would you see any possibility of that being raised? >> i would not, because taxing capital is not allowed to help

create jobs. it will hurt job creation. a lot of people in this room remember when we had high capital gains taxes. what it does is it inhibits the efficient flow of capital to where it is most needed. that will not help our economy and will not help create jobs. >> the president proposed a jobs bill in his speech to the congress recently. is that bill going to be considered independent of the special committee, and is that jobs bill got to have any chance of passing? >> i think there are components where you might seek common ground between us. the congressional budget office is doing their job of looking at the president's proposal, and i would expect the committees congress would have hearings on that. i think it is too early to determine whether some of it ends up being the work of the select committee or whether we would do it separately.

>> you have been speaker since the beginning of the year. what is the most difficult time as speaker, the debt limit extension? >> i do not have many worries or concerns. people have asked me, are you ok? like i was in the middle of some death row. i sleep well every night, and i never worried about the outcome of this. i have been there, done that, and i have done this wrestling before. it does not publish anything. i'm a pretty simple guy. i know why i'm there, i know what i'm trying to accomplish, and i am trying to find a way to get there. and i think there is a way that, to do my job, where people can disagree without being disagreeable where as much as the president and i can disagree about things, we really do have

a very good relationship. >> when you were a minority leader, you did not have as much influence as you do the white house operates as you do now. >> almost none. [laughter] >> how have you changed the with the speaker operates? do you involved the democrats more than you were involved? >> i will let others analyze speaker pelosi's speakership. i am a big believer in allowing the house to do its will. i have seen legislation get tighter and tighter to the point where in the last couple years about five members decided what the beginning of the bill was going to look like and the same five would look at what the end of the bill would look like. the rest of us would stand on the sidelines. i have always believed what i said in 1991 when i was a

freshman, what do we have to fear in allowing the house to work its will prove to the extent possible, i am try to get a more open process on the floor of the house. i want the committees to be a real working zones of the congress, where they have been bypassed too much of the last 20 years. the committees have a responsibility to do real work. and the -- and there is a byproduct of all this. it is the way on the committee level to get members to work together again. the committee chairman knows a bill is called to come to the floor under an open process, he is gone to find a way to defend that bill. and build bipartisan support from the ground up. i can tell you so far, so good. members on both sides of the aisle are very happy about process. the majority leader has done a

great job in reworking the schedules of the committees actually can meet. that we are actually going to vote during the daylight hours as opposed to spending half the night doing things in the dark. so far so good, and i think members are very pleased. >> pretty often people want jobs and when they get them they find they are not as good as they thought. are you happy you had your job? >> i am happy i got the job. people ask me, are you having fun? [unintelligible] will somebody show me where the fun is? i'm glad i am there. and i went to washington with a mission as i outlined earlier. i have an opportunity to lead a mission. i came here not because of wanted to be a congressman, i came here to do something on behalf of my country. i did not want to be speaker

because i needed some fancy title. i wanted to be speaker so i could lead an effort on behalf of our country. and it is that mission that drives me every day, keeps me excited, keeps me engaged, but i like to accomplish my mission and get the hell out of here. >> you are not thinking of leaving? >> no, i'm not leaving any time soon. >> the nominee for president, republican, whoever that might be, the you expect to support anybody before the convention? >> no, they are all great candidate and i love all the. some of them i love more than others. >> one of them said he did a great job, we would like you to be vice president, would you consider that? >> it is hard enough for me to

go the funerals of people i know, much less people i do not know. [laughter] there is nothing that says you have to be boring. >> today, right now, you would see the biggest challenge that the country has is solving that that problem. is that what your main focus is, as well as the job creation? >> those would be near the top of the list. >> in terms of national security issues, the you have any views on whether our troops should be back sooner? >> no, i think our greatest national security issue is our unsustainable debt.

when it comes to our national security, i think we have to find a reasonable place working with the iraqi government on what the level of troops need to be there. it is clear that the iraqis are not in a position to be able to defend themselves. we have invested lives and our treasury in helping to build a democracy there. and we have obligations there that we should not be% of this and put -- be precipitous and put this fledgling democracy at risk. i think the president by and large is on the right path in terms of drawing down the extra troops that were put there. but let's all understand that the threat that we faced from

radical he hottest -- this threat is going to be going on long after everyone in this room is gone. and having success in afghanistan is critically important to the long-term future of our country. as difficult and uncomfortable as it is. >> today, if the election were held today, do you think your state, ohio, would go for the president? >> you do not know what the presidential map make up is going to look like. you do not know who his opponent is going to be. you cannot beat somebody who is a nobody. i think the president will have a tough time in ohio today. >> you have won a lot of seats, and it is often said these freshmen members are difficult

for you to control. is that a fair statement? >> i was a rabble rousing freshman at one time, 20 years ago. they came up and apologized to me for being difficult, and i look at them and say, you have no idea what difficult really mean-spirited but are freshmen have not been a big challenge a baptism ofve behad fire. whether it was the continuing resolution to fund our government after march 9, whether it was the budget, and in the debt limit increase they have had a real baptism. i have more senior members do, god bless them, whatever i do is never good enough.

and i understand that. i have been around this process. there have always been set. they stir up problems and it is to be expected. >> you are one of the few people who have been minority leader and majority leader and became speaker. when of the most amazing things in reading your career is you were in the house listened and then out. how did you get back in the house leadership? >> you mean, being thrown out of the leadership and then coming back? [laughter] i never took what happened in 1998 personally. newt decided to leave. they tried to go after the majority leader and the whip. i should have raised the white flag. i decided when i walked out of

that room, walked down the hall, i look at that my chief of staff who is now back as my chief of staff, and i told him we were going to work our way back, burnt our way back. i said i am never going to let them see the sweat, see an ounce of discipline on my face, i will let my work speak for itself. everybody else has already is left. i have stood on the house floor for a couple of years, and i was not happy, i did not want to smile, but i just stood there and smile. and decided earn my way back. >> what is your relationship with mitch mcconnell? >> we have very different personalities. we are very close friends, and

we have worked together for about four years of a and it is the first time in decades and decades that you have had leaders from the same political party in the house and senate who have had good relationships. i frankly think good for him and for us. we talked every couple days, our staff talks every day, and to the extent we are on the same page, i think it makes the process move more smoothly. >> if you had a republican senate and republican house and republican president, you are the speaker and a republican president, is that going to be easy to do? >> i told you i was born with a glass half full. every day you wake up, get dealt a hand, like a hand of poker, and you got to play the cards you're dealt.

whether it was growing up, my business career, political career -- you play the hand you're dealt. it would be nice to get dealt five aces every time. it does not happen very often. you still have to play the hand. it is not like poker. you have got to play the hand you're dealt, and i tried to be realistic about the hand i was up and make lemonade out of lemons. >> the process you have set up and the congress now to reach an agreement, the special committee, do you think it will reach agreement before the deadline will will go up to the deadline? we will not know what the process this as is until the day before? is that likely the way things will get done? >> who knows? this is washington. there are things that are going to be the way they are, which means it is probably going to be closer to november 23 that it is

going to be to november 22. [laughter] >> two final questions. was there any regret that you have as speaker, anything you would have done differently than the way you have done it as speaker, or are you happy the way that things that been handled? >> i feel pretty good about it so far. i do not really have any regrets. i tried to move this deficit reduction bill early, but some of my colleagues did not want to go along, and so i had to sit down with a lot of the members and try to bring them along, gently, and nobody on my staff has ever heard me screaming, i do not to edo anger. i have to rely on being straight up with people. but there were a couple of

freshman, a couple of young whippersnappers who seem to have all the answers. so i brought them into my office and closed the door, and i know them pretty well, and i said boyd, that door is not open until you say yes. it can be 30 seconds, 30 minutes, it does not matter. it could be three hours. i have a week and a half worth of cigarettes in that just over there, so -- [laughter] i'm still thinking about 45 this. i'm not heavy-handed with my colleagues. the other thing i did not realize until somebody pointed it out was that when you look at that big deficit reduction deal, that we got past, typically that would have cost the leadership $10 billion or $20 billion worth of goodies. a bridge here, money for a hospital here, but we got rid

earmarks. i have never asked for one. if they thought my job was to come to washington and robbed the federal treasury on their behalf, they were voting for the wrong guy. i had this crazy idea when i was running for majority leader that if i could start a big fight rks that i could win the race for majority leader. i almost cut my throat because i realized everybody did earmarks. the first time in our country's history that there will be no earmarks. [applause] it made getting the big deal harder, but i did not realize it at the time. just had to talk about the facts, and have a hold you up.

>> when you were a high school linebacker plan for a famous coach, did you think you might be a college and professional athlete? >> no, that was way beyond -- this is a different era. all my brothers played sports with the. i wanted to be a salesman. eventually that is what i did. i was in the sales and marketing business and in the plastics industry. i thought i was going to do that the rest of my life, but then i got involved in my neighborhood homeowners association, and i ended up in the united states congress. this too could happen to you. >> i want to thank you for your time and your thoughts and i appreciate your being here. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow, a discussion on u.s. national security. we will hear from thomas donil on. coverage begins at 12:30 eastern.

the head of the international monetary fund warned today that the global economies are in a plate -- dangerous stage because of the amount of debt countries are taking on. the remarks are next on c-span. then the head of the securities and exchange commission testifies before a congress committee about sec oversight and funding. then today's white house middle of honor ceremony. -- medal of honor ceremony. >> even a partially successful initial the would mean a soviet planner could not be assured of an assault and the first track on us. >> the late senator was a leading supporter of the star wars space defense system .

watch his speeches from the senate floor and other span appearances at the c-span be a library. >> head of the international monetary fund says countries should take strong action counter weak economic growth and high debt. christine lagarde spoke at the woodrow wilson international center. this is her first major speech in washington since taking over her job this summer. >> good morning. good morning, everyone. ok, i am jane harman, and we are honored today to host christine

lagarde, the new chief of the international monetary fund for her first public speech in washington, d.c. i am also pleased to recognize many of my former congressional colleagues who joined the director at breakfast at the wilson center earlier this morning. some of them are here. some of them had to go back to congress, hopefully, to make productive congress that will solve this economic crisis, but they are or where or senators or wereollins of maine, mikulski of maryland, barbara lee of california. we're also joined by some of the wilson center board members, and i want to recognize our chairman, and by a number of

ambassadors, a good friend of mine from the united arab emirates, cornelius smith from the bahamas,. welcome to all of you. it is a pleasure for me as the first president of the wilson center who happens to be a woman to host the first woman to lead the imf in its 66-year history. this is not the first glass ceiling she has shattered. prior to becoming the imf managing director, she served as the minister of finance of france. was head of the european arm of the international law firm baker and mckenzie, becoming its

first female chair. is also the first person ever to be on the cover of "forbes magazine. the director took the helm of the imf during the greatest shock to hit the global economy in our lifetimes. this series of economic aftershocks combined with ongoing post-earthquake misery in japan, political turmoil in the middle east, and the deeply worrying euro crisis, has fuelled a worldwide slowdown. as a recovering politician, i am aware that while countries with deeply into connected financial systems grapple with unique and shared problems come their embattled leaders find nacelles with few tools left in the box.

this prevents them from what really needs to be done. what could i be talking about? the united states has been no exception. in my view, our country has a second chance to leave. -- to lead. we must summon the courage and bipartisanship to reach beyond elections in 2012 and make short and long term decisions that are in the interests of our country and the global economy. there is no great mystery surrounding what congress must do, nor need we or they start from scratch. we have simpson-bowles, and i believe alice rivlin is still here, in the front row. we must tackle the deficit, entitlements, and public spending.

we must take measures to promote growth, including streamlining the tax code. we should seriously consider among other things a national infrastructure bank, which makes sense from every angle, in terms of quickly building american jobs. we must do so quickly in a bipartisan manner that is the country the markets and the world renewed confidence in our stewardship. next week the imf will meet here in imf will meet here for its annual meeting. this is another chance to address these problems head on and with urgency. true global leadership with the understanding of national problems will be critically important next week. in christine lagarde we're seeing that true global leadership, clear, positive, and irresponsible.

-- and responsible. we're anxious to hear more. welcome me urging join me in welcoming the woman who shattered all sailings, christine lagarde to make her first public speech and washington, d.c.. [applause] >> thank you for having me. i would like to thank the wilson center for their kind invitation, and i would like especially to express my deep appreciation to jane harman. in her long and distinguished career, jane has worked in the executive branch, academia, law, and of course congress

where she served nine terms in the house of representatives. she has been, and continues to be, a devoted public servant. thank you, jane. thank you for everything you do in having me this morning. there couldn't be a more appropriate venue for my first major speech in washington as imf managing director. more than anyone else, it was woodrow wilson who championed the cause of multilateralism and global fraternity. the seeds he planted bore fruit in the postwar milieu that -- and and still does believe that was the objective of the math to

major was for economic stability and a better future for all. this is at the heart of what the imf has to do and has to keep doing a much of what the circumstances are. the idea has never been more important. this is what i have been advocating for the last few weeks. collective, bold, courageous action is needed. it will not only be in the interest of those who conduct the actions and for the countries. it before they could for the world. we are living their very troubled times. exactly three years ago, after the collapse of lehman brothers, the economics guys

looked troubled, turbulence, as global activity slows and downside risk increases. we have entered into a dangerous phase of the crisis. without this collective resolve that president wilson was advocating, the confidence that the world so badly needs will not return. as we all know, at the heart of economic development and growth lies confidence. confidence in ourselves, in what the others can do as well. woodrow wilson once cautioned that "the thing to do is to supply light and not heat." the imf job is to see and show the lights when the picture seems so dark and shined the light of core economic problems. it is not hard to turn on a

little bit of the heat. even though you take it back. despite the very gloomy picture that we have at the moment, i believe that there is a path to recovery. it is a narrow one. it is narrower than it was three years ago. the volume and the amount of ammunition is different, lower. there is a path. it will require strong political will across the world not just in one country but in many countries. it will require decisive action on the part of some central banks. they seem to be showing to us. it will require leadership.

cooperation over competition, action overreaction. all three components are difficult. they have to be demonstrated, implemented by political leaders who may have to put aside not just their ego, we all have one, but also their partisan interest. did they will have to extend their agenda to beyond the next agenda. let's have a quick look at the global situation. i apologize for how brief that will be. i want to get into a quick analysis of what the problems are as we see them and what kind of solutions they are. if we look at the global economic outlook at the moment, and i will not be specific on numbers, our revised outlook will be next week when we have our annual shareholder meeting. i will be general and not overly specific.

overall, of growth is continuing to slow down. the advanced economies are facing an anemic recovery with higher levels of unemployment. the euro area debt crisis has worsened. financial strains are rising. there is the real risk that the major economies slip back into the moving forward. while many are facing those headlines are facing over heating, inflation pressure, strong growth and rising counts. if we now turn to the low income companies, a day have been experiencing more reasonable growth. did they remain highly vulnerable to economic dislocation from elsewhere in

the world because of their dependency of capital support. they suffered from the commodity price volatility, which comes with heavy social costs. that has an impact on their public finances. many have to put in place subsidies and programs to support the population. this is a bit of an aside. it is a problem. i would like to draw your attention to the human suffering that is taking place nakhodka horn of africa. -- placed in the horn of africa. aid is available. the imf's stand ready to help. there is the ability to set aside political ambitions to allow supports to be sent to

where they should be. i would like to end a cat that there is always hope. -- indicate that there's always hope. they brought together the finance ministers of the g eight countries plus they had of international institutions and countries like jordan and morocco. we can reach out to the population and governments that have the courage to put it in their hands. there is a time for building a strategy. there's time for implementing a strategy.

we will work together. it is a matter of development. it is a matter of organizing exchanges and demonstrating that market access can help the developments. it can develop economic appear turning to the roots of the problem, i suppose to deal with global challenges and solutions. i see three distinct groups of problems. the balance sheet pressures that sap growth. the instability of in core of the economic system and social tensions. they are little bit below the radar screen.

first of all, the key short- term issue and in advanced economies is that balance sheet pressures are knocking the wind out of the recovery. there is still too much debt in the system. uncertainty ways over sovereign advanced economies, banks and in europe, and households in the united states. we balance sheets and a weak growth of financial institutions, households, are feeding negatively to each other and holding back demand and job creation. this vicious cycle is gaining momentum and frankly it has been policy lack by polic of resolve and selected determination.

that is for the first part. it is more of a long-term issue. it has to do it the rest of core instability. what we find in our economics said these is that the world is totally interconnected with a major conduit of connection generally in the financial system. this is clearly the result of what we have done with the spillover analysis and the combination of analysis of economies and the connections between them. in this interconnected world, economic tremors in one country can reverberate swiftly and powerfully across the globe, especially if they originate in the system economies and are channeled by the financial circuits. these linkages are a key. they have to be addressed.

the third issue rebate to the social tensions. it is bubbling below the surface. we do not see it well. if you look carefully at what is e, there isn chile. t here clearly social tensions. that is caused by a number of sthings. one is high unemployment. it is the case in this and many other countries. that affects the younger generation. there have been discussions of the lost generation. we need to do our best to avoid that. with the loss of growth, we run the risk of a lost generation. fiscal austerity that chips

away at social protections and the automatic stabilizers, perceptions of the and fairness -- perceptions of the on fairness where wall street is treated unfairly. it is not just the top 10%. on in face of all these problems, what are the solutions? are their solutions tax i am determined that there are rigid are their solutions? i am determined that there are -- are there solutions? i am determined that there are. i wanted to address can delete the problems and their analysis.

beingke to start it with able to remember what i preach. it to me those solutions are my four "r"'s the first is repair. before anything else, we must relieve some of the pressures that are suing the recovery and households and banks. on sovereigns, they need medium- term plans to stabilize and lower their public debt ratios to gdp. that must come first and foremost. if this is a precondition to anything else. the degree to which it is done is something that is per the country analysis.

consolidating to quickly and too heavily exposes to the risk of reducing the little growth that there is currently in our economy. the challenge is to navigate between losing credibility and undermining growth. there is a way to do this. credible measures that anger sinking south in the medium term will create the space in the short term for accommodating growth. we want to get out of the vicious circle i was describing earlier on by entering into a virtuous path. that goes there a slower pace of consolidation and a much download did program in the medium and downturn. it will be needed to slow the

debt, stabilize, and reduce it. on a pere difference country basis. some have no choice but to cut deficits now. they simply did not have the luxury of trading this path which begins low and finishes high. there is no option but to do that. others should stick to their plans. many advanced economies have put together those plans. they have to stick to the plan. they have to be very attentive to the pace of growth at the moment and be prepared to relax a little bit. in some countries, they allow for the growth measures provided that there is an anger

the way of actually reducing those deficits and stabilizing the debt to reduce it in the long run. it is not what kind of adjustment there is. it is also how this is being produced. that is in relation to the short term measures that would allow the growth and in relation to the medium and long-term measures that anger this virtuous approach. certainly it goes through entitlement reform. it goes through the kind of tax reforms that broadened the base. that need to happen in all advanced economies. it is happening in some. some have taken the decision to completely revise it said the entitlements is stabilized in

the medium and long term. this is the kind of reform that we have anin mind. they should also deal with households. incidently, i welcome president obama's addressing of unemployment. it remains clear that it has been associated with the trap that anchors the medium term actions and decisions that are so needed to stabilize the debt. it will certainly be important to burden households in reduction programs.

they should be able to take advantage of lower interest rates. turning to europe, that they must address firmly their financing problems they're credible rigid fiscal consolidation. -- they must address firmly their financing problems through a credible fiscal consolidation. they avoid the deleveraging that is the tendency to actions strengthen the institution. that is so much for repair. if we look at 34, reform is about a longer term. it is the immediate action that needs to be taken. you have to keep maintaining

what they have produced. it is about much longer term. it is for a more stable economic future tomorrow. i see two critical areas that need attention. the first one is the financial sector reform. there is some good news in that category. some will find discussions about liquidity ratios and the stability of institutions. although it had lasted over to divvy zero years, it is a lot faster than what has taken place in basel. basel3 has taken a lot less in

this phase. it is good. substantial gaps remain. particularly across borders supervision in regard to international banking institutions. cross border resolution is still to be tackled on a global basis and with proper regional ramifications when it comes to the legal system. the too important to fail issue and the development of the shadow banking systems. the fact that some progress has been made but not enough to stay in the face of the depositors, the people who put their savings in the institutions, it is a question that needs to be addressed urgently. we need to fine-tune the tools

to do guard against financial risk. banks need to hold more capital in good times so that they do have these capital buffers. it guards against housing prices. progress has been made. there is the doubt about it. denny's to be reinforced. he needs to be leveled. the general interest news the level playing field. it also include full dimension. employment must be central. if jobs and not create a, it is a massive human waste.

it is important among the young people who risk this lost generation syndrome that we should try to avoid. the third is rebalance. rebalancing. one might argue that this is really a general principle. i would argue that it is a critical point. there is this dole rebalancing that needs to take place. remove from public support to private investment. that has not really yet taken place. the second rebalancing is the rebalancing where the deficit economies operate differently.

this coaster various measures. the rebalancing is held back by protective regulations are by the lack of appreciation. it is a question for those countries that have massive deficits to be able to operate differently and save more. for those countries that have a massive search is to actually consume a bit more domestically and not just by investment but by domestic consumption. letting appreciation happen when it comes to this is very important. this occurs everyone. the thought that one country or a set of countries could be

decoupled from the rest of the world is an illusion. it is a total solution. if the advanced economies were to succumb, the emerging market cannot escape. it is in the global interests. it is in the interest of each and every economy of each and every country. i think woodrow wilson will have appreciated that. that would have been in his mantra. the fourth is "rebuild." i'm thinking of the low income countries including their fiscal positions. they had offers from many of them. they had to use them at the time of the financial crisis. there has to be rebuilding so

they can protect themselves. this will help public investment and social safety nets. allowing countries to develop subsidies to protect the poor from prices with minimal damage to fiscal sustainability. having gone through my effortfor 's" i will go through my fifth one. what is the role analogous. -- in all of this ta? we can help them appropriate national, regional, and global purveyance. i have been a member of finance and trade. there are things you simply do not do for yourself. you are right in the middle of

it in your trying to grow this boat. you do not necessarily have the distance to analyze the strength of your economy. this is how they interconnect. what is the spillover affect that will affect the others tax i have the skills and talent that was required. that is number one. we have the ability to provide the level of technical assistance. i'm thinking of the country in the middle east and north africa to build their finance sector billed their tax system. we can do this in many corners of the world. those countries will continue to

be the recipient of technical support. the third arm is our lending capacity and ability to respond to a moment of crisis. there's nobody else but the fund backing come to support its by way of lending and not just something money without some consideration the programs that are well established. everybody has a pitch. i would like to share it with you. the fund is critical for the united states of america. in hard times there is a tendency to turn around the edges and think that is not really critical.

the international monetary fund is a discipline on organized and well managed. that'll have to be demonstrated. i will do my best for that institution. >> to operate with economies, essentially. 2500 of them, more less. until i came to the fund, and i realized how disciplined, organized, rule based is. and how the principles actually matter over the arbitrary decisions and the discretion of doing as we please. it is an institution where my main shareholder is the united states of america. 17% out right.

that is reason number one. number two, because i heard that. why should we invest our money? it goes back to the number. 187 members that all get their money back, principal and interest. we land -- we come to terms. they check that the conditions are respected and that the reforms are taking place. there is special support that is being given money is not being

paid -- is being given. money is not being paid until that is reached. it is actually very important that there is stability and around the world. that there is stability in all corners, and the international monetary system -- certainty is a key to fuel confidence, confidence is a key to develop the growth. growth is key for jobs. it is perfectly legitimate in being accountable for all of its members, for the money that it receives, for the money that it lends, and the money that it pays back its members. thank you for giving me the chance to pitch. [applause]

>> yes. i want to thank, on behalf of the woodrow wilson international center for scholars and on behalf of a very sophisticated and interested audience, i want to thank director lagaurd. she said at the g8 meeting in france, there is hope in the room. under the disciplined eye of christine, i hope that the imf will solve some of these problems. we do have about 17 minutes for questions. the q&a session will be moderated by the washington chief of the new york times.

he has been writing about economics since 2000. in 2003, he was part of a team of times reporters, he won the award for magazine writing in 2009 for the article "obamanomics." and he was the winner for the new york times column in 2009 and 2007. and in 2010, he was a finalist in pulitzer prize winning for his columns. he was appointed chief of the washington bureau of the times. we have microphones around the room. after he speaks and asked the director a few questions, we are asking you to formulate your concise, precise question and identify yourself. it will be entered by the

director in a concise and precise fashion. the way we can accommodate as many of you as possible. >> as the director has noted, i have not been in "vogue." let me ask you a question. you included some fairly stark talk, you talked about things that the policymakers have not done. can you expand on that a little bit? what do you see, as a global economic system, that we might not have done as well as we might have. >> i am prepared to take some of the blame for that. if you look at europe, to begin with, because of the cumbersome way in which decisions are implemented, it is based on 17

parliamentary processes. we have not the signal is sufficiently well for the market in particular, the degree of fiscal responsibility and accountability. it has been a slow process which was directionally right. we impress upon the markets that the european places in the monetary zone shoulder the pain together or the packages are in place and expanded, without

distinguishing between the short-term gains in the long term loss -- and the long-term loss of having reduced its possibility to expand. the stimulus, the austerity, without letting growth take hold. >> and this country? >> like i said, many advanced economies. >> yes, you.

>> it seems like you're saying that the actions are a little knee-jerk. are you implying that the economic leadership is incompetent? [laughter] >> that is the problem with concise questions, they get right to the point. >> this is not what i am saying. the times are such that it requires the collective drive that i witnessed in early 2009 a t the time of the g-20 london meetings. the sense of urgency, the sense of collective fate and destiny. the ability for leaders to be nimble and ambitious. that is the 1944 theory as well.

i am content that this is what we need at the moment. this is the feedback and the statement resulting from the -- [unintelligible] this is the kind of a focus and collective that is needed. i don't know that the g-20 summit will give it to the world, but i strongly hope that it will be that sort of collective drive. and the sentiment shared by all that whatever happens anywhere on the globe is going to have an impact back at home. >> you often hear people asking who learns a historical lesson. tell me what you think of this framework. it seems that initially, we saw

incredibly aggressive action. by the second part of the bush in ministration, -- administration, the first part of the obama administration. sometimes it affects both, the weather changes. to some extent, it overwhelms the economic lesson and the response became less aggressive. >> i would agree with that, there was very strong momentum coming out of the crisis. i remember the g-20 washington meeting with president george w. bush. under the new leadership in this country, in london, there was very strong momentum at that time. it was a decision, number one, to tackle the regulatory issues

when it came to the financial sector. to provide for massive financing for the imf to make sure there was a financial support around the globe. so that there was a need for an urgent recovery situation. and that has slowed down, the economy was picking up. business as usual could recover. >> there is something inherently [unintelligible] right here. >> [inaudible] >> i will rephrase. >> are there adequate systems in place for the proper accountability of the brettonwoods institutions?

>> can not talk for the institutions because the only one i know as the international monetary fund. the way it is structured, the way in which twice a year, we report back to our membership, we have open books when it comes to the degree of accountability that we refer to. we have structured programs that we cannot deviate from. we have conditions of operation that are quite strict and sometimes overly strict, which is a bit of an issue. there is the ability to report and be accountable to the membership. it was not like it was an organization that can operate without conditions or reporting back. >> thank you. i'm from the center for global

development, welcome to washington. you may have noticed in the washington post that there was a very bold proposal that the imf would seek a line of credit from the surplus that comes primarily from china and use it to bailout europe, apply very strict terms of lending to you so well described. the imf is very directly -- the highly regarded. it was suggested that you would chineselast non- head of the imf. [laughter] i say that to ask you, what do you see about the legitimacy of the imf? the creditor countries are in a relatively minority position. do you have plans for addressing

that during your term or terms in the governance of the imf itself? >> i look at the membership, and there are proper economic classifications between the emerging economies, the classic economies, and the low-income economies. a majority has the voting rights. i don't know what you refer to as the creditors and the beneficiaries, but the structure is as if is. there is clearly a drive by the emerging markets in particular, but more generally by the less represented countries could be better represented and it is an ongoing debate within the fund, not really one that i cherished myself because i think the value of the fund is to be out looking rather than inward looking.

but it has to reflect the state of the world. it is very likely, given the trend that we see at the moment that the less economic countries including the emerging markets will be more represented in the future because it is only fair that given the rise of their gdp, they would be adequately represented. how you base that representation, whether it is pure gdp, much more sophisticated ways of measuring, we will have a huge debate about that. i think, you know, one of the virtues of the fund is that it is properly representing the institution of the world. to be accepted in all coronets

of the world, including asia in particular. it was conducting programs and thus days, i think it is necessary that there is appropriate representation. i'm not sure i have dealt with all issues of your question, in particular the financing by china, but there are multiple ways to finance and support those authorities and difficulties. multilateral, bilateral. >> we hear statements that they will not let greece -- there is no specific plan to prevent this from happening. on the course we're on, bad things will happen unless we do more. how can we have confidence in the general statements that europe will not let anything bad

happen given that there are very tough and politically unpalatable -- those are difficult decisions for northern european taxpayers and politicians. how much should we have confidence that we will get from here to there? >> i was very much reassured by the joint statement of chancellor merkel and president sarkozy yesterday. the two of them are clearly leaders from an economy point of view. but the future of greece, it seems to be very strongly entrenched. it think it is very important. the decision made by the members of the eurozone, a statement of guiding principles. one of the guiding principles as, as long as the country and

difficulty under a program its obligations, members of the eurozone will support it financially. that is a strong and bold statement. another get difficulty -- another difficulty, these are made at the highest level of government. there is usually, and the best case, three reform months. in the worst case, it will take longer than that. it is more consolidated fiscal policy, more integration. the creation of crisis management instruments. take the best case again, 12-18 months. there is the time frame of democracy, the time frame of 17 parliaments coming together.

and the time frame that is expected from the markets, from the investors, and from the media. it is not just -- think of the napoleon days. >> i think our time is up. >> i want to thank you both, and this educated audience, for a wonderful conversation typical of the conversations we hold at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars that is non- partisan and tries to bring light not heat to the most difficult subjects. i want to thank the ronald reagan building for providing today's venue. the reagan building functions at the official -- as the official world trade center from washington d.c..

global business leaders from around the world, what a pleasure is to see the new director of the imf that happens to be a woman so gracefully and completely address these issues that affect our world today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal."

a poll of voters in the 2012 elections. john avlon of "the daily beast" joins us. new jobsdent obama's program. the percentage of americans without health care coverage is about 16%. later, we will talk with rachel garfield on the medicare and uninsured. every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and later in the morning on c- span 3, grover norkliff debates deficit reduction and investment. live coverage at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying. track the latest campaign

contributions with c-span's web site for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with facebook updates, candidates bio's, and links to c-span media partners. c-span.org/campaign2012. ♪ >> do you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> what is that? >> basically, it was somewhat open for debate, but it has pretty much been proven recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individuals. citizens of the united states. >> of the right to bear arms. >> of the right to keep and bear arms. dr. de you feel safer wearing a handgun? >> yes, being a woman, i am moderately the weaker target

than any other man would be. i feel with a handgun here, i would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you are talking about a robbery, obviously, i think the identity, the offender [unintelligible] would not bother trying to run. >> that is from last year's studentcam competition. this year, studentcam is underway. the topic, the constitution and you. >> now the head of the securities and exchange commission mary shapiro talks about changes in a new report by the sec. she testified that the house financial services committee. that is the committee responsible for crafting the dodd-franc legislation -- dodd-

ranfrank legislation. the ranking member is barney frank of massachusetts. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible]

>> thank you. witnesses on the first panel are the of ma willry sh -- honorable mary shapiro who was not there during madoff. and mr. saumya. partner and managing director of

boston consulting group. i welcome our witnesses. do we have two others/ ? we will have two other -- we will have michael shanahan, a senior partner managing for the questions and answers, but not for opening statement. and to assist you with the -- and then shanderarshka hura, whatever. managing director of the boston consulting group. at this time, chairman shapiro, you are recognized for your opening statement which you don't have to limit to five minutes if you wish. get yourself in as much trouble as you need. i am kidding. [laughter] >> that is very good advice, mr. chairman.

thank you chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. >> we are having trouble with our mics. pull that closer to you. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the organizational assessment of the securities and exchange commission performed by the boston consulting group and other issues regarding the sec. when i arrived two years ago, the agency was reeling from a variety of economic events and emission failures that severely harmed the ability of the agency. >> i know it may sound and natural to you, there will be a new sound system installed during the christmas break. if you could pull the whole microphone closer. >> will perform the way the commission operates. we brought in new leadership and including the first chief operating officer and chief compliance officer.

we've revitalized and restructured our operations. we took steps to break down in journal silos and create a collaboration. we recruited more staff with specialized expertise in real world experience and expanded our training program. and enhanced safeguards to investor assets by new rules and leveraging public accounting firms. our goal throughout the many changes has been to create a more vigilant and agile organization to perform the critical mission of the agency. i believe our efforts are paying dividends. last year, the sec returned $2.2 billion to harmed investors, twice the budget for that year. last fiscal year, $2.8 billion in penalties ordered by enforcement actions. 176% increase over the amount than fiscal year 2008.

we range and scope from complex cases against parties that played significant roles in the economic crisis to a lesser known cases involving harm to individual investors. our examiners and investigators collaborate effectively resulting in a number of recent enforcement actions generated from the exam referrals. we continue to seek ways to improve our operations. last fall, as required by the bought-franc -- dodd-frank act, a consulting firm conducted a broad and independent assessment of the sec organization. they confirmed what we believed over the past few years, the sec has improved the effectiveness of its operation. nevertheless, we agree that the sec still has significant opportunities to further optimize its available

resources. even assuming further optimization, bcg concludes that we will not have the personnel or resources to perform all of the activities within the agency's responsibility. they also conclude that sufficient resources have contributed to a gap in the ability to develop information technology systems. beyond the resource issue, they provided useful insights into how the sec might continue efforts to ensure that it remains a vigilant, agile, and responsive organization. given the determining and executing the appropriate course of action, it will require internal coordination and a significant commitment of signif staff. that has already begun. we organized around the four principal goals, optimizing the structure, strengthening

capability, improving controls, and enhancing our workforce. we have already implemented or are in the process of employment in an number of bcg recommendations including clarifying the role of the officer and his ability to make changes, building staff skills, and establishing an improvement program, improving the office, optimizing the office of information technology, redesigning the office a human- resources, and prioritizing the responsibilities. it is important to note that bcg believes the upfront investments will be required was some can be paid for through the efficiency gains outlined in the report, the savings will not be sufficient to cover the investment needed to achieve our goals.

the committee has requested my views on two pieces of legislation, the sec modernization act and the regulatory accountability act. although i appreciate it, this describe some concerns on the structure and ability to deal with the change in market conditions. the regulatory accountability act requirement for cost-benefit analysis could undermine the ability to issue orders against wrongdoers until late exempted orders. and delay orders to companies. i would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on both pieces of legislation to

ensure any chilly improves the ability to achieve the mission. we recognize that implementation and many of the ideas in the report or require a long-term commitment and sustained effort over several years to successfully implement. while we're still in the early stages, we're committed to an open and transparent process. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm happy to answer any questions he might have. >> thank you. >> perfect timing. i am a partner and managing director at the boston consulting group.

a civic and under tinging involving many professionals, i am accompanied by my colleagues who will be able to assist in responding. they were responsible for the organizational review. andrea villa extensive documentation, undertook analysis and conducted more than 25 discussion with current and former sec officials.

and industry groups. we focused on these subjects that the sec identified. first, organizational structure. second, personnel and resources. to carry out the mission, they have clear organizations. they fill the mandate. our study focused on the ladder. we found that what the sec has initiated steps to better fulfil its mission as well as its expanded mandate, they can do more to shape a better organizational structure and address gaps. we have a portfolio of initiatives.

we recommended that they implement these initially on a no regret bases. they are foundational to the future. the senate to his fallen to four major categories and are as follows. -- these fall into four major categories and are as follows. the sec should engage in a rigorous assessment of the highest needs and reallocate resources accordingly. reshape the organization. did the sec should reshape the structure, rolls, and governance to maximize efficiency, effectiveness, and collaboration. invests in enabling infrastructure. including technology, human resources, risk management, and high priority staff skills.

and enhance the model. the sec should implement roles as both the regulator one. they have a plan for these initiatives that carefully sequences them in a way as to create significant efficiencies that would help fund the investments. as an initial matter, will recommend they create an office to coordinate the immediate implementation of the initiatives. we also recommended that after the sec has implemented them, congress should reflect on whether or not it is resulting organization adequately meet the expectations for the efficiency and effectiveness. if they determine that it still does not meet the expectations, we recommend that it have increasing funding to allow them to better fill the current roll

or change it to fit available funding. the proposed organization act of 2011 contains a number of provisions which appear to be consistent with this spirit there are several ones of the modernization act which appear be honest those reports. in addition, several provisions appear to go beyond the scope of our steady. they address regulatory mandates that are beyond the scope of our study. thank you for your time and attention. we're happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. what would you think would be the number one church road change that ought to be made at the sec? should it be made before

additional funding or staff hires? what should that sequined be? -- sequence b? >be? >> there are a number that we made. we consider this issue. the markets dynamics are made broken dealers.

separately -- >> would we need to know he was going to be the primary regulator? >> we did note that there was a lot of dialogue on that topic. in the set of options, one option was presuming that you have it. >> i think they could be combined irregardless. i think the sec would continue to have oversight and accountability even if he had an sro or something. >> there have to oversee a pair.

>> right now it is a separate division here. they have had several pluses by raising the standard of the exam. there is potentially an added advantage of independent from enforcement. this separates exam. if you lose the information flow

between the two. it can go back to rose. it is loss if you separate them. >> thank you. >> you have had the report since march. i am sure you have reviewed it. has the agency undertaken any of the recommendations today? >> we have. understandably, a lot of these are longer-term process. some are quite massive. it should take as some time. we have consolidated the office of the director. we have eliminated a director.

we have established a the improvement program. sore looking for cost-saving we can redeploy the savings and other activities. we are and the process of training all of our employees for a full rollout of our new performance management system which was highlighted by a bcg. we have reorganize the office of information technology. we have new information. it is yielding dividends. we have gone the full review of the other parts. the word should be done in november. then we will be able to go forward with that. we have offloaded some responsibilities we think can be done more efficiently by outsourced agencies. our financial management program is being outsourced to a federal

service provider. of releasing information has been outsourced. we have reorganized enforcement to great results. the other works streams. >> thank you. >> thank you. you have been very reasonable. i am prepared to reconsider the extent to where we borrow last year. we can find ways to convey our sense of particular activities without having is separate entity.

it has been badly treated by this. with regard to the rating agency, they are extraordinary. they have systematically overrated securities. i'm not talking about the u.s.. i'm talking about operation bonds. i asked them why. they said they are not going to depart. we're saying they are more likely to default. it is like saying if you live in iowa you have more chance of being eaten by a sharp than if you live in montana. that might be statistically the case. we set up.

we have the problem of municipalities. we did in hants the advisers. it may have gone too far. i am prepared to work with the agency. we can make sure it is the importance. on raising the bar for adopting regulations, and he makes a very interesting point. we should not be telling you to decide whether not to do things we said you had to do. if you read the bill, it is to give them the option of deciding to regain. more seriously, they take this back. and maybe perhaps more intensive, it covers not just

regulation but orders it. before you do that, am i correct index would it mean that an enforcement order would have to go through cost/benefit? what would that mean for you? >> it would require a cost- benefit analysis-. it would have securities fraud. it enabled them to bring profits more quickly. it to operate by virtue of a sense of order. >> i appreciate that. the notion seems really quite

odd. >> it to be very damaging. >> i really appreciate the quality of the report and the way you presented it. what you're saying is that there are ways to be made more efficient. continue itsoing to major new responsibilities, the biggest single response ability is that we gave them derivatives. is there any way for them to ?ake on this ta >> as we described, as the sec is currently constructed, and given the productivity of the resources, the workload of leaves them at a capacity cap.

we also identified the initiatives which we recommended they adopt. we restructure the organization in a way that will clarify roles and improve productivity. it goes toward addressing a capacity cap. the challenge to know how far it that it is determined by the agenda. this is a big issue. depending on where the agency is, it should be increased. it has a very material impact. >> a man at the about to come

back. he had one thing in there in which she talked about how logical it would be if we're able to merge them. to which i say i wish. if i was making a new country, there would be one such entity. i will say that is a little .eyond its peer there is the real emphasis of this self funding operation. that is something within our grasp. that that defeated by turf. they felt so strongly about that that we lost it.

there are ways to make that confirm. thank you. >> thank you. our staff is working on the question. they have determined it would be a fresh water swim either way. but ask for clarification. it asks for the cost benefit before even a role is proposed. >> that would be before? under the security laws or issuing any one person went. >> before it proposes. the cracks that would be tough to do. -- >> that would be tough to do. >> that gets into the cost- benefit analysis.

these are things he has asked that the to a caught carrying be continued and that the two witnesses have agreed. their only two witnesses out there. they will hold the hearing to examine the impact that they have on the national security to a later date. this has been rescheduled. >> thank you. i hope i'm not off message. he required the sec -- that was

to study the current standard of the care for broker-dealers and investment in pfizer's. -- investment advisers. i am not happy with the outcome of that. that was to harmonize the different standards that currently exist. can you point to any economic resources showed the need? >> this study did go through some economic analysis. we did see the data from common shares about that. the enormous provide our analysis, proposed to roll. what the staff is sinking through what it may look like, continuing to meet with industries and investors that have interest in it, we have asked our economists to gather

whatever data is available in that process. we cannot propose to go forward. >> no. there has been talk about this. so much is involved. oversight of investment advisers. it is suggested that there be this. you're very familiar with that. what you think would happen? >> i did not participate because of my affiliation with the staff study. i was within the refusal time frame. i think we can agree that covering or examining 9% of investment advisers, only examining nine some a year is

not sufficient. there might be a mechanism for of pfizer's to pay for them to be able to examine. they be given the authority to do at least examination of the broker-dealers. unless there is sufficient funds, we have to look closely at about an sr0. we have to find a way to have better oversight. this is one of the vehicles to do that. >> despite your efforts, i was concerned that the department of labor king complected any one

may propose. i know there was some talk about getting together and working together. i was surprised that they came out. it was the head of what you decide it. i do not know there is any real coordination. he tried to get together. >> we reached up to the department of labour. we participated in some of their round tables. they have responsibility for the its ministration. the sec is just not have that responsibility. it is not with regard to the standards. >> thank you. >> i yield back.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> in the bcg report, your estimate it range from 200 million to $300 million and gave a sharp fall needed to but still the current mess in -- the current mission. we are all aware that the funding level is 1.18 5 billion paren. did you consider the effects of limiting the sec's budget to

1.18 5 billion? >> as we looked at the sec as constructive, we analyze the workload and said there is a capacity gap. we laid out a set of plans against that. it will create material efficiencies. we also recommended that given the circumstance the agency should look hard at the resources to the most important activities. it indicates what activities it will have to scale back or stop and ordered to do this.

>> you did not recommend what they should not do? there is quite of a gap when you need $203 million. people need to do the job. this is quite a gap. i would like to ask, how will investor protections be impacted by the funding proposal and the cap when the report says the you need three to 400 more just to get what is required to do the job? did you do an investigation of how it will be impacted by this cap that limits the number of people you can hire? clearly you have more to do than the resources that are there

before you. did you look at how it will impact investor protection stacks the personnel is not reduce protection -- did you look at how little impact protection? the personnel is not there. >> depending on what they choose to emphasize, that would have impact. the agency is best suited to address that. it includes a lot capital. this is a budget increase. this sets up a lot of productivity. >> did you break this down in your report? >> we identified a number of areas where money would have to

be sent. there's never again upgrades and need to be made for individual systems and capabilities. >> that would be helpful if he gave as a clear break down. >> how will investor protections be impeded by a funding level proposed by the house that is 1.18 5 billion even though your responsibilities have grown? >> what we are engaged, our responsibilities about what is important for this agency is important to do. the cast aside whole areas of responsibility. we will not be doing them any

more. we do not have the funding. under the house budget proposal, there are a couple of areas i would focus on. this is one of them. there are nine clearing houses. we have 10 dedicated examiners. will not be able to of rationalize the derivatives role. we would get them done. will not able to do this. i think we'll see the number and scope of the decline. the may decline to prosecute some or it is too high. -- it may decline to prosecute it or it is too high. coverage is already inadequate. it shall suffer.

1/3 of examiners have never been examined. we do not have it for hedge fund advisers. even in areas we will have to cut i.t. spending. that would be unfortunate. we need to modernize systems. this is used by the public and the staff. it is a critical system. ourl also be hindered in ability to hire expertise. it to be under the house number. something that business cares much about is our ability to quickly and efficiently review the increase in flow of ipos. across the agency, you will find

there are real impact on investor protection. >> much time has expired. >> thank you. very quickly, i'm curious to follow up on the comments and questions with regard to the role. have you been working with him too shy and resolve the situation? -- to try and resolve the situation that >> we have been talking and trying to educate the securities laws and how investors are protected their i their fiduciary duties or other requirements. there's the panoply of regulatory requirements.

as i said at the end of the day, we do not administrate the law. it has to be their call. >> is it your assertion that the ruling does not infringe on an area of the juicier responsibility? -- of judiciary responsibility- quite are some ones that they have responsibility for. they could be advising them about the ira accounts. >> you're not concerned about that? >> i know the industries concerned about that. they need to do what they need to do.

we have no capability with respect to it. >> don't you think you should work with them to let them know that they have overstepped? they cannot hide behind that authority and make a debt rules here that will affect other things that they should not have any ability to impact. >> they do have the ability. did the most the sec can do is to see how would protect investors. the people subject to regulation may also be subject to state insurance regulation and deregulation by the subject urging and subjects. -- deregulation and the subject.

>> my concern is that we're certainly going to limit the ability of individuals to have the expertise to revise them predict to advise them purities the only gentlemen in the entire county that has been his security license. he continued to allow them to get into security advising situations. i think it will continue to impact individuals to get the expertise to make the wise decisions. >> i share that concern. we are sensitive. we have to be careful about being business model neutral to the extent we can. access to financial services is something that all citizens should have at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable way.

we're very sensitive to those. >> i would urge you to be working with the treasury to find to find a way to roll. i'm not against trying to make sure that they are protected. i think a pen dimon went in a long way. we have to bring these together. we have to have the best common ground to allow them to be sold by the individual so consumers can get what they need. i and the sponsor of the search staff with an independent group of bankers. we are wanting to raise the threshold on some small companies.

i know raising this is why you do not have to have as many to examine. we're taking a little burden off the shoulders. crisis is very important to us. i leave the community banks sur's on this committee. we were to the number of bankers have raised this issue. there are burdens better place in the community. -- that are placed in the community. we have a number of issues around small-business capital formation. the 500 shareholder limit is well advanced in our deliberations. iran looking at a number of other issues like crab funding and the general solicitation. we have a full menu. we are anxious to get our first meeting called.

>> i'm anxious to see results. thank you. >> thank you. when we drafted the dodd/frank bill and pass it in the house and senate, one of the things we did was say that there would be a steady so we could streamline the securities and exchange commission. one of the bills they had before us today would codify the recommendations made by the study group. it would help you streamline and improve the security and exchange commission. >> there are some things in the bell that -- bill that are worth

exploring. it did not evolve quickly and rapidly enough. we need the flexibility to organize the sec on an ongoing basis of overtime to be responsive for a market place. this a probably be my primary concern with the bill. there are some other issues for which i would also disagree. we would also be willing to work with the committee to see if there was some legislative a person made sense. when we know we have a long way to go.

>> let me follow up with a following. what my you need to respond and failures you have come to address t? >> they have to be achievable and consistent with our mission. i feel the way this is

structured almost no agency of government could be all of these requirements. we already do cost-benefit analysis. we look at the effect on competition of our rulemaking. we consider the impact on small business. we estimate the paperwork burden. we look at whether the rule making will promote capital formation. we do extensive cost-benefit analysis. we know we can do better. we're committed to doing it better. this at some any new provisions and factors -- >> 11 new factors before you can do what? >> regulations and orders tur a orders approving self-regulatory organization roles.

>> they're always speaking about new requirements and new standards. they are advocating for smaller, less government and fewer regulations. when it comes to the agency accused major purpose is the security and exchange commission to watch, they want to hamper

it. they want to tie it up and not. i do not understand how it comes to government in general when it comes to the business community. we have a group that this supposed to monitor that. we will want more regulation. in a society in which something as simple as a credit card for 25,000 miles, i did get it. at the 25,000 miles. the only ticket i could get was from chicago to milwaukee, a 90 minute drive. apart from that, i did not get any other benefit. but those to the consequences to me, imagine the other kinds of things consumers aren't subjected to. thank you for your time here

today and your commitment. >> thank you. milwaukee feels a little despair's right now. >> i am a republican here defending more regulation. let me read something. did the american people deserve a system that works for them. the recognized that the policies are the best economic growth. this is all the way back to 1993. it is with a piece of legislation that we're discussing. i know a couple of issues came up through the ranking member. one pertains to our legislation dealing with the issue applying

to orders. since this is a discussion draft, this is a reason why we're going to regular order. we would like to go their -- regulatory order. that is long where most happy to discuss. the second point was the issue with regard to the cart before the horse. you have to identify the problem first. tois what you're going potentially address. it seems to be the reverse order. let me go back to the executive order of bill clinton. that is something you have to identify. each agency shall identify the problem.

>> this only makes sense. to begin doing it and that matter. you did say that you already do have assessment analysis. the d.c. circuit court of appeals of begs to differ with the nature and quality of the rulemaking. what is your reaction to that? what steps are you going to take with reaction to the decision? >> we are disappointed by the decision. they vacated the role. we thought it important that it be important for an economic stake for them to have this.

we take very seriously our obligation. i believe if you were to look at the roles compared to many other financial regulatory agencies, you would see that we do much more extensive cost-benefit analysis. >> i do not mean this flippantly. if you have information on other agencies, out be happy to take a look with them. i know it sounds that way. we should be making sure that we agree on the same level. >> i think it is important that everyone do cost-benefit analysis. i think our staff has done a very good job. as some to reevaluate the whole

process for conducting the analysis. it is assuring that we better integrate their economic analysis throughout the course of the rulemaking process. we are expanding our risk in. we have more economic firepower. we're taking more care to explain the choices we make. >> use of our legislation would have this. our legislation says that he may consider those things. >> they are not mandatory. they are contained in statute. they're highly likely to be used in the next roll.

finally, we want to explain more clearly. i think this is learning. this is how we found this. >> much time is really up. there's a city that comes out of that. it is the adjusted number of examinations but the actual nature of the examinations. >> i'm sure we could do ballpark figures.

>> they had a few provisions. >> i regard this as pretty consequential. they made this part of the bill. you're not even going to change the boxes. you have the two existing boxes talk to each other. it makes it even less consequential. my concern is that there's a very consequential provisions. it requires the sec to create a

system to assign the credit rating agency. the wonder what the analogy would be if they still like to the umpire. it might not been done over backward. they get paid $1 million or more. if there's nothing about this undertaking a, is this close to undertaking it? is this report simply irrelevant? >> i will have my colleagues address this as well.

we think it is a tremendous consequential park. >> i am referring to the reorganization tax cuts i am referring to the study. there is a business model that might be explored. the staff can proceed. it does not close to the one- year deadline. it to get place behind other things. we expect the office. the work is ongoing. >> the answer seems to be that

they do this study and that you are free to redefine the status quo. i think he are required to -- you are required to dramatically change it. >> we are required to either implement the proposal or come up with another proposal. this study is a privilege to our being able to do that. as an annualing it exam. we have created the office that is not reporting directly to the chairman. we do not have the authority to do that. >> who reports to whom? >> these charts here do not mean

that you are ready to implemented the result of that study. maybe they can comment. is your proposal envisioning that bit would be for each debt issue were? is the organizational chart for them to undertake it? >> it was not part of our scope of that work. they have been made. existing functions have been there. to recognize the importance of

that. we were laying our options of how best they would be organized. >> you seem to be saying your report ignored the possibility of the mandate. the issue report layout a program for organizing the sec that would be selecting the credit rating agencies for debt issuers? >> i report says that the agency will follow what is required under the legislation. this was an organizational design issue that we reform this -- that we were focused on. >> my reading is that you simply

ignored that they would undertake that function. >> at the time to study was completed and they determine what the rights structure is, it is what ever we determined to be the optimal new business. we will have to restructure them to accommodate that. >> hopefully the group will cover any additional work necessary. i yield back. >> he has a motion and then we will move. >> you say to enter the record to the commission with regard to ownership reporting rules and how the mayor may not be changing. >> unanimous consent.

>> thank you very much. a colleague came up to me and said the sec is crazy. -- is frakking crazy. i thought they needed a vocabulary lesson. they said that they will regulate frakking in the mining issues. with all the victim's and citizens that are at risk for securities, why in the world would they feel it is necessary to go into the environmental business now. there's so much work yet to be done. there were warning about not having enough money in the

budget now. they can involve themselves in what appears the most to be their responsibility of an environmental agency. >> they're not in the business akking.ting fr when they change their rules for public companies to report their oil and gas reserves, as a result of them being liberalized to allow for reporting of potential reserves as opposed to only proven reserves, that companies were exaggerating where they were. were that investors rely upon. i believe our review group for that industry and corporation

finance division have comment letters as they send them back and forth to companies as far as their methodology for estimating their research. i would be happy to get more information for you. i want to assure you that we are fracking in anyfrankin way. >> generally, i trust what they're right in "the wall street journal." when you get back to the office, if anyone tells you do for me or there is in the light shed on that, please let me know. i will take your comments as the absolute gospel and i will engage anyone that indicates

that you're doing anything other than just your find reserves. >> i do not know that we are asking more questions than just the verification of reserves. there may be other agents and comment letters. but what i was trying to make clear is that we were not telling people they cannot cannot engage in fracking or any of those kinds of issues. but we do have questions to have complete disclosure about risks, about reserves, proven or estimated, and so forth. >> the space between not regulating fracking and merely making sure the disclosure requirements are correct under reserves is big enough to drive a million space shuttles through. i think that would be important. i think that you would respond to me and anyone else who has an

interest here in writing within the next week. >> would be happy to do that. >> anything else? thank you. mr. kearnecarney. >> first, to the bcg folks, how would you accommodate the concerns that mr. hynes particular? >> this issue was outside the scope of our city.

>> i am not asking you -- and if you do not want to offer an opinion -- you do cost-benefit analyses for clients? >> yes. >> how would you envision accommodating some of the concerns that he had about getting low probability the facts that have cataclysmic impacts on the financial system in this instance? do you have any thoughts on that? >> we will have to reflect on this and come back to you. >> all right. if mr. garrett's bill were to pass, how would you implement that? how will you accommodate the concerns articulated which i think our real concerns. but you look at the financial crises we have had historically that have been created by some of these things that are not expected? >> i think it is a difficult question. the costs are easier to quantify

them the benefits. we struggle with that and we try as we can to quantify the benefits and discuss as fully as we can what we believe benefits will be and balance from there. >> but that is an essential part of doing analysis. you have to enumerate costs and benefits and what they are and assign values to them. as was pointed out, that is sometimes difficult to do. >> failure to act as its costs as well. i think that a cost-benefit analysis would be more useful if we did talk sometimes about if we do not act with the potential ramifications are of that if other events come to pass. >> do you have a view of how you might implement something like this in a way that would result in what is in legislation?

>> while we have not done it perfectly, i think what we do now is geared toward getting a recent judgment about whether a rule benefits will outweigh the costs. i fear about this legislation is that it layers so many analyses on top of what we already do. that we were said to fail. but there's no way that this agency or any other agency can possibly view of these things, some of which conflict, some of which seek to protect market participants. sometimes we need to protect market investors from market participants. we would be happy to work through these issues in this

legislation as constructively as possible. but i think there's policy that make it very difficult for us. >> in concert, mr. garrett's idea makes sense, but the limitation is difficult to do, particularly to accommodate the concerns that mr. hynes has. i only have a minute ago and there has been a discussion about priorities. there are things you do not think are getting the priorities that you think they ought to. you think you can go over that again? i agree that we need to have a discussion over what those priorities are and so that congress knows what those priorities ought to be a new can geladas or tell us what you think they ought to be and -- and you can challenge us or tell us what you think they ought to be. hindering of hiring expertise and one other that you mentioned -- >> building the necessary

investechnology and infrastructo be more efficient, derivatives rules, and i would add that our ability to ensure that we have a stable equity market structure in this country so that market companies can be efficiently and transparently have their stock traded and investors feel like they are participating in a market that is built for them. it is an area where we have to have data and it will to really do a good job and those costs money. >> i see my time has expired. i do believe that we should extend this conversation for some time in the future to go over these priorities and had to implement some of these things you're trying to implement. >> thank you. mr. pierce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree that this conversation should be longer. if we get to visit with mr.

shapiro did, that would be good. -- with ms. shapiro again, that would be good. i seeing your report, page 10, page 11, twice on page 11, resources constrained, resources to not permit, and you're drifting off into this environmental question. i wonder if you are asking the same questions of the manufacturers of windmills, the electric generating windmills in new mexico. they kill birds and are affecting the environment. are you asking for the same environmental impact on those companies? >> i would like to get back to you with more detail. our goal is not to address any environmental issues. >> i would appreciate it if you would get back with me.

$2.8 billion, how much of it came from the settlement of mr. madoff? >> i do not believe any of that. >> has any investor been compensated anything from your efforts and from the efforts of the sec? >> i would have to get back to whether any fines or penalties went into a specific fund. >> so we have the most highly visible investor defrauding that has ever occurred and you do not know the answer to that? >> because our goal would be enough to take money to the treasury and deprive -- >> i asked if any payments have been made back to investors. >> i am sorry. i just not know that. >> you understand that, from my point of view, how outstanding that is?

back in 2008, and as the company had assets of two billion dollars. they had solar cells. they had public money and went bankrupt. do you have that on your radar scope? >> i am not familiar with it. i will have to get back to you. >> spectra inc. spun off from intel. they took money from goldman sacks, who you do have. specter was a private firm, but it took lots of money from goldman sacks. they also took money from new york state. i wonder, after they filed for bankruptcy, did you have any insights on them? >> again, we have thousands of investigations ongoing at any one time. i am happy to find any information for you. >> but your agency does have the time to go in and worry about

fracking. i am not saying that we do or do not have investigations going on those companies. >> what i am saying is that you do have a front-page article about those companies doing these activities. i am saying you should do your business instead of the epa's business. >> i understand. >> is very visible firm named solendra -- given the events of the last two days to three days, have you done anything to look at that company and warn the american people before you gave them $4 million or $5 million? >> i cannot comment on the open

investigation. >> do you have an investigation? are you looking at that? >> i cannot comment on whether or not we have an investigation. >> ok. we have begun to get information from the small investment advisers. they are facing standards that maybe the big guys do not face. again, i would like to hear your observations. we do not have time today. but i would like to hear your observations on why you'd be concentrating more efforts on the small fish than the made off fish -- than the madoff fish. i worry that we will implement regulation on mom-and-pop organizations across the country that do not having to do with the big ones off of wall street.

i expect you will be considered of where the big fish are to fry. thank you. >> i was not going to get this, but i want to respond to my friend from new mexico. chairmanship here, you are familiar with a company called the reserve fund. >> yes. >> the reserve fund probably cost state government and zillions.istrictand the sec was all over it and helped recover the mexico's special districts who had a lot of money it help them recover on average 95 cents on the dollar. that was a big one. it affected each state. and they were all over it. i do not know the specifics of all little questions you were just asking. in defense, i want to say that could let's get to the guts of

this thing. i appreciate the gentleman from boston consulting and your study. the question is should there be more private, in effect, assistance and enforcement and oversight within an umbrella kind of -- i mean, what we are saying is that there is not enough money to do all the jobs that are assigned to the sec at this point. there may be other ways to do it, using finran or of -- using finra or other sources. a study found that on average, the federal government paid contractors two hundred $60,000 for computed while government workers made $136,000. human resources was 228484

contractors, more the than twice the 1100 thousand dollars for the same services done in the house. i have no problem with the private sector making a lot of money. we have testimony saying they wanted to be fully accountable to the congress. i am sure he does not mean all of that. but the salaries are substantial. whoever it is, whether it is the public organization, the sec, or signing it to somebody else to help, there is responsibility. i mentioned earlier about 6000 drop on the stock market translates to $7.80 trillion, which is a lot of money. that is a huge user fee for a lot of people. so explain to me, if you would,

there is responsibility with or without dodd-frank, can this be done on the budget that you have today? >> i have been pretty consistent with the appropriations and testimony over the past year that we cannot operational lies they dodd-frank rules without further resources. we are looking for savings wherever we can find them. we have some opportunities to do things differently that we think will free up some resources. at the end of the day, we are taking a piece of a $6 trillion -- hedge fund regulation, credit rating agencies, municipal advisers, large new areas of responsibility that the congress and frankly the american people will expect us to do well and without significant additional resources -- that simply will not happen, even if we become

very efficient, very effective, very agile. all the things we're working towards, at the end of the day, there is a gap. >> in preparing this report -- i do not know if we asked you to look at it -- but you consider the catastrophic losses. we're talking about hard-benefit analysis and i think we ask for that in our study, but maybe not. did you consider the catastrophic losses we saw in the fall of 2008 when the sec at that point had not been doing its job? >> our focus was looking at the organization structure of people technology and how they work. we took the sec as we found it when we arrived and looked ahead at what capabilities they need to have to deliver against their mandate and mission. our focus was forward-looking. >> thank you. >> dr. heyward.

>> thank you mr. chairman. chairman shapiro, i know that the sec is forming an advisory committee on small and emerging companies. i think that is an important step in the direction of facilitating enterprise. we want our small businesses to be able to acquire capital. we want investors to be able to engage in that marketplace more fully. one of the questions the procedure one of the challenges that proceeds from that action is that we need a market for those stocks once they are issued. as you know, right now, we really lack that kind of a marketplace in the united states for various reasons. but a marketplace helps investors to observe and to set a market value for these sorts

of investments. would you be willing to work -- my office has taken a particular interest in try to facilitate the united states-based market place -- could we work with you to see what we can do to facilitate setting up the kind of a market? >> absolutely. we would be happy to do that. the nasdaq has created a venture market place from the roots of the boston stock exchange that they bought. while i do not think it is fully up and running yet, the commission did approve that. it is one of our efforts to try to create a better and more transparent trading market for lower priced securities. but we would be happy to work with you. >> great. i appreciate that. we look forward to working with you. our staff will get in touch with yours and we will continue to move forward on that. i do have another question regarding revisiting the

williams act and regulations 13 thd. a lawsuit is requesting that the time frame for disclosure is to be reduced from 10 days to one day. that could have a substantial effect on that sort of investor engagement. and many an ankle and -- and many unintended consequences. it does strike me that the division of financial innovation should be dissolved and the potentiald, effects. are you looking at the

the costnimplications with benefit? >> yes. they will be very involved. >> great. i appreciate that. clearly, we are functioning in an environment in which everybody is exceedingly concerned about our being a destination for working capital in this country. i know your dedicated to doing the right things in that regard. i appreciate hearing that. i think that is a great and thoughtful approach. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i want to thank the chairman and all of the witnesses today for being here. one of the things that concerns us the most in my rural southern virginia district is jobs, of course. i think it is on the top of everybody's mind. i was pleased that the president

last week to it is had to capital formation as something that is important to get this economy going. one of the bills that has been passed out of this committee is a bill that would extend the same exemption to private equity that has been given to venture capital. it would repeal the part of dodd-frank dealing with that issue. in my mind, that is a mainstream issue. i know hundreds of jobs, if not thousands, in virginia's fifth district and across the comments -- across the commonwealth and in this country that have been created by the capital formation provided by private equity i was wondering, chairmanship your -- chairman shapiro, if you could articulate any benefits to requiring advisers to private equity to register with the sec and what

could possibly be the benefits of the quarterly and sometimes monthly evaluation reports. with its strapped resources, what to the sec do to improve what private equity is done for the economy, especially at a time when our economy is failing and private equity has proved again and again to be able to create jobs at a time when we are losing jobs. let's talk about the benefits first and then we will talk about the cost. what possible benefits can you see? >> i am familiar with the bill that would basically exempt private equity. i think that is an interesting .pproach th the commission followed the requirements of dogdodd-frank.

our obligations there with respect to -- or with respect to reporting only. it is our understanding the broad scope to participate in financial services industry and the economy that have the potential to impact other financial institutions and investors in a fundamental way. >> the reason i ask is a couple of reasons. most people agree and i think the view of this committee was the private equity is different. it is not the leveraged. you have highly sophisticated investors. and for foes, by design, are not necessarily diversified. -- and portfolios, by design, are not necessarily diversified. there is no systemic risk to be concerned with.

the stock about the cost. i am glad that you brought up the cost-benefit analysis. obviously, the costs, in my opinion, are significant. we had one witness who testified that it would cost their company's $750,000 and up to $1 million to register. and then the ongoing cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue to file these reports. in my view, my main street view, southern virginia view, that is money that could be invested in the district. that creates jobs. i'm wondering if you believe that that is what i would call and a sister reporting and registration that would negatively affect private equity firms that would have to comply with this.

>> i would have to look at the analysis with the rulemaking was promulgated to perhaps answer that more completely. i've happy to do that. we met with a number of middle- market firms. one of the things they asked for was a delay in the registration of a year. i think we have done those. we have some opportunity to continue to crotalk. i would be happy to continue the conversation. >> it would appear to me that you have the authority to exempt. is that something that you consider? >> we do. we were conscious of the fact that the congress made an explicit choice here. sometimes things just do not happen. but this is an exclusive choice of registration. again, that is something we can talk about. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> i yield back. >> i know there is a vote that has been called. i was hoping i could draw a couple questions and then you get to abandon us speaking both for the chairman and everyone here, we really appreciate your time. chairman shapiro, you were kind enough to mention the 500 shareholder rule. and of the sec has been looking at that for a while. a, what do you know about your rulemaking or your discussions internally? if you have warm and fuzzy things to say about my legislation, we can talk about that. only if warm and fuzzy. >> i think of two pieces of legislation in this arena. one would requires to raise it

from 5 million most to $55 million. then the 500-holder chairman, whether that would be limited or the number of investors ought to be raised. even employees could be on the threshold. those are values that the staff is looking at right now. i would say that the 500- shareholder limit is probably the first item on the agenda that we hope to bring to the small business advisory committee to get their thoughts and perspectives on it and in the burdens of reporting, whether there are any other alternatives. but we are moving very -- forcefully it may be too strong moving to do we're what we have to do. there had been years of study and it was carefully calibrated. i think we do not want to just toss it out the window.

we want to do an analysis, perhaps a cost-benefit analysis as well. but we're committed to moving ahead on this. >> this is one of those moments on the republican side where you have been very kind working with our staff, particularly the reggae issue. in regards to the 500, in many ways, that is more about capital formation, particularly for small and the coming businesses. it is sort of modeling access to capital. >> right. >> i have an offshoot and you will have to help me a little bit on this one. municipal advisers -- i hear a lot for my banking communities saying that we are regulated by everyone and there is this sort of sense of concern. will they get another layer, particularly when they're doing some of the advisor practices within those banks? >> when we proposed the

principle of visors, we brought in to that definition otherwise regulated person who probably we ought not include at the end of the day. the final recommendation will be coming to the commission very soon. we have gotten 11,000 comment letters. >> you have heard from the other 11,000. >> i think we have heard from almost every member of congress as well. we understand the issue. we cast a very wide net, perhaps inappropriately one, and we're working on those issues. >> i appreciate the "wide net" phrase. i know we're trying to move forward with another hundred million dollars in '90 and technology money, believing that

and itcess to technology - will make your ability to do your job easier. i had this great fear taking on something that was actually a the banking sector and huge and almost untenable in the current budget situation. with that, if there is any burning comment left, if not, thank you for spending time with us. thank you. we are in recess and we will be moving to the second panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a marine who saved the lives of 36 soldiers during an ambush in afghanistan was awarded the medal of honor today.

that is next on c-span. then house speaker john boehner outlines the republicans' job plan. later, international monetary fund managing director christine lagarde talks about the global economy. >> tomorrow, at the economic club of washington, a discussion on u.s. national security. we will hear from president obama's security adviser. it begins at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> the c-span network. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee is to formally plan to lower the debt and follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it is available to on television, radio, online, and

social media sites. search, what, and share all their programs anytime on the c- span video library. and we're on the road with our local content videos, bringing our resources to communities. it is washington your way. the c-span network secreted by cable and provided as a public service. >> president obama awarded the medal of honor to iraq and afghan war veterans. this is the first living married to receive the medal of honor since the vietnam war. this ceremony in the east room of the white house is just under 25 minutes. ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and this is michelle obama, accompanied by medal of honor recipient sgt dakota meyer. ♪ >> if you would, please pray with me. oh, my god, we pause to a acknowledge your grace which has brought us to this momentous day. we confirmed by this ceremony that come in accordance with your divine guidance, and

established a nation rooted in the ideals of courage and virtues. we now yield your direction for this country even as we bestow its highest honors on sgt dakota meyer who himself sacrificed to defend its most cherished values. god, here are gratitude for hounding sgt myers character. no of our thankfulness for emboldening this marine's spirit so that, when called on to preserve the safety of his comrades, he was able to find it within himself to demonstrate the valor and into petty of his character. god, for his selflessness revealed that day, this nation is indeed exceedingly grateful. we ask now that you would touch his humble spirit, that he would know that, as the nation's highest award is draped around his neck, you encircle him with

the depth of your love, acknowledging not only him, but those marines and sailors who were so much a part of his actions on that fateful day. speak to him in the privacy of his heart and assure him that as his actions are honored you equally recognize those who demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice everything in order to uphold the ideals we honor this day. if with that in mind, we pray for your abiding grace of a family and friends of the raids, sailors, soldiers, airmen, and coastguardsman who have given their lives in service to this country and we lift up in prayer all those who remain in harm's way throughout the globe. now as though your wisdom on those who lead this nation and shipper and devore spirit guide them in each of us by the example of these, our heroes, who love country more than self.

mercy more than life. god bless america. in your holy name we pray. amen. >> thank you, everybody. please be seated. thank you, chaplin. good afternoon everyone. on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. it has been said that where there is a brave man in the thickest of the fight, there is the post of honor. today we pay tribute to american who placed himself in the thick of the fight again and again and again. in so doing, he has learned our nation's highest military decoration, the middle of honor. as we are extraordinarily proud of sgt dakota my ear.

today is only the third time during the wars in afghanistan and iraq the recipient of the medal of honor has been able to receive it in person. we're honored to be joined by the other two recipients. i would point cut something else. of all of the medal of honor recipients in recent decades, the code is one of the youngest. he is 23 years old and he performed extraordinary actions for which he is be recognized today when he was only 21 years old. despite all this, i have to say dakotas' one of the most down- to-earth as you'll ever meet. in fact, when my staff tried to arrange the phone call so that i could tell a lie had approved his though, he was at work at his new civilian job on the construction site. he felt he could not take the call at that time. he thought, if i do not work, i

can i get paid. [laughter] so we arranged the call during his lunch break. [laughter] i told him the news and you went right back to work. that is the kind of guy he is. he also asked to have a beer with him. we were able to execute that yesterday. the coat is the kind of guy who gets the job done. -- dakota is the kind of guy who gets the job done. and i appreciate, dakota, you taking my call. [laughter] the medal of honor reflects the gratitude of the entire nation. so we have members of congress and somebody from your home state, the republican leader of the senate mitch mcconnell. we are joined here by leaders andss my administration leaders from across our armed

forces, including the commandant of the marine corps general james amos. we are proud to welcome dakota's father who is here. we have his extraordinary grandparents and more than 120 of his family and friends, many from his home state of kentucky. the one-two will come his comrades -- i want to welcome his comrades from his marine team. and of the past two years have not been easy for you retelling the story of that day and standing here today. you are a very modest demand. but as you said, we do it for a very simple reason, by telling the story. it helps you to honor those who fell and it reminds our fellow americans that our men and women in uniform are over there fighting every single day. so that is how we will do this today.

it is fitting that we do so this week, having just marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks that took our nation to war. in sgt dakota meyer we see the best of a generation of distinction through a decade of war. i want to tell you a story. it is september 8, 2009 just before dawn. a patrol of afghan forces and their american trainers is on foot making their way up a narrow valley heading into a village. suddenly, all over the village, the lights go out. that is when it happens. about a mile away, dakota, who was a corporal, and juan rodriguez chavis could hear the valley exploding. they released a firestorm from the hills, from the stone house, and even from the local school. soon, the patrol was pinned down

ticking ferocious fire from three sides. men were being wounded and killed and four americans were surrounded. four times, the coach and -- dakota and juan asked permission to go win. four times, there were denied because it was too dangerous. as one of his teacher said, whenever you tell him you can do something, he will go ahead and do it. as he said, those were my brothers and i could not sit back and watch. what he did next will be told for generations. he told juan there were going in. juan jump into a humvee and they took off. there were doing what they thought was right. they drove straight into a killing zone. dakota's upper body was exposed to gun fire and rocket-propelled

grenades. coming upon wounded afghan soldiers, he jumped out and loaded each of the wounded into the humvee, each time exposing himself to that enemy fire. they turn around and drove those wounded back to safety. those who were there called it the most intense, but they had ever seen. dakota and juan would have been forgiven for not going back in. but as he says, you do not leave anybody behind. a second time, they went back in. dakota up in the turret, when one gun jammed grabbed another. again, they came across wounded afghans. the load them up and brought them back to safety. the third time, they went back. insurgent running riot to the humvee and dakota fighting them off. up ahead, a group of americans,

some wounded, were turned to skip bullets raining down. juan was the vehicle into the gunfire using it as a shield. they helped the americans back to safety as well. for a fourth time, they went back. dakota was now wounded in the arm. the vehicle was riddled with shrapnel. he did not think he was going to die, but he knew he was. still they went on and delivered them to safety. for a fifth time, they went back into the fury of that village, under fire that seemed to come from every window, every doorway, every alley. when they finally got to those trapped americans, dakota jumped out, running towards them, drawing those enemy guns to himself, kicking up -- bullets kicking up dirt around him. he found four americans living where they fell, together as one team.

dakota and the others knelt down, picked up their comrades, and, through all those old, all the small, all the chaos, carry them out one by one because that is what he says you do for a brother. dakota says he will accept this meddle in their name. today, we remember the -- this medal in their name. to date, we remember edwin johnson, the determined marine who fought to get on that team staff sgt. qaddafi -- staff sgt aaron kenefi, and sgt first class kenneth whisper. dakota, i know that you have grappled with the grief of that day. you said that your efforts were somehow a failure because your teammates did not come home. but as your commander in chief

and on behalf of all americans, i want you to know that it is quite the opposite. you did your duty above and beyond and you kept the faith with the highest traditions of the marine corps that you love. because of your honor, 36 men are alive. because of your courage, four fallen american heroes came home. because of your commitment, in the thick of the fight, hour after hour, a former marine who read your story said that it showed that in your most desperate and final hour, your fellow brothers and your god will not forsake you. kids will know across america that, no matter who you are or where you come from, you can do great things as a citizen and as a member of the american family. therein lies the lesson of the

day in that valley. i was part of something bigger, he has said, part of a team that worked together, lifting each other up and working toward a common goal could remember of our team was as important as the others. in keeping with his wishes for this day, i want to conclude by asking now gunnery sergeant rodriguez chagas and all those who served with dakota, the marines, army, navy, to stand and except the thank you of a grateful nation. [applause]

>> every member of our team is as important as the other. that is what we have to remember as citizens and as a nation as we meet the test of time at home and around the world. to our marines and all our men and women in uniform to our fellow americans, let's always be faithful. as we prepare for the reading of the citation, let me say god bless you, dakota, god bless our marines and all those who serve, and god bless the united states of america. simplifsemper fi. >> of the president of the united states, in the name of the congress, takes pleasure in presenting the medal of honor to corporate dakota meyer.

while serving with marines regional corps advisory command 37 in afghanistan on it, september, 2009. corporal meyer maintain security while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of afghan national army and border police into the village for a pre-don meeting with village elders. moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed with mortars, grenades, machine guns, from positions in the slopes above. hearing on the radio that four u.s. team members were caught off, he took the initiative. he took the exposed the owners' position as they drove down a steeply terse terrain in an attempt to disturb the enemy attack.

disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their loan vehicle, he killed a number of enemy fighters with mounted machine guns and his rifle. some were at point blank range as they made several trips into the area. during the first two trips, he and the driver evacuated to doesn't afghan soldiers, many of which were wounded. when one machine gun became inoperable, he switched to another gun truck for a third trip into the ambush area. despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, he made two more trips into the ambush area and a third gun truck accompanied by other afghan vehicles to recover more afghan soldiers and search for the u.s. missing -- for the missing u.s. team members. through enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. his daring initiative and

bullfighting spirit throughout the six-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy attack. his unwavering courage and devotion to his u.s. and afghan comrades in the face of most certain death up held the highest tradition of the marine corps and the united states. [applause]

[applause] >> let us close in prayer. god made this ceremony serve as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with receiving the great gift of freedom. as we depart this hallowed hall and return to our daily lives, we pray that you will ennoble and enable us, that when called upon us, we will recall the resolute fearlessness of sgt dakota meyer and all of those who were the stars of valor and live up to our responsibilities to bring honor to you and to this country.

it is in your holy name we pray. amen. >> thank you all for joining us here today. we are grateful for dakota. we are grateful for all of our men and women in uniform. i hope that all of you have normally been inspired by this ceremony but will also enjoy the hospitality of the white house. i hear the food is pretty good. [applause] thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

>> on tomorrow's "washington from all," a discussion of the role of independent voters in the 2012 elections. joins us.lon then jason the lisle -- jason delisle. later, we will talk with ritual garfield of the kaiser commission on medicare and the uninsured. "washington journal" is everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. later in the morning, on c-span 3, americans for tax reform president and former pennsylvania gov. debate deficit reduction and infrastructure investment. that is hosted by the national journal. live coverage at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> best selling author of "a

beautiful mine" talks about her latest book on economics. she is interviewed by jillion tete on afterwards. it is one of the many nonfiction books and authors this weekend on c-span 2 possible tv. we will talk with professors from george washington university about their latest books on voter suppression, military intervention, and modern afghanistan and author, filmmaker, and political recalls michael mullemoore his life. he will also be our guest next month on inbev, taking your phone calls on october -- next month on in depth, taking your calls on october 2. >> do you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> what is that? >> basically, it is someone open

for debate, but it is proven recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individual citizens of the united states. >> the right to bear arms. >> the right to keep and bear arms. >> do you feel safer with a handgun? why or why not? >> yes. being a woman, i am the weaker target than any other man would be. so i feel that, with a handy and here, i would able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you're talking about a robbery, obviously, an offender or someone who is going to rob you will see the gun and would not bother trying to rob you. >> that is one of the winners from last year's student cam competition. you can see all of the videos online at studentcam.org.

this year's competition is underway. get more information at studentcam.org. >> the house approved a bill today that would limit the authority of the national labor relations board. the measure could undercut the labors -- the government's labor dispute with boeing company. the vote was two hundred 38 to two hundred 86. even if they violate labor laws. here's some of that debate. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support. myself such time as may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: the protecting jobs from government interference act is a commonsense proposal that will prevent national labor relations board from dictating where an employer can and cannot create work. upon the date of enactment, this limitation will apply to all cases that have not reached

final adjudication by the full board. now more than ever the american people are looking for leadership out of washington and some common sense them. want to know their elected officials are willing to take on the tough issues and make the difficult decisions needed to get this economy moving again. they need to believe congress has the courage to tear down old barriers to new jobs, regardless of the political cost. after 31 straight months of unemployment above 8%, we cannot afford to cling to the status quo any longer. this legislati represents an important step in the fight to get our economy back on track. it tells job creators they don't have to fear an activist n.l. -- nlrb reversing important decisions about where to relocate a business. it offers workers peace of mind by ensuring no federal labor board can force an employer to ship their jobs across the country. and it tells the american people we are serious about getting government out of the way of small business owners and

entrepreneurs who are desperately trying to do what they do best, create jobs and opportities for our nation's workers. on april 20 the national labor relations board sent a shock wave, a shock wave across our struggling economy, in a complaint filed against the boeing company, the nlrb demanded that this private company relocate work already under way in south carolina to washington state. the board has more than a dozen remedies available to protect workers and hold employers accountable. regrettably the obama nlrb exercised the most extreme remedy and as a result put the livelihoods of thousands of south carolina workers on the line. equally troubling, the countless workers across the country now fear they can be subject to a similar attack in the future. make no mistake, every worker deserves strong protections that ensure they are free to exercise their rights under the law. this legislation preserves the

numberf tough remedies for the board to punish illegal activity. this republican bill simply says that forcing a business to close its doors and relocate to another part of the country is an unacceptable remedy for today's work force. . this will have a chilling effect on our economy, businesses at home and abro will reconsider their decision to invest in our country and create jobs for american workers. we he already heard stories of canadian business leaders doing just that. in doubt these difficult choices are being discussed on shop floors and board rooms across the country and outside our borders. lastonth this board unloade a barrage of activist decision that is undermine workers' rights and weaken our work force. if t president will not hold the board accountable for its job destroying agenda, congress will. it is time we force the nlrb to change course. this is a sensible reform that will encourage businesses to

create jobs right here at home. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself three minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. for years the understanding in this country has been if you show up for work every day and workour heart out, and do your best, what you get in return is a good wage, good benefits, and a future that's secure as long as your company's secure. but it seems like that version of the american dream moves another continent, anothe ocean, another day away each day that goes by. outsourcing is destroying the middle class in the united states of america. and this bill is the

outsourcer's bill of rights. it says to an employer, if you want to use as an excuse the collective bargaining and union activities of yo employees, and you want to pick up and move to central or south america or asia, here's the way to do it. this bill draws a map of jobs outside -- draws a map as to how to take jobs from inside the united states and move them outside the united states. if an employer under our law for decades says that i'm going to shut down and move my plant or my office because you dared to try to organize a union or spoken up for the rights of the workers, that's illegal. the purpose of this bill is to remove the only effective remedy to combat that illegality. if this bill became law, here's

what would happen. an employer who says, i'm tired of employees speakingp for their own rights. i'm tired ofunion organizing, i'm tired of collective bargaining. i'm moving to malaysia. it would still be illegal under this bill for the employer to say that, but there would be nothing the labor board could to stop that. because if the employer formed a shell company inalaysia, and took all the money and put it in the shell company, and the labor said you got to pay back wages to the people you just laid off there would be no money to pay the back wages. this is the outsourcer's bill of rights. we don't need an outsourcer's bill of rights. we need a working person's bill of rights in this country. we need a bill of rights that says if you hold up your end of the bargain, the american dream will no longer move out of your reach. this is a bill tha overreaches,

it undercuts the middle class in this country, and it should be defeated. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i am pleased to yid three minutes to the chair of the health employment labor and pensions subcommittee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of america's job creators and h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. what this bill does is simple, if amends -- it ands the nlra, national labor relations act, passed in 1935, and prohibits the national labor relations board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance. in other words, it allows managers to make business decisions in the best interests

of their company and employees. in filing the complaint against boeing, the nlrb's general counsel has put 1,100 good-paying south carolina jobs at risk. mr. speaker, i was in south carolina about five weeks ago and viewed that plant. it's a huge plant with 1,100 people working. today, american people working. the -- this shot across the bow of america's business sends a clear message, don't do business in a right to work state. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that boeing decided to build a plant in south carolina as an act of retaliation against a unionized work force, but not a single worker in washington state has lost his or her job. they have added jobs. and i'm glad that they have. i'm left to wonder that if the fact that south carolina, like tennessee, is a right to work state has the nlrb to conclude

that the job created in washington is more valuable than a job created in south carolina. grew up in a unedown household. my father worked in a factory making for the b.f. goodrich company, and his job was outsourced in the literal 1970's. i understand that very well. very simply what happened, mr. speaker, is this. is that a company wanted to expand a business line, a 787 dreamliner. they built a huge factory in charleston, south carolina, a complaint was brought by the general sounl at nlrb against this. it's now being adjudicated very expensively in the courts. think what a message this sends to job creators in america. if i were a business, there is no way i would move to a nonright to work state because you can never get out if this ruling is upheld. and i might add also that the remedies, there are over a dozen remedies that the nlrb has.

offer of employment, placement of preferential hiring, payment for travel and moving, on and . over a dozen remedies. mr. speaker, i strongly encourage us to support this bill and the fact is with 14 million americans out of work, two million more than when i came to this congress three years ago, we need every job in every corner of the country. the administration's answer is more spending and more regulation. it's a recipe for failure. it's time we recnize a fundamental truth that government doesn't create jobs. businesses do. but instead of trying to get the government out of our job -- out of the way of our job creators, this administration seeks to throw up more roadblocks. urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro teore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. the record shoulreflect the fact that there isn allegation that boeing in the case the

gentleman mentioned because of reasons of union discrimination moved those jobs. there is nothing in this case that says if a company uses a legitimate business reas other than discriminating against worker rights, they can do so. mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to a lifelong advocate for the working people of the united states of america, my friend from new jersey, mr. payne, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. payne: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. payne: thank you. mr. speaker, in september, 2010, my republican colleagues issued a pledge to america stating that it is time to do away with old agendas. that much is clear. however what is also clear is that this pledge is not the majority of the american people but to corporate america. to make matters worse, republicans are taking up legislation that will encounter

-- encoura the shipping of jobs overseas and weaken the rights of middle class workers. furthermore, my republican colleagues have fast tracked what is more appropriately called the job outsource's bill of rights. in the interest of corporate america. proponents of this bill claim it will protect jobs by prohibiting government to interfere with company's ability to move its operations. however the law the republicans are trying to amend to do so, the national labor relations act, does not restrict the location of company operations at all. unl the company's location effort is an act to retaliate against workers exercising their right to organize to demand better benefits, safer working conditions, and assure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. this is obviously a response to the case against boeing and i find it inappropriate, changing the law in the middle of a trial

is irresponsible and dangerous. the united states chamber of commerce wrote a letter in support of this bill. but as noted in the letter they represent the interest of business. well, i represent the interest of american people. may i have 30 seconds, mr. chair? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. payne: i represent the interest of the american people. i was voted into this position not by wall street, not by corporate america, not by those people who reside in high rise skyscrapers, but by hardworking americans who want to raise their milies the way that we had an opportunity to raise ours. rather than ratchet it down to the bottom. i believe that this bill is foolish, hazardous to the well-being of our nation's workers, and our economic development. this is -- it is time for the republicans to abandon this pledge to corporate america. i urge my colleagues to vote against this outsourcing bill. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield to a wonderful representative of the people of tennessee, the americapeople, a member of the committee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. desjarlais, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minutes. mr. desjarlais: i rise in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. as i have traveled tennessee's fourth congressional district and spoken with 30-plus job creators, our conversation inevitably focuses on one basic complaint. the federal government's overregulation of the private sector is impeding j creation in this country. . instead of reducing the regulatory burdens on business, an act which would most certainly create much needed private sector jobs, this administration has used its labor board to make it harder to do business in america. nowhere is this more apparent

than in its recent unfair labor practice complaint against boeing. if you want to talk about creating jobs, let's look at the facts. boeing has invested approximately $1 billion to build a plant in south carolina which will create new well paying jobs in south carolina. . despite the fact that not one, not one single employee in washington has lost his or her job due to boeing's decisn -- thank you. due to boeing's decision, the administration is attempting to destroy those south carolina jobs. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentmafrom new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a very persuasive voice against outsourcing, my friend from new jersey, mr. holt, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i rise in

opposition to the outsorcerers bill of rights. this bill would be devastating to workers across this country and tick off a new race to the bottom. the outsorcerers bill of rights is a naked attempt toirectly interfere in a pending labor relations board case. now, there's much to be said about workers' rights and the importance of protecting them, but in the short time i have, let me just say a little bit about what this means for the american economy. it makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. it eliminates the only remedy to force companies to bring work back from overseas. companies that make a commitmt to the welfare of their employees, well-run companies, and make commitments to their home communities, rather than shopping to be the latest, lowest pay scale someplace in the world, actually do better in the long run. so the outsorcerers bill of

rights is not only contrary to the interest of workers, it's bad for our economy at large. we need to improve worker protections, not weaken them. and yet the majority party and the proponents of this bill continue their assault on the rights of working men and women. it doesn't create a single job. with 25 million americans unemployed or underemployed, the majority today continues their no jobs agenda, bringing to the floor a specl interest that is -- dealing with one particular case rather than creating jobs. it is not good legislative policy to legislate on individual cases. i urge my colleagues to oppose the outsorcerers bill of rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's me has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita.

mr. rokita: thank you and i thank the gentleman for yielding some time. i rise to give my strong support to this measure. this straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the national lab relations board from dictating what private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in america. mr. speaker, let me say that again. this straightforward legislation before us today prohibits the nlrb from dictating where private businesses can and cannot locate jobs in the united states. it's almost a bizarre situation that we're in. an american company wants to provide american jobs in america and we have an agency of this administration trying to prohibit that. because of recent overreach by the nlrb we unfortunately need to have this legislation, mr. speaker.

businesses who want to hire americans in america ought to be able to do so. for americans wondering why jobs are going overseas, it's because there are too many regulations and too many bizarre regulations that are forcing companies out of this country. just so they can stay in business. we must continue to empower businesses to create jobs, increase investment and keep production capabilities right here ahome. not only does that produce a strong economy, it keeps a strong middle class. this bill does just that, by letting us stand strong in our commitment to america's job creators. it's just disappointing that we have to do this bill, do this w over an administration and a bureaucracy that doesn't understand the success of this country's last 200 years. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman fr minnesota reserves.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 20 seconds. the speaker pro tempe: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the previous speaker's claim that the national labor relations board is dictating where jobs go in america is utterly incorrect. if any company said, we want to move from state a to state b because we tnk the state tax structure in state b is more favorable to us, they have an absolute right to do so. the issue is whether they can move because they want to discourage and undercut the right of collective bargaining. if they want to destroy collective bargaining, they can. at this time, mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to a very persuasive voice for the working families of america, the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hirono, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. hirono: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2587. in hawaii we believe in fairness and respect, we believe that

working men and women should be able to come to the table, have a voice in their workplace, be able to negotiate for fair wages and benefits. this belief helped build the middle class in hawaii and across our country. right now what working men and women need most are champions in their corner, champions who are fighting for real jobs and instead this bill takes aim at our working families, it's another direct assault on them and workers' rights. let's face it. companies today can move their business operations for any business reason at all. except for an illegal one. today retaliating against workers who want to organize join a union, is illegal. this bill changes that. it says companieses can go ahead, you can move your -- companies can go ahead, you can move your jobs to other states

or even other countries to punish your workers who want to organize and have a voice. this would have a chilling effect on any attempt by workers to ask for a seat at the bargaining table. workers have already taken big hits in their paychecks, in their retirements over the years. we should not make it easier for businesses to gain the -- game the system. i urge my colleagues to fight against this bill and to stand with the working men and women of this country. aloha. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey resves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank chairn kline for yielding me this time and for his leadership in moving this legislation to the floor and i thank congressman scott of south carolina for his leadership in introducing this legislation and all those who join with me in supporting what i think is an impoant

job-creating bill for this country. and it's important not just in right to work states like south carolina or virginia, but it's important in states that don't have protection of workers under right to work laws, like washington state. because businesses, both in this country and overseas, looking to invest are not going to look in places where they can be subsequently restrained from being able to expand their business, and that's what's happening here, they're expanding their business to another state if they locate in a place where that can happen to them. they're also not going to locate in right to work states. nope. when they need to expand, they're not going to have any statement about what their intentions are or why they're doing it, as is the case with most companies they're simply going to locate in china or taiwan or thailand or india or 100 other countries around the world that are very

friendly and welcoming to employers who want to grow and expand businesses. and unless the united states changes this law and restrains the national labor relations board from making these kind of decisions, we're going to suffer greatly in job loss. so this is a great job-creating bill. i encourage my colleagues to support protecting jobs from government interference act that amended the nlra to prohibit the nlrb in future and pending cases from ordering an employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances. this is an important measure, this will not just save 1,000 jobs in south carolina, this will save hundds of thousands of jobs across this country. it will ensure that employers have greater freedom to make one of the most basic manement decisions, where to locate a business. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: the gentleman from virginia just said that this bill restrains companies from growing jobs. here's what it restrains. it restrains from saying to a worker who dares to stand up and bargain for themselves and fight for themselves, you're fired. that's what it restrains and it should restrain that because that's our law. mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to one of the most passiate voices for working americans in the modern history of this country, my friend from ohio,r. kucinich, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kucinich: thank you. this was a new deal initiative which helped save american capitalism by creating a proxy to help protect the rights of employees and employers. this was before nafta and the w.t.o. which tore legal rights for workers apart, moved millions of jobs out of the u.s. yes, we stand for the workers at boeing and washington state but we also stand for the workers at boeing in south carolina.

because they will have no recourse if boeing wants to move jobs to china. you can't say you want to create jobs here at home while destroying the right of workers to organe. these are basic rights in a democratic society. you can't say you want to protect american jobs and not protect american worrs. take away workers' rights to free speech, take away workers' rights to due process and you create a new class of slave labors here in the united states who are helpless to stop the movement of jobs out of america. this bill sacrifice the right to boeing workers in washington state and also sacrifices laws that are designed to protect workers' rights. it's an attack on all american workers. it's one thing to take the side of the boss or the owners, it's another thing to take the side of the boss and the owners when they want to move jobs out of america. stand up for the american workers, stand up for workers' rights, stand up for american jobs and stand up for employers who want to keep jobs in the united states. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to another member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, two minutes, dr. buechon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. bucshon demrverage thank you. i rise today to talk -- build mr. bucshon: thank you. i rise today to talk about jobs. i would argue this does just the opposite. just like dr. roe, i grew up in a union household. my father was a united mine worker and that's why i'm here today. i was elected to congress to protect all workers, not just a select few. 93% of american workers are not in a union. 7% are in e private sector. the tional labor relations board complaint is an attack on american job creators. again, i was elected to prect all workers, not just a select few. the nrr -- nlrb's decision to

punish boeing for creating 1,100 new jobs is just another example of the administration abusing its position to advance a biased agenda. i want to remind everyone, no joobs were taken from washington state. this is a straightforward bill that prohibits the nlrb from ordering an employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances. this bill will create an environment necessary for employers to develop their businesses in the state that offers the best opportunity and i would argue in the best country that offers the best opportunity to grow and create jobs and not have this left up to a board of unelected bureaucrats in washington, d.c. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and let's get america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a daughter and sister of a union family who doesn't forgethere she came

from, the gentlelady from new york, mrs. mccarthy, for a minute and a hal the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. mccarthy: thank you and thank my colleagues. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition of h.r. 2587, a bill i call the outsourcing bill of rights. especially durinthese difficult economical times, we have come together to do the patriotic thing, protect and create jobs here at home. this legislation eliminates the nlrb's already limited authority to order an employer to restore work taken away in a wrongful way. by passing this bill we are telling our nation's workers we cannot and we will not help them. plain and simple this bill passes, it will lead to increased outsourcing jobs. further, the bill will make certaithat employers will not be held accountable. you know, my colleagues on the other side just mentioned that 93% of american workers are not unionized and i also like to brg to the point that we've seen wages across this country

going down. and yet we have seen the profits in corporations going up. that's why we're in the situation we're in right now. i come from a union family and i'm proud of that. it was able to give us the education that we needed for my father and mother to be able to buy us a home. that would not seem today. why? because we're hitting the workers. why did we have unions in the first place? to give them a voice. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. in my opinion the corporations should be a little bit more patriotic and start hiring people so we can get this economy going, make this great country what we are, america can go forward but not without good pay for our workers. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three nutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and so my others on the education and work force committee. mr. speaker, the nlra is supposed to balance the rights of employees, employers, and the general public, but you would never know that from the recent actions of the nlrb. this un-elected group of executive branch recess appointees have abandoned all pretense of objectivity and become nothi more than a taxpayer bunded law firm for big labor. -- funded law firm of big labor. this is not the only example of their overreach. at a time when union membership is at an historic low, the nlrb seeks to give big labor an historically high level of influence with this administration, whether it's add mow vating posters in the workplace or this the economic

death penalty. the nlrb is out of control and it needs to be reined in so it does not do even more damage to this fragile economy. with respect to the bill at hand which my friend and colleague, mr. scott, seeks to remove a single remedy from the arsenal of the nlrb, leaving a dozen other remedies, this bill simply says that you cannot force boeing to close a billion dollar facility which has already been constructed in charleston and fire the thousands of workers who have been hired and send the work back to washington state which is tantamount to the economic death penalty. not a single worker has lost a b or a benefit in washington state, mr. speaker. when boeing started this separate, distinct supply line. the nlrb thinks a company should stay a union state no matter how many work stoppages there are. no matter how many customers have threatened to go do business somewhere else because

they can't get their planes on time. no matter how many fines have been paid because of late deliver riff airplanes because of work stop anages. no matter what. no matter how much money is lost, mr. speaker, the nlrb thinks that boeing should have to stay in a union statbecause it planted a flag originally in the union ate. this congress has leveled civil remedies when they have been abused. this congress has limited criminal remedies when they have been abused. and this congress must limit administrative remedies when they are being abused as they are now. even the "chicago tribune," mr. speaker, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, acknowledges that the nlrb is out of control. and i will ask my colleagues on the other side, if they can name, i'll a them the same question i asked the general counsel for the nlrb, can you name me a single, stol tarry worker who has lost a job --

stol tarry worker who has lost a job because of boeing's decision? can you name me a solitary worker who has lost a benefit or suffered any recrimination, any reparation because of boeing's decision? mr. speaker, this administration were serious about job creation, they would have reined in this agency a long time ago. they did not. and we must. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentman om minnesota rerves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i yield myself 20 seconds. my friend who just spoke indicated that this decision would -- attempt by the nlrb would destroy jobs in south carolina. that's not accurate. on page eight of nlrb's complaint, says the relief requested by the nlrb does not seek to prohibit boeing from making nondiscriminatory decisions where work will be formed, including work at its north charleston south carolina facility. at this point i'm pleased to yield to a strong proessive

voice to the working people of the united states, the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. woolsey: i thank the ranking member for yielding to me. when the president spoke in this chamber last week, he urged us to focus on jobs. believe me, this outsourcer's bill wasn't what he had in mind. he demanded that we move urgently to create new jobs. certainly not jeopardize the ones we already have. this outsources bill of rights is nothing more than a gift to the majority's corporate cronies. it gives unscrupulous employers the green light to retaliate against workers, to punish them, punish them for engaging in union activities for fighting for their rights as workers. they do that by saying that it is pfectly ok to pick up and leave town and they do that after the president of boeing

actually admitted the reason they are moving to south carolina is because there was too much union activity in seattle. that is retaliation, my folks. someone tell me how exactly is this supposed to revive our economy? it's part of the republican vendetta against workers and their collective bargaining rights it's park of their orchestrated assault on the labor movement that built the american middle class. this is not the time to be undermining or threatening the job security of any american. it's time to defeat this bill and move immediately to pass a big, bold jobs bill. one that will put america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota has 14 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. could inquire as to the time

remaining on the other side as well? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 17 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to another member of the committee, the gentlelady fom alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. of which i'm a co-sponsor, representing a district in the state of alabama, a right to work state, the current activist agenda is the national labor relations board greatly concerns me. congre has a responsibility to ensure that the nlrb objectively applies the written law by the people's elected representatives. congress also works to ensure that labor interes are not undermining the employer's efforts to create jobs. at a time when millions of

individuals are unemployed and searching for work, public officials in washington should look to provide greater certainty to america's employers so they can grow business and create new jobs, not hinder them unfortunately, the recent rulings and proceedings of the nlrb help demonstrate otherwise. i'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter this letter of support ofh.r. 2587 from the associated builders and contractors of alabama into the congressional record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. roby: they represent over 800 commercial companies in my state, all of whom are concned that the nlrb has abandoned its role as a neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor lawo promote special interest of unions. the federal government, especially the nlrb, has no right to dictate where a company can or cannot create jobs. e protecting jobs from government interference act will provide employers with the certainty they need to invest in

our economy and put americans back to work right here at home in the united states. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield to the most effective leading voice for working people in america today, the senior ranking democrat on the education and work force committee, my friend from california, mr. miller, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three mines. mr. miller: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlemanor that nice introduction. i rise in very strong opposition to this legislation, h.r. 2587. this special interest bill is a job kill. it's simply a job killer. it was spurred by a particular case involving a fortune 500 corporation, the boeing company. but this bill is not just about boeing. this bill is really about working americans all across this country. and they should pay very careful attention to this bill and to

this debate because it affects their livelihood, their ability to support their families, the safety of their jobs at work, the conditions under which they work, and their ability to participate in their increased productivity in higher wages and better conditions. this bill takes the rights away from workers, from all workers, all across the cntry. this isn't just about whether you belong to a union or not. this is about whether or not your employer can retaliate against you by taking your work away, by sending your work down the road, or out of the country. makes it easier to outsource. because you simply, in response to a request by workers that they might share in the profits of the company, they might have higher wages, their work can disappear in an arbitrary fashion, and they have to understand that that's what happens under this legislation. for the first time in 70 years, american workers in the workplace will not be protected.

they will not be protected for the right to have a grievance against the employer for their wages or benefits that they are paid because employer for the first time in 70 years will have the ability to say, well, if you need more ges, and you want more wages, you know what i'm going to do? i'm going to take ur job and outsource them. i'm going to send them to china. i'm going to send them to india. i'm going to send them to another part of the country because i'm not going to pay higher wages. today that's illegal. under this law it will not be. they can take your job and your work away from you. and we have got to understand what that means. we just saw the wages have taken one of the largest hits in a decade in this country. we have seen, we have seen as workers fail to organize in the workplace wages have continued to go down. at the same time, we have en the c.e.o.'s and the management

of companies take out tens of millions of dollars a year for each and every one of them. but not share it with the workers. they have decided that they'll take the increased productivity of the most productive workers in theworld, the american worker, and they'll take that increased productivity and they'll take it for themselves. they won't continue the bargain that we have in this country that if you work hard you'll be able to prove your lot in life. so we have seen wages stagnant in this country. and now this. and now this. if you try to get better wages, if you seek to improve your lot in life, if you seek to improve the ability of your kids to go to school, to provide for your family, your work can be taken away. this is a first in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: 30 seconds? mr. andrews: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: this is a first in america. we must repudiate this on behalf of families that are struggling

all across the country. those who are fortunate enough to ctinue to have a job. but they can't have a job living under this threat that they won't be able to better themselves if their employer decides to be selfish, decides to retaliate against them. for seeking torganize, to do something on their behalf. it's a fundamental part of the contract in america. it doesn't exist in other parts of the world but it does here. and it's led to the middle class in this country and it's the middle class that is threatened by this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i yield one minu to the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. westmoreland: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. speaker, i would just like to say on the previous speaker that we have a czar to control these executive pays. so if that czar's not doing his job, that's another problem we need to address. i rise today in support of h.r.

2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. after the unprecedented actions by the national labor relations board earlier this year, i was proud to join the gentleman from south carolina and support this legislation. right now our economy is suffering and that suffering is felt even more in the south where states like georgia and south carolina have unemployment rates higher than the national average. we need to encourage companies to invest in those states most hard hit. the boeing plant in south carolina directly created thousands of jobs in south carolina and indirectly through suppliers and cstruction, created hundreds more. instead, the president has once again overstepped his executive authority and allowed the union attack dog to threaten tshut down the plant in south carolina, jeopardizing thousands of jobs. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support h.r. 2587 and stop the national labor

relations board from killing jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota 11. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield myself 15 seconds. we don't have a czar controlling executive pay in this country, we have executives acting like czars outsourcing american jobs around the world and ruining the middle class. that's the problem in the united states. 8. . it is my privilege to yield to the democratic whip who strongly understands the value of collective bargaining, three minutes, mr. hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, the issue here has been raised by a case that is not yet concluded. let me state that again. the issue raised in this

legislation is reference to a case that is not yet coluded. and seeks to either pose our judgment for the finder of fact and law's jument judgment. normally we believe -- judgment. normally we believe that's a bad practice, in a nation of laws not of men. secondly, this bill shows clearly a basic difference between many of us on this side and many on that side of the aisle. and that is whether or not you believe that working men and women have the right to come together, to organize and to bargain collectively for their pay, their benefits and their working conditions.

in fact, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority of working americans, whether or not they have joined such an organization, find their working ple safer, healthier, their pay better and the more availability of benefits than they wou have if men and women had not been guaranteed the right to bargain collectively. for which they fought and some died in the 1930's and 1940's and later because people did not want them to do that. they wanted to say, i don't care how much money we make, this is your portion. now, we see super athletes not stand for that, if they're in the nfl or if they're in the nba or if they're in the nhl. we understand that. they see their enterprises making great money because they're great players but the owners want to pay them what they need to pay them. why?

because they have want to maximize profits. i'm for that. that's the free enterprise system. so we set up a system where we can bargain and we can come to a fair resolution. but this bill says that the right which is that the employer cannot retaliate for the exercising of a legal right will be jettison. that's what this bill says. pretty simply. yeah, you have the right to bargain collectively but if we don't like what you're doing, we're taking a hike. we're going to retaliate. now, i do not decide today whether or not that will be the finder of fact and law's conclusion in this case. i don't know that boeing did that. may i have 30 additional seconds?

mr. andrews: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i don't know whether that will be the ultimate conclusi, whether boeing violated the law by retaliating and i have told my friends at boeing i don't know that's going to be the conclusion but do i know this, that i am for working men and women having the right that they've now had for some 70 years. and i believe that working men and women in america, organized or unorganized, are better off because we adopted a law to protect that right. do not jettison, and i close with this and i quote from a letter sent by hundreds of professors with expertise in this area. quote, we are dismaid that a single complaint -- dismayed that single complaint shall be the basis for so fundamental a reversal in longstanding law. doot take this st, reject this bill, vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, . speaker. i yield at this time to another member of the committee two minutes, the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. in the past unions have been about protecting workers. as a physician i know that one of the major reasons for the increase in life expectancy between the first and second half of the last century was due in large part to increases in worker safety which were brought about by actions of unions. i grew up in a union household. in fact, when my father was injured on the job, it was his union that helped represent him in court and helped put food on the table for my family. but too often today's unions are more about politics and protecting their clout than protecting workers. this change in focus is exemplified by a boeing union news let that are stated, quote,

2,100 bargaining unit positions may be lost, end quote, if boeing located a new manufacturing plant in south carolina. not jobs, not employees, not brothers and sisters, but bargaining unit positions. these employees were reduced to nothing more than a number. employers must have the ability to locate where they can find the best employees, period. i worry that if the nlrb takes away the ability that prevents them from creating jobs in a right to work state like south carolina, what does that mean for other right to work states like my state of nevada? the state hardest hit by recession and with the highest unemployment rates in the nation? would the nb take similar action against a company tryin to create jobs in nevada? that's aisk nevadans can not afford to take. h.r. 2587 maintains an employer's ability to locate where they can find the best

employees and that is why i support this legislation and i strongly urge my colleagues to do the same and i yield back the balancof my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the leader who is leading the fight against outsourcing and for collective bargaining, the minority leader of the house democrats, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding, commend him for his tremendous leadership on behalf of america's workers, thk you, mr. andrews, for your leadership. mr. speaker, across the country americans of every political party and every background, democrats, republicans, independents, and others, agree that our nation's top priority must be the creation of jobs. and economic growth and security. yet for more than 250 days the republican majority in the house has refused to listen to them.

they, the republicans, have failed to enact a single jobs bill. anthe american people do not have the luxury of waiting any longer for congress to act to create jobs. the president has proposed the american jobs act, he's called upon us to pass the bill now and support that, as do the members of the -- the democratic members of the house. but today instead of passing a jobs bill we are wasting the time of the congress by attacking workers instead of strengthening them. we are debating the bill to undermine the foundation of our middle class instead of fighting for people -- to put people to work building our roads, broadband lines, schools, airports, water systems. we are voting on a measure to send jobs overseas instead of focusing on how to keep jobs

here at home through our make it in america initiative advanced by our democratic whip, mr. hoyer. make it in america, how to strengthen our economy and our national security by stopping the erosion of our manufacturing base, indeed by strengthening our manufacturing and industrial base. i want to recognize my colleague, congressman george miller, the ranking member on the committee of education and work force, for his leadership, for his flodge, for his tireless advocacy, for not only his intellect but his passion on the subject of america's workers. congressman miller has said, republican colleagues have proposed a so-called outsourcers bill of rights or as i prefer to call it, the outsourcers' bill of wrongs. because this legislation has the wrong priorities for america's economy and for american workers.

this bill is -- the bill is about more than one company or a single case, it is about the economic security of america's work force and families. rather than create jobs this measure encourages the outsourcing of jobs and undermines the rights of middle class workers. this bill cuts the national labor relations board, makes it easier for corporations to ship jobs overseas, allows employers to punish their employees for simply exercising their right to organize, to demand better benefits and safer working conditions, to ense a full day's pay for a full day's work. for months in wisconsin, ohio and states nationwide, americans have seen republican governors and legislatures attack teachers

and public servants. and we've seen these workers, union and nonunion alike, inspired a nation to fight back. now republicans have brought their assault on working americans to our nation's cap tal, to the floor of the house -- capitol, to the floor of the house, claiming their actions will help the economy. but it will do just the opposite, it will weaken our workers, our middle class and our families. it's indeed the cornerstones of our economic prosperity, of our middle class, and of our democracy. the outsourcers' bill of wrongs or rights is not about jobs, it's about dismantling protections established specifically to strengthen the rights of workers. we need these protections now more than ever. last year american companies --

listen to this, last year american companies created 1.4 million jobs overseas. overseas. while breaking in enormous profits. we must create these jobs here at home. democrats will stand strong for our working men and women, we will stay focused on jobs and economic growth. on a personal note, mr. speaker, the other night one of the thrills of my political lifetime, i received, a second honor for me, the francis perkins award for my colleague, lynn woolsey, a champion for working families in our country. for those of you who may not know francis perkins from history, she was the first woman to serve in a cabinet of a president of the united states. she was the secretary of labor and she was responsible for many

important initiatives, the 40-hour workweek, ability for workers to bargain collectively. she was a remarkable champion for working people in our country. she was largely responsible for creating social security. imagine having that as her credentials, imagi what a thrill it was for me to receive an award named for her, especially given by congresswoman lynn woolsey, a champion on the education and work force committee. much of what she did, while the credit was given to the president of the united states, is, as is appropriate, more than 75 years ago, upon the signing of the national labor relations act, president franklin roosevelt said this, by preventing practices which tend

to destroy the independence of labor, this law seeks for every worker within its scope that freedom of choice and action, which is justly his. i guess he could have said his or hers but. th indendence, that freedom of choice and act has rested at the core of a growing, thriving american work force. it is not -- it has not limited the ability of companies to move , to change, or extend their operations. it has simply ensured that compies treat their workers in ways consistent with the laws of our land. the independence and freedom of our workers have helped build and expand our middle class which is the backbone of our democracy and has -- and drive unprecedented prosperity for our families and