you talk a bit about trade and fair trade. but they really mean it is no trade at all. >> mr. speaker, yesterday the u.s. ambassador told the trade minister, lovely having a chat. the united states will maintain its protectionist stance the nine canadian participation -- denying canadian participation. after winning 14 challenges with the u.s., the prime minister serves up the canadian we farmer on a silver platter. -- wheat farmer on a silver platter. why as this prime minister -- >> we are focused on building canada's economy, on creating jobs. mr. speaker, i am just in the --

i was just in the united states meeting with key decision makers in the united states and making it clear that barriers to trade hurt both about our country. we will continue to stand up for hard-working canadians. why what the liberals? liberals?'t the >> for weeks, u.s. legislatures have thought about formally considering a new terror of. why is it -7- tarrif -- a new tariff. why are they not attacking this

attack on canadian jobs? >> any new tax or barrier at the border raises consumer costs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we welcome the u.s. ambassador's assurances that no new taxes will be forthcoming. the canada-u.s. trading relationship is the best. we will extend canada's competitive advantage, especially with respect to exports. i have made this clear to my u.s. counterparts. canada's railways are competing. >> when conservatives negotiated the perimeter deal with the u.s., what does canada get in return? there is no amnesty for

canadians. there are no privacy measures to stop the u.s. from forcing canadian banks from exposing information on canadians. why what the conservatives stand up for canada when they are negotiating with american? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> that has far reaching implications. it would require canadian bank to collect information at substantial expense. i have reviewed this with all of our canadian banks. i have raised it with the secretary of treasury. my officials continue to discuss it with them. we are hopeful we will be able to arrive at an arrangement with the americans that will not require this needless expense. >> the american government should be congratulated for

going after a tax dodger. our own government's feeble attempts pale by comparison. law-abiding canadians are being harassed by the irs using laws intended to catch u.s. tax rates. has the government negotiated a true amnesty to protect law- abiding canadians. >> the honorable minister of finance. >> it is the sovereign right of the u.s. government to impose tax rules on american citizens. this is unfair to some with dual citizenship because they have had no income earned in the united states for a long time. many were unaware of their obligation to file tax returns in the united states. there are penalties that can be attached. we have heard from the american ambassador in canada on the subject to the effect that they

are looking at being more reasonable with respect to the punitive penalties that are possible by the irs under the legislation. we see some progress. >> mr. speaker, canadians who have not earned any income or who own property in the united states for years are threatened with having to pay an astronomical fine for having not filled out their tax returns. one woman who has lived in canada and worked here since 1968 they have to pay $70,000. many canadians concerned our seniors. it is their pensions that are now at stake. is the government negotiating a filing exemption for these canadian citizens. >> it is the right of canada to oppose tax obligations on our citizens. it is the right of the united states to do the same thing.

these are people who are american citizens. they choose to maintain their american citizenship. they are subject to some rules. many of these individuals have not lived in the united states and have not earn any income in the united states and were not aware of their obligations. it is with respect to those people that we are trying to get leniency from american authorities. as i said a moment ago, we are making progress. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> what our live coverage of herman cain, newt gingrich, clique santorum, ron paul, rick perry, and michele bachmann starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern today on c-span's "road to the white house." >> alex lawson has details on

the announcement that social security recipients will get a 3% increase in benefits next year. and a political roundtable on the latest developments in the 2012 presidential campaign. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday on "newsmakers," tom harkin will talk about the no child left behind act and the status of the jobs legislation. at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in his weekly address, president obama talked about total troop withdrawal from iraq by the end of the year and the death of libyan leader walmart gaddafi.

and the republican address. president obama was urged to embrace the gop plan for job creation. >> this week, we had two powerful reminders of how we renew american leadership in the world. the rest of our troops in iraq will come home. in libya, the debt of muammar gaddafi shows that -- the death of muammar gaddafi shows that our mission was the right thing to do. i announced the end of our combat mission in iraq. the iraqis have taken full responsibility for the security of their own country. thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the iraqi people have a chance to forge their own future. in libya, our brave pilots and

crews helped prevent a massacre, saved countless lives and give the libyan people a chance to prevail without putting a single u.s. service member on the ground. people across the arab world seek a democratic future. these successes are part of a larger story. after a decade of war, we are turning the page and moving forward with strength and confidence. the draw down in iraq allows us to refocus on afghanistan and achieve victories over al qaeda and osama bin laden. as we remove our troops from iraq, we are beginning to bring our troops home from afghanistan. when i took office, 180,000 troops were deployed in these wars. by the end of this year, that number will be cut in half. an increasing number of our troops will continue to come

home. as we end these wars, we are focusing on our greatest challenge as a nation, rebuilding our economy and really our strength at home. we spent $1 trillion on war and invested too little in the greatest source of our national strength, our own people. now the nation we need to build is our own. we have to tackle this challenge with the same urgency and unity our troops brought to their fight. we have to do everything in our power to get our economy moving again. that is why it is like calling on congress to pass the american jobs at so we can rebuild our schools, our roads, our bridges and put our teachers, cops, and firefighters back to work. that is why i hope all of us can draw strength from the example of our men and women in uniform. they have met the responsibility to america. now it is time to meet hours. it is time to come together and

show the world why the united states of america is the greatest source of freedom and opportunity the world has ever known. >> good morning. i am honor to speak with you tof date. or 32-- for 32 straight month, unemployment has been over 8%. it is also a clear indictment of the way we have handled the 23 million americans looking for full-time employment. some in washington, including the president, suggest we simply spend more money. we have tried that. it did not spur job growth. the american people realize this is not about how much money washington can stand. it is about getting government out of the way and creating a climate for government and jobs. it means listening to the american people and passing common-sense legislation that makes the rules that govern job- creating and investments more predictable. businesses are not going to hire

if they cannot anticipate what new tax or federal regulation is going to get them next. congress should lead by example and get the nation's fiscal house in order. it starts with better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. the government of the future has to be smaller and less expensive if we want the prosperity of the american people to win out. the president has ignored the suggestions of his own commission. rather than implement the investment suggested by simpson-bowles, we focus on spending more money and expanding the size of the federal government. this lack of fiscal discipline is unsustainable and cannot continue. you know it and i know it. the longer we kick the can down the road, the more difficult it will be to address our problems and spur a real job growth.

there is an alternative to the president's growth. republicans want to drive job creation in the private sector. we have a jobs proposal that would simplify and stabilize the tax code, rein government regulations, cap spending and reduce budget deficits, imposed healthcare solutions, create a competitive workforce, and increase exports. the american people deserve a debate on these issues. our proposal is simple. it makes it easier for business to thrive, grow, and higher. we will simplify the tax code so that businesses can predict their expenses and increase their competitiveness in a global economy. we will stop over regulation at the federal label -- federal level to ensure stability so

that businesses would not have to worry about -- worry about the dirt and some -- about burdensome regulations. we will replace obamacare with common sense reforms that will lower the cost of health care for all americans. we will increase america's energy independence by promoting increased oil and gas exploration, driving down our reliance on its energy imported from around the world. we will provide the tools needed for workers to succeed in the 21st century. it starts with making sure our education system provides the foundational knowledge needed by the work force. better schools and better work force training mean better jobs. free and fair trade to provide american businesses with opportunities to expand in new

markets and remain competitive in the global marketplace and hire workers to meet increased demands for their goods and services. despite ideological differences, many of these proposals, such as tax reform, regulatory reform, an increase trade reform have the support of republicans and democrats. reform our tax code to make it more predictable for all job creators. our economy is in grave danger. it is time for congress to focus on the american people and not on how difficult change might be. it is time to stop playing games and to get on with the serious business that the american people expect from us. it is time to fundamentally reform the obstacles to job creation and economic growth. it is time we pursue common- sense solutions that make america more competitive and put

our nation back on the right track. this place that some call america and that we call home is the greatest country in the world. we should never forget the principles that made us great and will keep us great. thanks for listening. god bless this great country. >> sunday on c-span, testimony from treasury secretary tim geithner. speaking in front of the small business committee, he faced criticism from the ranking republican on the committee, senator olympia snowe. >> these are severe circumstances. we had 10.8% unemployment. we had a democratic house and republican senate. we work hand in glove to get it done for the american people. rome is burning ,. . we are facing the decimation of

our communities and they want help. they feel they are not getting any deference from the administration and in congress to work together. if you are talking about policies in 2014, 2016, we have had three years of virtually the same unemployment numbers as we do today, mr. secretary. this is nothing new. we need to get ahead of the curve and make long-term, fundamental, predictable changes in our tax and regulatory policies. i am hearing it from everybody, from fortune 500 companies to companies of three or one. everybody is saying the same thing. they need certainty and stability. uncertainty has a huge price tag. that price tag is being born right now by americans who are unemployed. i am not to assign blame. i am here to get the job done for the american people. >> sunday you can watch the

entire hearing at 12:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> it is obvious that with all of the priorities we had, till further notice, every decision the government makes, every close call should be made in favor of economic growth. every time should be broken in favor of the growth in the private sector. >> he worked as an adviser in the reagan white house and as governor of indiana. he implemented spending cuts that produced a $1 billion surplus. mitch daniels on the economy and his decision not to run for president in 2012. >> from today's "washington journal," a look at how states deal with the ownership of

exotic animals. host: eccentric animal c collector who had killed themselves. when you first heard about this story in ohio, what went through your mind? >> what a tragic scenario it was for mr. thompson as well as for the animals and for the public at large.

the unfortunate thing is, it should not come as a surprise. laws do not regulate and banned the private ownership of exotic animals. in fact, it is harder for a private citizen to of a pit bull style blog that it is to own a leopard, tigers, and monkeys. everybody was well aware that these animals lived on his farm. it was really such a tragedy. unfortunately, the lives of the animals were lost. fortunately, no humans are actually injured in the incident. it should not come as a surprise. >> we have a map from usa today that looks at regulation of private possession of the exotic spy -- species is state- by-state.

we will go through this. for those watching in color, -- who is not these days? the black states are the ones that ban private ownership of exotic animals altogether. the dark blue states, some animals are allowed. the light blue states they are allowed licenses. the white states have no regulations. so far, there has been no discussion about any kind of federal laws or federal regulations about the ownership and keeping exotic pets. guest: the reason is, the federal government is the government of limited powers. it is the state's that have the power to basically regulate too quickly the general public and health.

when the federal government wants to enact a law, they have to find and enumerated powers. in this instance, there is basically two powers under which they could regulate animals. one is there treaty power for the endangered species act might be an act he -- it might be enacted under the treaty power. more commonly, it is enacted under the commerce power. there are a handful of federal laws in the captive was less if the act -- the only regulate the transport of animals over state lines or can really only regulate conduct that affects interstate commerce. they are basically under the exclusive authority of the state. >> 4 right now, there is no

federal laws that govern the situations that the folks in ohio vowed? >> not the private ownership. he was keeping them as "pets." he was not selling them, greeting them, using them for research. he was not using them in any commercial context. host: the also write this morning, governor kasich as an animal order -- as the animal order is an adequate. an executive order on the wild animals problem that governor casey signed yesterday relies exclusively on existing agencies had authority including arrest powers available to county humane society's since 1953. unlike an order signed by his previous governor, the new one does not require registration.

kasich said that would require changes in state law. give us a sense in the case of ohio -- how is the lot different -- or how were the laws different under governor strickland and they are now under gov. kasich? he had issued an emergency executive order that could prevent the ownership of wild animals by individuals convicted of a felony or animal cruelty. however, it is still a legal finding -- it is still illegal for individuals to own these animals. i will say that organizations such as bore for usa, you have already mentioned the humane society, have been lobbying the legislature there in ohio and in other states that have the particular problems. ohio is actually fourth in the united states in dangerous incidents involving the larger

exotic animals. it turns out for that is the number one in terms of incidents that have been reported where animals have actually harmed and injured cubans. in fact, since 2003, there have been --harmed and injured humans. they have been trying to get laws passed, have been unsuccessful. host: if you would like to call and and get involved in this conversation, go ahead. we have a special light for exotic pet owners. -- we had a special line for

exotic pet owners. we had an op-ed from "usa today." she said, let people in zone -- let people on exotic animals. if we had to decide where people should live and what animal to buy, why can we not choose what species of exotic animal to own and the glove? with the ohio situation be any different if the animals were owned by a government and their caretaker released them? is this really about private ownership or is it about personal issues with exotic in captivity? guest: there are quite a few things to address with that question. there is a huge difference between private ownership of

domesticated animals and private ownership of large exotic animals. by definition, wild and animals from a welfare perspective deserve to live in their native habitat and to be able to express their natural instincts and activities. generally speaking, it is very difficult. it is not to their health both physical and emotional well- being i believe is jeopardized when they are in an act -- in captivity. second, there is a public health and public safety issue that cannot exist with respect to domestic animals. on the public outside, there are exotic diseases, such asmonkey pox. so the other thing from a public safety standpoint and is probably the most important,

wild animals are wild. they cannot be contained in the same way domestic animals can. they raised both public health and public safety issues that other animals do not. in terms of the right to private ownership, again, you own a home and a television set, all other things we own that are not beings. animals are beings, and i think we need to treat their ownership differently than we do ownership of other items. host: our first caller comes from michael in illinois. your the honor of an exotic animal? caller: actually not. i just had a comment. she was starting to pick up on what i was thinking about because the whole issue revolves around the welfare of

the creatures involved. it really is a sad commentary on human nature that many people wanted to keep these exotic pets for the -- i don't know how you would put it -- just so the notoriety of it takes place. eventually they might get bored with these animals or something might happen and then they get abandoned. i ended giving a lot of donations to paws. it is an outfit out in california. they take an exotic animals and tiger haven in tennessee and texas. the behavior of the people is the issue. when they behave irresponsibly, that is really when they should be a crackdown on. i think law enforcement fellow

is just a plain idiot. they did not have to shoot all of those animals. the police tend to be macho been these situations and the they are trigger happy in my point of view. it should all revolve around the welfare of the animal. guest: i appreciate that comment very much. i agree with you that it should revolve around the welfare of the animal. the problem with respect to bands verses regulations and licensing schemes is with bans it is easy to enforce the law. if you have a licensing or regulation scheme which is several of the states do have, it is very difficult to enforce. generally speaking, most of the regulations that impose a minimal requirements with respect to the handling and care of the animal are just, in my mind, not sufficient. with respect to what animals, i

do not believe they can be sufficient to really meet their particular needs. i do want to address the issue of how the law enforcement in ohio dealt with this issue. i was extremely saddened and upset by the very same thing. my first reaction was, could not have tranquilize the animals that cannot use some other means to address the issue? i think as a practical at -- the practical matter, the answer was no. at least what i have heard is, number one, it was rushed to -- it was rough terrain. it was getting dark. for public safety, public safety is going to trumpet. by the same token, ohio -- what i believe they should have had protocols in place. i should have been ready for something like this to happen if they realized that they have both thompson and many other people in the state of ohio and elsewhere that have these

animals. they should have been able -- should have had something in place to deal with the type of situation. given the situation as it was, they did not have it. i believe that was irresponsible on the part of the government to not realize this could have happened and have something in place to deal with it. if i can make one more comment about what happens when you no longer what the animals. that was another excellent point. very often you have little bear cubs or the tiny tiger cub. they are adorable. the problem is, the corrupt to be big. it might still be adorable, but there are big and dangerous and they become unmanageable. what do you do with the animals and? unfortunately, they have to be euthanize or killed. or you can try to find a sanctuary for them and there are some wonderful century is out there, but they do not have the room. for all of these reasons, i think banning the ownership of the private ownership of exotic

animals is the way to go puree >> host: he freed the settles before fatally shooting himself in the driveway according to various reports. it back to the phones,karen, go ahead. -- terrance go ahead. california.n to leon from rosecrest. caller: high. i have a desert tortoises. i don't know if they are exotic or not. in california, they are an endangered species. they are very domicile. once you take them in, you are never allowed to turn them out

into the wild because of different diseases. i have many animals, not so exotic, but they all come to me. i have to care for them. i even have an insurance policy. if something happens to me, they are taken care of. they are my first priority. host: california is one of the states that cabanes private ownership of exotic species. guest: i must admit, i am not quite sure of the status of the tortoises. it is possible that the state would not be one of the listed -- it is the specific species. they do not just exotic animals.

some states to set all exotic animals or wild animals. california actually lists the species. i must admit i did not familiar with california puts a lot. it is possible that they do allow the ownership of these tortoises. host: john you are on the washington journal. caller: it was horrific watching the should all of those animals. they were able to bring in the locker, but i am hoping they would be able to come out with those animals trade they have a lot of bears and a drought. the coming to town. people go inside and a drink a cup of coffee. it really is an uneventful thing. you see about 10% of them when

they come into the city of albuquerque. we don't kill them. it is just and humane with a due to the animals. i don't know about cutting of circus animals. what to domesticated a large bear, it is as dangerous as having a loaded gun. host: we are going to leave it

there and get a response from her. guest: this person s -- the first thing i believe you said, the bear comes in, you handle them. two distinctions here. the state is more equipped to handle this. i also think the bear that comes into town is a very different situation. there are living from this reserve. it moves all at one time. there are homes and things that were very close by. they did eventually bring in some of these people from these is to try that. i think they did attempt to truckle was one of the tigers. unfortunately, that did not work successfully.

he went more bizarre than anything else. he had to the tiger. i do think under the right circumstances, they could have had a better reason to address that. the other point about the benevolent person who wants to on these animals, you is a good point. suppose -- i believe there should be sanctuaries for animals for animals being used in research.

to incentivize that by allowing people to all these animals, i think it is problematic. is very difficult to enforce. >>host: it is a pro bono effortf faculty and students committed to researching and improving animal welfare laws. seminars and a student chapter of the animal legal defense fund. professor also directs the animal welfare project and is a faculty adviser to the saldf. back to the funds. caller: when george bush was president, he overturned more than 30 years of the endangered species act. he even allowed the trophies of endangered animals to be imported from other countries. president obama reversed some of

the damage that was done to the endangered species act. i read that wild animals like lines, and the tigers bred in captivity and privately owned land, most of the midwest. these are the wealthy hunters that can come in and kill these animals his -- easily. do you know anything about this? guest: yes. unfortunately, that is true. there are people breeding these exotic animals. part of it is so they can hear about the special hunting preserves where they actually place the animals and an enclosed area. then they give people the opportunity to shoot at them and kill them for their trophy. personally, i am appalled by that activity. i personally believe we should outlaw them. he mentioned the danger. i don't think they are doing that with endangered species. that would be technically illegal.

it is interesting right now, they are considering the -- currently the chimpanzee is listed under the endangered species act. they are reconsidering that decision as we speak. wild chimpanzees are endangered, but captive in -- captive chimpanzees -- and there are millions being used for research and entertainment, they have no protection at all. again, i believe that is very irresponsible. it has made it very challenging to maintain the chimpanzee population in the wild. never mind the horrific activities and research. chimpanzees are something like 98% dna the same -- chimpanzees are probably our closest relatives. the fact that we use them in these ways i find it to be a moral and perhaps should also be

illegal. host:ben, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i spent a lot of time -- some of them are three board and some for port. there is limited liability. there are all these things. i have had the discussions, they thought about this with the legislature, they have done these -- have done the homework. is it if you want them to be protected, these are the care guidelines. i think the biggest message from what happened out in ohio is the state has to have a discussion. they have to determine what is appropriate care. people who own exotics should probably have liability

insurance. the discussion has to happen. host: before you answer, we want to remind our viewers that virginia is one of the states that has some exotic animals that are allowed. guest: you are right. with respect to states that regulate and license the behavior, free of the new batch of liability insurance. that is one of the requirements in states that regulate this. like i said, courses in my mind are a bit different than exotic animals in terms of -- horses are quite different than the kind of care we can provide to those animals. i believe that no regulation can properly handle the private ownership of exotic animals. at least the large bears, the cats, the primates and the like. but, you are right, in terms of the discussion i will say this is the only -- the upside of having these terrific -- a

horrific tragedy is is that it treats a dialogue. it brings it to the attention of the general public. they have been attempting to get state legislatures to address these issues especially in the states that do not have any loss at all. when to have a situation like this, at least brings it to the attention of the public interest are having a dialogue. we hope we will end up with a better legal and social contract host: i want to remind our viewers we have a special line set up for you. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail and tell you about your experience. next up is daytona beach, florida. william, you are on. caller: hello.

let me turn my phone up here. there we go. i live in daytona beach, florida. you are doing a wonderful job with the work you are doing. i have a friend who has a potbellied pig. she has raised it from work. -- she has risen from birth. what is the law on that? guest: it is hard to know all 50 states. there are different across the board. i believe that florida from our map allows some exotic animals. in fact, they are listed as the number one of state in terms of incidents of exotic animals. you mentioned potbellied pigs. they would not necessarily fall

under that situation. i don't have in front of me all the laws of the state. this is like most people think, you should have a federal law to govern this. unfortunately, other than the commercial transport and sail across state lines of animals which they can regulate and govern within the state, it is up to each and every state in terms of the law discovering private ownership. how are exotic animals to find? he talked about having and -- a potbellied pig. be a potbellied pigs have become a little more -- i don't want to say, in a general sense. the exotic nature of it is more the wild. the fact they are and domesticated animals generally speaking. this is another problem with the loss. you have laws that to say all

wild and domesticated animals. the have to litigate as to what constitutes a wild animal or not. that is why at least in terms of the states that are regulating this or banning this when the specifically define which species of animals are covered, there is at least a bright line rule so that it can be easily enforced and owners know what is or what is not governed. host: linda sent us this tweet.

guest: they don't necessarily take a year out of the wild in the state and bring it -- try to on that animal. it is usually marring an exotic animals that are often non native to the state. host: this is what we found this morning and "washington journal." guest: it would be legal to privately all those animals. by definition, wildlife has defied the laws are all of the wild animals that are not privately owned. host: sharon and what -- sharon in dallas, texas. go ahead. caller: i live about 5 miles from downtown dallas. about two years ago some macho idiot decided he could not handle his bangle tigers so he

shot him five times, ripped up the blanket. to wit of the service road of life 35 a quarter mile from three different elementary schools. they put a reward out from him. hopefully they will soon end he will get what he deserves. guest: that is quite horrific. our animal cruelty and neglect laws on the books in all states. in the majority of states that even include felony provision of animals.e wildlife is often exempt from those laws. however, presumably if you have a wild animal but it is privately owned, the honor is subjected to the neglect and cruelty laws. host: our next call comes from birmingham, alabama. edward. caller: good morning. to me, i just think that these

animals should not be handled by these people. let them stay in the wild. i looked at it like this. what if these wild animals gillis or something? -- gets loose or something? somebody gets hurt. we don't think about that. what is wrong with america? wild animals should be in the wild. host: 50 had not killed himself and somebody had got her, would he be liable for his actions on an innocent bystander? guest: absolutely. under the tort law. this is number one, and of course he -- it is pretty clear that would be negligent if not reckless behavior because he clearly is aware that these are wild animals. are inherently dangerous. are not attainable. therefore, he could be held liable for the injury of the

public. host: bill is our next caller from ohio. you don't own an exotic animal but you know somebody who does? caller: i knew somebody who did. i think the opening of exotic animals is part of a culture that -- i hate to say this, it is mostly pure flexing of munchies mo. what i mean by that, here in ohio a lot of people -- these are the people you will see driving around in large suvs or four by fours, there is a tendency to get in over your head with owning animals. what happens is, we had a guy here recently died. prior to that, it was a young guy who worked for him on his property who got mauled to death by one of these animals. these people have had run ins with the law. there are controversial. they know that owning exotic

animals as controversy all. to me, it is just a form of flexing. it is a way of saying, i had a big zero, so this is something. i own dangerous animals. i want to intimidate people. i want to get in the news. get into these while confrontations with the police. these people have to end up being put down in a wild white. the fact is, i think this is a lot of bunk. i don't think this has to do with caring about animals were being banal event. i think it is ohio flexing. >> are you still with me? caller: yes. it is about 110 miles away. we had a guy who is like a carbon copy of this knee-jerk here in the area. i don't want to question his name, but he also had run ins with the law.

he also had a thing about being controversy all. it is all about flexing and trying to think you are something special and thinking that you handle snakes, you handle dangerous animals. you do it in front of people. like to get your mug on the news. one thing about these people, they get an over their head and they cannot handle it and do something crazy. host: we are going to leave it there. if you are going to all these exotic animals, and the states that do own -- allow ownership, what kind of procedures to you have to go through as far as getting some sort of a license to have a bang all tiger or some other exotic animal on your property? guest: you are referring to the states that regulated or have no laws. if you have no law at all, you do not have to do anything at all. there are about 13 or so states

that have either a permit or licensing provision. typically, you have to provide a detailed description of the animal. you have to have liability insurance. if the animal or to harm another individual, you typically have to have a veterinarian treat the animal and give a health certificate to the animal on an annual basis. very often, there are minimal requirements with respect to food, sheltering, and enclosure in which the animals must remain. some states also prevent certain people or limit -- there is an age requirement you have to be over 21. if you are a convicted felon or if you have been convicted for animal cruelty whether it be a felony or not, some states prevent those individuals from owning these animals. that is generally how the licensing provision works. host: austin, texas, thank you

for waiting. caller: hello. host: turn your television down please. caller: sorry. can you hear me now? host: hit the mute button. caller: ok. i feel so strongly about this. it is hard for me to even talk about it. first of all, we are invading all of the habitats of all of the other creatures. there are so many of us. wild animals ought to be wild. i agree with all of these people who have spoken already. i am so happy you are here and you are doing this program. i think there is no excuse anymore for research -- using animals as research. it is a form of cruelty. it is completely unnecessary.

there are other better ways of doing research. i just wanted to mention something good. here in texas there is something called fossil rim. it is a large as they were there are many wild animals. they have lots and lots of room. there are cheetahs and zebras and traps. host: is a privately owned operation or is it on by the state? caller: it did belong to a man in the 1920's who had wild animals there. there are low hills, it is a large place. they have even found dinosaur tracks. in any case, they take very good care of them. in some cases, they have animals that don't have any more wild habitat. host: we will leave it there. part of the problem -- i want to get your thoughts on this. the woman who called earlier

from new mexico, she said the head bears come third. it is sort of like humans have encroached on the bare's habitat. the situation in ohio where you have some of these exotic animals on these bangle tigers, it is not in their dna to be in the middle of ohio. that, i believe, is what makes them agitated to a certain extent. guest: michael said with wild animals, they are unpredictable first of all. bears are a while, but i guess you are right. after a certain time if you are used to having people iran, they become acclimated to that. obviously these animals, i think he had 72 acres. they were used to him but they were not used to interacting with other humans. in any event, they are not going to be domesticated. you never know what the animal is going to do. host: our last call comes from tennessee. great, you are on the washington journal.

caller: i just had a few thoughts on this subject. all of your veterinarian's don't know a lot about exotics. if you have animals that are going to get out. if you have domestic ones, there are going to get out. that is what happens. host: we have to leave it there. we have just about run out of time. guest: i guess i do want to thank the caller that called in, and especially those who shared with us my personal belief that the private ownership of exotic animals should be banned in all of the states. i don't believe from an animal welfare standpoint or from a public safety standpoint that licenses and regulation schemes can be adequate to address the issues that are going to happen. there are very difficult to enforce in any event. let's hope that this tragedy can turn into something positive and start a dialogue and get the state on board to enact a

program reds -- regulation. host: thank you very much for being on the guest: program thank you very much. >> tomorrow, from the john hopkins university center, daniel serwer talks about the future of libya. alex lawson has details that social security recipients will get a increase in benefits next year. and at the political roundtable with jonathan martin and amy gardner on the latest developments in the 2004 presidential campaign. "washington journal" live at 7:00 on c-span. speaking in front of the small business committee, he faced

criticism from the ranking republican on the committee. the >> i was here when president reagan was elected. we had 10.8% unemployment. guess what -- he had a democratic house and a republican senate. we worked hand in glove to get it done for the american people. rome is burning. it is facing the decimation of our community. they want help. they feel they are not getting any difference from the administration and in congress for that matter. if you are talking about policies in 2014, 2015, 2016 -- we have had three years of virtually the same unemployment numbers as we do today. that is the point. this is nothing new. we need to get a head of the curve at some point. we need to make changes to our

tax and regulatory policies. i am hearing it from everybody from fortune 502 companies of 3 or 1. everybody is saying the same thing. uncertainty has a huge price tag. that price tag is being born right now by the americans -- the americans unemployed. that is what we have to correct. i am here to get the job done from the american people. >> sunday you can watch the entire hearing here on c-span at 12:30 p.m. eastern. now, sheila bair. she spoke at george washington university for 45 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you paul. it is my great privilege and honor to introduce the keynote speaker, the hon. sheila bair. i will keep my introduction quite sure because she is very well known and it does not need many details from me. she was the 19th chairman of the insurance corporation during an incredible challenging time from 2006 until last july. we are very honored -- this is her second speech since stepping down from chairman at the end of her five-year term. we feel very fortunate to have her at her for a. i want to add that she is doing this on a pro bono basis. i want it to note to two things that shows what kind of regulator she was in terms of being farsighted and actually

being able to say no when she needed to say no. 10 years ago she was assistant secretary of the us treasury and became aware of the growing problem of subprime lending and it tried very hard at that time to raise the issue to the public consciousness and to work with the industry. i am a free to say the industry did not respond perhaps the way they should have. she became chairman in 2006. she was by far the most outspoken regulator at that time warning of the dangers of the subprime lending boom and what needed to be done to address it. another thing she did which is very relevant to today's situation. if the problem started here, why is europe in such bad shape? are the european banks were off than ours? one answer is in this country we have a leverage ratio that you must -- if you are a bank you must maintain a minimum leverage

ratio of 4% or 5% of your assets. that is not adjusted to any risk or lack of risk. in europe there was no leverage ratio. for example, they were allowed to have 0 capital for sovereign debt. the european banks are about half or less or 1/4 are less treated as such a huge problem here. they were major players in this country that wanted to get rid of the leverage ratio of about six or seven years ago. i think it is to her great credit that she was among those he said firmly, know. you are not going to get rid of it. it is a critical safety cushion that we need. thank heavens he succeeded. without further ado, please welcome chairman bair. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you, that was the very nice introduction. i'm in the process of writing my memoirs right now. and i am reliving a lot of these experienced this and msm are not very happy memories. i'm through 2008 on the pain is somewhat a keogh. but you know, in 2006 i became chairman of the fda's the and in june of 2006, one of the responsibilities was being a member of the oslo community and as arthur pointed out, we were in the process, the fdic was art in the process of the big fight with both the other domestic regulators here as well as the foreign regulators over implementation of something called the basel to ratings-based approach, which in my view is basically a way to let her decide for themselves how they want to risk assets.

about a thousand pages of rules. if you have the day that was kind of where it came out. so we are fighting not, but were also fighting keeping a leverage ratio as a complement to risk based capital. if you only have one without the other, you can have perverse incentives, where they really voted up in on the higher yielding, high-risk sovereign debt because they could give it a zero risk. and the u.s.a. for 5% leverage ratio, 5% of capital can't be held against exposures. that was not the case in europe. anyway, not knowing better and went to my first basel committee meeting in a sober 2006 and a told will make the chairman of the basel committee that i wanted to bring up the idea of an international leverage ratio. so we're fighting to keep you here. i was going to tell them they needed one, too. so that wasn't not very well. i really got raked over the coals and part of it was coming

in and who did i think i was? but it was amazing the french and the germans really went after me in daily to story to the economist. it was like i've just been shot three or four months. they're trying to throw attenders of all the sophisticated work on myspace capital. so the rest is history. we finally did an international leverage reissue in 2010. it's only 2%, not 5%, but it does cover off balance sheet exposures. but still, i think it's going to be a struggle to implement even not appear so it's really unfortunate. but you just have to keep fighting. i did apropos the topic at the conference. i did want to share some news with you on dodd-frank. it's obviously a very big law, so i won't be able to cover the full waterfront. but we did want to talk about a few areas and provisions that are sort of topical and ones

that i think are very important. one obviously is too big to fail -- ending too big to fail. this is certainly my signature issue when congress was to returning dodd-frank. you know, i went to the crisis having to do things i didn't want to do in terms of dealing out and supporting institutions i thought it been quite poorly managed. we just didn't have the tools they need to turn the crisis with the information to do with the situation in any other way. a big part of the problem with the resolution authority only applied to ensure banks. so much of this is occurring outside of ensure banks. i think one of the lessons -- the historical lessons of this crisis is after the s&l debacle in the banking crisis in the early 90s, congress really tighten up in regulating insured banks, as they should have. a guy pc in stronger capital standards and a lot of good

things. what ended up happening is yet better capitalization of supervision within the insured things, that you had everything coming -- popping up outside of insured banks. when the crisis hit, so much activity in distress is even within bank holding companies, really the activity causing the problem was outside at the bank. but there is really no way. we also did not good enough rules to separate the insured bank from the nonbank pieces. there wasn't a way to resolve the institution a a way that would not involve the stomach risk in a holistic manner. so really, what we needed was the ability to resolve both the nonbank pieces and the big pieces of the holding company for the very largest institution and that is pretty much what dodd-frank gave the fdic at 32. you know, i just heard this -- a republican candidate, dodd-frank

institutionalized too big to fail. it's just not true. it's the opposite. prior to dodd-frank, there was something called the systemic risk which gave the fdic authority with the super majorities in my board and the sad and the secretary all in green to provide individual open bank assistance to financial institutions. dodd-frank got rid of that. it says you're not going to daylight individual institutions anymore. we're going to give regulators authority to provide systemwide support to help the institutions who have a truly systemwide event, where everybody is having trouble. at the individual one-off poorly managed institutions have to be put into receivership. we don't care how big they are. they need to be put into receivership and resolved in accordance with the fdic's rolls which are very, very much like bankruptcy. some people call a sufficiency bankruptcy and that's an

accurate description because the same claims priority with equity shareholders and unsecured creditors taking the losses if the institution goes into resolution. so it's a tough love. i think if people read a lot they will see that. we've toughen it up more and implementing rules. for instance, dodd-frank does give the fdic ability to differentiate among creditors, but with a straight claims priority similar to that if you have a bankruptcy. there's discretion as the reason bankruptcy. it is necessary to continue operations in the franchise. each day employers, vendors, security people come the people that all blondes preview can make those creditors hold to maintain essential operations. you can also differentiate what maximizes recoveries. again, similar to what you have in bankruptcy now. we actually use that with insured banks now frequently when we feel a failed bank auctioned it off to other

bidding institutions. they were typically get us what we call in all deposited, which means that the bidder does not want to impose haircuts and uninsured depositors. so if you're uninsured come your subject to loss by the fdic, but the acquires we find the want to pay more to keep those uninsured deposits whole. which actually will save us money if we sell the whole deposit then as a poster haircutting that depositor. they want to die because typically the big business customers don't want to impair those customer relationships. so in that kind of limited situation, we would make an shirted depositor because that makes more sense to us mathematically speaking a maximizes recovery. you could do the same type of thing with the nonbank resolution now. those are two very narrow exceptions to differentiate. they are somewhat objective i think an easy to determine. so we have put out raids to say

very strictly these will be the narrow circumstances that we differentiate a lucky step further and say you know what? if you're a term debt holder than a year, will never differentiate because we've had dozens of resolutions and there's never been a situation where we found that he turned unsecured debt holder needs to be paid off to maximize recoveries are to continue operations. it's just not the nature of the liability. so that was even tighter than wide dodd-frank provided. of course anybody shorter than not come your also subject to loss, but there may be for short-term liabilities the trade-off where will maximize recoveries if you maintain this relationship. so, the fdic even made it tough for. and you know, i think too big to fail well and -- of course it's over. the fdic restarted as soon as

dodd-frank was enacted. we started internally. we have resolution plans in place for other major institutions now. i don't think anything is going to be happening, but this is a matter of being prepared. there are strategies come a lot of skepticism, the strategies can be used now to resolve these very large institutions. one instructive document you might want to look at if you're interested is to go to the ftc's website and take a look at analysis of the lehman brothers bankruptcy and how that could've been resolved in resolved and that dodd-frank.franc provision. how could it have been resolved under title ii? and there's also a lot more creative thinking, both at the fdic as well as internationally, using something called bail and that. i know if he talked about that or not, but the point of resolution within fdic resolution, all the unsecured data is available for losses for haircut. the idea would be for a large institution, hopefully with this

resolution plans will able to get large institutions into marketable pieces. part of the planning process is to get them to a separate legal subsidiaries that can be sold up in marketable pieces appeared for lurch and become another strategy is to recapitalize that. one of the ways you can do that is by converting some piece of the unsecured debt into an equity position. but that is another thing we've been in robust discussions and there's a lot of issues there in the report. that's another strategy is very actively considered at the fdic and they will be presenting similar papers and roundtables on that subject because it really is important for the market to understand the kinds of tools that can be available and would be used in that situation. and again, we are going to entity to fail unless the market itself is convinced that you know your money's address and you invest in large financial institutions, government will not bail you out anymore.

before you invest, each kick the tires come as he was on the balance sheet and what kind of management they have. baby about to charge more of a risk premium for buying that debt because there is no more bailout. i was very gratified to see the rating agencies to eliminate some, not all do some of the bump that they give the largest financial institutions for so-called perceived systemic support. when i talk to the rating agency, it was funny, s&p went out for, not a question of how they should rate and i actually broke them a comment letter saying they should be downgraded, that i didn't want to see a bump up anymore and the wall street editorial board says something is wrong when a bank regulator is asking for a bank to be downgraded. [laughter] i want them to stand on their own two feet. i don't want anyone to think the government will come anymore because they're not. you will feed the beast if you maintain too big to fail. they will continue to access market funding and lower

premiums than they showed because people are thinking the government is going to come and bail them out and not let them fail. so when a too big to fail is the biggest thing that dodd-frank does. take a lot of dodd-frank, it's a lot about implementation regulators using the tools that they have. but these resolution pants will be huge. we really were flying blind during the crisis. i felt like we had -- i had one arm tied behind my back because our information systems really justify to the main. we didn't have much information outside the bank in the sec of ephedra in better shape, but they would acknowledge the information they had was not as good as it should've been. consider requiring resolution plans -- you know, resulting entities is really nuts and bolts. a lot of it is being able to map the business lines to legal entities.

if your mortgage origination platform is than 500 legal entities, it's kind of hard if you decide you want to break at the entity to even identify the legal entities and package them and sell them off can be operationally quite difficult. suggest requiring this entity is not their business lines to the legal entities and only to simplify as well. they are far too complex, especially ones that have undergone rapid growth over the years through of acquisitions. this will have a tremendous benefit to the risk management at the institution as well. these are the two nations are huge. when you look at the charge of the legal entities, if not impossible for regulators to figure out completely what's going on, but it's impossible for the boards and managers as well. simplifying the structures and getting understanding of what's inside the institutions will be very, very helpful to boards of directors as well as the senior

executives. it's a part of this process the regulators in bank should be looking at creating more separate legal subsidiaries with their own boards and management teams. servicing is a prime example. but in the world is going on air? i mean, everybody was doing it. just rampant disregard for state laws and rules in having documents in order. have been under the nose of managers and supervisors, but i do think it's a good example of how these institutions are just too big to regulate and too big to manage. so maybe there are synergies or you can share your i.t., share premium, but having separate legal subsidiaries that are separately managed and run with separately accountable management could do a lot to improve the management and risk control is that these very, very large institutions.

as you probably know, dodd-frank gives regulators authority to order structural changes and they don't include that in the resolution plan. if they still can't demonstrate their institution is resolvable, there is authority to order them to downsize and start divesting. these are very, very powerful tools i think to make sure institutions can be put into a resolvable form. again, like with most of dodd-frank is really, will regulators be willing to use them? i think and i hope that they will. another feature is ending today to fail as it's interesting if you look at dodd-frank on the resolution plan, the goal of the resolution plan is for the institution to demonstrate that the nonbank components of financial organization can be resolved of bankruptcy. not with title ii, but without systemic implications is a very, very tough standard and one which is not going to be reach for several years. it's not so much the banks

because the banks have real work ahead of them. but it's also the bankruptcy code. then a few bankruptcy lawyers out there, let me just pitch to you for a few mins to reach a lot of bankruptcy courts because winnebagos and to resolution, frequently there'll be a bank holding company that will go into separate process. that's what happens at the smaller institutions. i've got to tell you, if iraq quagmire. first, the way derivatives are treated. all the counterparties have super priorities, so they have two close at their position, close collateral. that's what you saw with lehman. average was point not collateral, trying to the hedge and that was really, more than anything, what froze the market. with our resolution process, we cannot counterparties continue to perform and accept to repudiate tributes contract performance. but that hopefully many

disruptive impact you have an derivatives counterparties are trying to pull out at the same time. remember too, bankruptcy is just a really over litigated process. maybe the group of lawyers that doesn't sound like that to you. but you know, i look at the lawndale bankruptcy. it was result three years ago now. it was immediate. deposits are transferred, lending operation transferred. no deception in the credit functions of the institution. depositors have continued access. look what happened to the holding company. there's about a billion of value and it is still not been paid out. lehman brothers is the same thing. with lehman, i have read administrative costs or it exceeded $2 billion now. now what is up with? cannot blame the bankruptcy. i think they do a great job. consider all the things they have to put up with. but i think what taxes is

because the process takes so long, what i call the real creditors, dig it out and sell pennies on the dollar. and the scavenger funds currently pay anything for it. so it's really litigation takes and it just really creates a quite unpleasant situation and one that does not serve creditors well because it takes so long for the money to be paid out. most of them get out by selling very, very steep discounts. out of this part of this come in the congress to take another look at bankruptcy because it soper track did inexpensive and the treatment is so disruptive i think it's going to be difficult here if they want non-banks, they really need to make some changes to the bankruptcy code. that is something that has not been looked at as much as it should be a i hope that we will get some more intentions. let me talk a little bit more

about the local rule now because it's obviously very topical. i for one and still plowing through it. it's very long and complex if you've noticed. you know, i think the length and complexity underscores a broad concern about the dodd-frank rulemaking process. i do think dodd-frank is a big law and it needs to be big. there were a lot of things that needed to be fixed. gone the other hand, already regulation the subject to political pushback and pressure, a lot of lobbying activity. now more than ever we need broad public support. we've got to have it. the regulators cannot stand up to all of this if they don't at least have some broader public support. that kind of support is difficult to obtain. these rules are so complex you, you can't explain what they are trying to accomplish and how

that benefit the broader public. so i do think, you know, the rules are complex for a couple reasons. i spotted the fdic, a couple things happened. one is to try to prevent gaming. and i'm talking the lawyers. lawyers especially do this. they were going to have this basic rule on proprietary trading and risk retention for securitization or whatever they try to start trying to anticipate ways that could be gained. some of the thinking is good, but sometimes he gets in areas that may or may not play out. you can build into the complexity, a prime example. it's a small thing, but when i was at the fdic, they started resolving banks, i discovered tremendous complexity we had with regard to how the insurance limits applied to trust accounts. my gosh there were complex rules about, you know, your

granddaughter could be a beneficiary, the grandmother couldn't be. so all the different relatives that could account and couldn't count to know that. people got confused and they're naming the beneficiaries and that they didn't think their deposit insurance or ended up not having it when they thought they did. so i said, why, why are you doing up at? and they were really worried about being gained. they said maybe someone could just bought a phone book and start listing inside of the phone book and see their beneficiaries entitled to unlimited deposit insurance. i said why would somebody do that? are going to be leaving their money to some but people. so we changed. so we said coming because i beneficiaries. we want names and addresses. you cannot fight beneficiaries and that's really all you need to do. i mean, everybody understood it then. it's so much easier when the resolve of bank. but it's one example of how was the best of intentions you can

build complexity to address things that are going to happen. more fundamentally, it frankly is industry lobby. you start it with the principal and it found good, but they can send and says goodbye to do it this way. and you get that from everybody's trying to be accommodating and all of that. and pretty soon you have a lot of exceptions to your general principles. i hate to sound like nancy reagan, but sometimes you just need to say no. senator jax, say no that to bank lobbies. you've got to say now. [laughter] you do. you just need to say no. [applause] i do think that's important and i think the principles need to be in there and i thought that the staff and support staff. the staff i think that is very important to let the staff know they just want a good clean quality rule. it's probably harder to write a simple rule than it is a complex

role. so i think this is something the agencies need to be very, very focused on. all that said, i will say the poker was tough because activities restrictions are always tough. it's hard to decide to these restrictions. i would note that the report in the u.k., they are doing a bit of a different direction. they are basically saying, okay, keep high-risk activities in the larger financial organization, but we are going to have a retail bank and of higher capital and then we will have what they call us on the joke casino bank over here. you can do a lot of bad stuff over here come the boule benefits of traditional banking functions. and so i think a couple things on that. i think it might help with the volker rule because of difficulties in defining bright lines in the proprietary trading as for the great areas to basically say, okay, we're not sure about this activity, but we

know we are going to put it outside in the investment bank to require multi-applicants. and i think trying to look at legislation would it be as placed in having enhanced provincial decisions could resolve complexity and trying to fine-tune what is and is not proprietary trading. that said, why don't agree with the report is a suggestion somehow you need rest speculation. i think they have that upside down. if you're going to go that route, you want more capital, not less in the harvest banking activities. again, goes back to derivatives and relationships. having less capital unless potential supervision over the investment banking functions i think it's a cannot say down. obviously as a performer deposit insurance is my strong belief. the bank holding company or organization should be a source of strength, not weakness for the bank. this is why we push hard for the

collins amendment, and other provisions of the dodd-frank mother says the holding company has to have capital standards that are at least as strong as we have for the insured banks. it's been weaker in the past anything that was huge, but again, looking at where the activity is conduct and how much capital is held against it may be one way perhaps the volker rule could be simplified a bit. you know, just a couple more things. on the enhanced provincial standards, which is something the fed has charged under dodd-frank and opposed standards under the larger bank holding companies and other entities designated as systemic. again, we need stronger, not weaker regulation for these holding company structures. the one thing i hope that the federal focus on, they don't have the rules out quite at, but one of the things that is supposed to be in the enhanced provincial standard is limitation on interrelationships

and that relates to a piece of the living will called credit exposure reports in that piece actually has not been proposed yet. it was not in the rule that the fdic finalized. basically what a credit exposure report is telling the financial organization, you need to tell us who your counterparties are and you also need to tell us who out there is going to hurt you. that's really important information. i think the knee-jerk reaction was always to bail out because of uncertainty. for that bank expert on foreign trust company go down, who else is going to go down? we just enough clarity on that subject. the credit exposure reports are huge. ticket information is important, making banks and bank holding come nice he is important, but

limiting the concentration credit exposures will be equally important for the fed. if there is one thing which i doubt we tackled urgently enough, it is the center relationships. i look at what's going on in europe now and i keep hearing this. we can't let kris default for the whole system will come down. my gosh, look at 350 billion euros of outstanding greek -- and greece cannot default without our entire financial system -- global financial system coming down. what is wrong with our financial system? first of all, the statements are exaggerated, but it does point to a larger problem. is this domino effect, especially with derivatives and credit default swap. so identifying credit exposures, limiting credit exposures, especially with credit default swaps by putting more stringent limitations on concentration, especially cbs, it will put more pressure to move them into a

centralized clearing, which would be a good thing. these interrelationships are something that really is very urgent attention and i am hoping that will be part of what is addressed in the fed's enhanced provincial standards. let me just say final comment is i think the best regulations and most effective regulations are the ones that aligns economic incentives and let economic incentives work to make the market work week showed. that's why lakes can indicate requirement spirit i like high capital, risk retention ending to be too sad because the market will take was how america will do a better job of marketing financial institutions. capitalism cannot work if the people responsible for the decisions that caused the losses are absorbing losses. securitization was a prime example, where nobody was holding the list and the

investors were happy relying on breeding agencies and they didn't hold the risk. so you had a situation throughout the incentives came to generate large volumes in. that amounts to several of us getting paid up front and no one thought they would have a problem. it was going to be someone else's problem if you have losses later on. so i think risk retention, capital, skin and again whatever form form you can find. making incentives work for u.s. regulators. i also think on risk retention rules, another piece of dodd-frank -- this may not be a popular view, but the presumption -- the general rule is 5% risk retention for a securitize their issuing mortgages into a securitization. they need to retain 5% of the risk. i would like to be higher, but the statute says 5% amazing exception for something called a qualified residential mortgage.

basically this is something that kind of got put in in this tells regulators to fine gold standards are really safe mortgages, were we look at standards and they just have to be so safe that we know we don't need to retain it. i think that's highly problematic. i think trying to write to a new page rules to define the save mortgages have a lot less efficient than saying if you're bridget made it, even if you put in securitization and every time there's a lot some out loud how they'll take 5%. i think that's a much, much better discipline on the origination standards. so i don't know a great leaders will do with this, but i hope if anything the titans if you are in standard and not listening because again, risk retention, skin in the game, making people pay for mistakes will be the best disciplined against excessive risk-taking and leverage going forward. i thank you for the opportunity to share and i'd be happy to take some questions. thank you.

[applause] >> so as moderator will take prerogative to the first question from which you mentioned economic incentives matter light and your agency is one of the few that is gone after executives at major institutions that have caused big losses. how do you think her approach to holding senior executives and traitors personally responsible, will show that played quite >> that's really good question. another disadvantage of the bailouts is the people that were responsible, their institutions didn't fail. again, so much regulatory structure was fashioned with the notion that the entity would be inside insured bank said it was then. and so, we went and answer the fdic can see the officers interact tears who were responsible for the losses. if the institution doesn't fail, there's no capability to do

that. so we do very vigorously go after folks the cost was 10 in my view when i was chairman of the shikoku personal assets. there's always a cost benefit analysis that is sometimes easier to set easier to set in the case if you and make it in terms of the discipline effect of the signal you want to spend. going after personal assets is important. there is a lot of talk about people should be going to criminal prosecutions in some cases that might be exactly right. for a lot of this, we probably did not breach the line of criminality. but i too think people should pay out of their pocket and pay severely and again because the bailouts, mechanisms we have in place to pursue those recoveries just as they are. >> either questions in advance? >> if i could add one more thing. under title ii, we can just

automatically forfeit two years worth of pay for the senior executives, which is good. i'm sorry, go ahead. be not thank you. hi, i'm angry at the source of bank analyst from new york. thank you for coming to speak at this event. i'm curious -- there are examiners on-site at the big financial institutions 52 week side of the year the occ and i'm not certain about the fdic, but i know if it is a state bank is in there annually. while the counterparty risk analysts -- i mean, how committed they weren't interviewed come to understand voters that capital will translate it than my last question is, you get to see where there is some kind of sharing that the data. and i had kind on the fed had in its detailed in the revenues the

unrealized cash gains from the performing mom, you know, were you at real operating cash flow versus all of this fake stuff i was unrealized, non-cash going to the income statement. so the fdic sees them. so how come along when you folks who knew that the fed was that really -- that the data could help you distinguish what was real honest cash flow versus state earnings, that later analysts were scrutinizing the data that was going to be collected for consolidated enterprise and the nonbank subsidiaries. >> well, a couple things. i think you are right about the analysts. we should be engaged more. we created a complex financial restitution when i was at the fdic and we have a monitoring unit that we find more private analyst reports.

there is more ongoing exchange of information with private analyst. so i think that is number one. i think the information is still complying primarily to insured banks. at least the stuff coming my way was going to insured banks. that is not to say that we couldn't her authority services including financial statements, perhaps could've done a better job of looking at that and we didn't. but as deposit insurer, perhaps our systems are geared toward supporting what is going on where exposure was. i think to the extent we have broader questions about the holding company we should have been asking, but again, we're thinking we're not holding company regulators in the information would've been brought to us by the holding company regulators there is cause for concern. but looking back, i found out a lot of things that we should focus on earlier. but our systems just for such a. i mean, we could be honor of

getting into the fed's business and looking at the consolidated financials and asking what was going on outside of the bank. but again, i think it's always a challenge in diplomacy to do that and it was not within our mandate. and so, we didn't. but the good news is we're doing it now and dodd-frank giveth back up authority so the mindset going forward is looking more broadly at the entire financial organization. >> thank you very much, chairman bair for talking to us. i'm a third-year student has he mentioned nancy reagan before and i am wondering if looking back on writing your memoirs you have a time where you wish you would've just said yes? last night >> said yes? boy. i said no so much.

[laughter] i know, that's right. you stumped me. you really have. you know, i think if anything -- i'm sorry, but i feel like i should've said no more. i think during the urgency of the situation and money to make decisions very quickly, you know, if you do why the consequences are less severe than if you don't do enough. and so i think in retrospect, i'm only through 2008, but so far i think if i have regrets, is that i should've said no more to be honest with you. [inaudible]

>> in 2006, you are invited to a hearing before the house subcommittee on guidance on commercial real estate and he was a pretty rough hearing. you and the other regulators. a couple years later, 322 banks went down in the fdic analysis was, g we should've done more to restrain commercial lending -- commercial real estate. same thing happened with the subprime guidance. the same thing happened with fannie and freddie basically trying to stifle the regulator that might've stopped them from getting into as much trouble. i am wondering if there is a problem that the industry too often lobbying against its own best interests. >> yes, there is. and you know, you're absolutely right. i'll never forget it the commercial real estate, mortgage guidance and subprime guidance which we initiated that. i will never forget we were pushing subprime guidance in an

industry group came in to meet with me and it was the most unbelievable name. the subprime delinquents were going up significantly. we brought this database of private label securitized loans and loan level data. i couldn't believe what i was saying. the industry came in and said now, it's not our fault, not the mortgage fall. as for borrowers. the borrowers don't care about mortgages anymore. if they need a washing machine to go buy one instead of pay their mortgage. it was all the borrowers fall. i just could not believe it. so it was a bit of a struggle, but we did get the subprime guidance finalized in june of 2007. of course the other piece is so much damage had been done we are trying to get loans restructured and we're very concerned about what was going to happen. we had a series of roundtables to talk about the legal authorities that the servicers

had to restructure loans and we had accountants and tax workers and originators, everybody there and we were able to establish they did not have authority to restructure these loans. we got commitments and chris dodd got public minutes they were going to do it. and then movies.com did a report in august or september of that year, basically saying less than 1% of these prime loans are getting restructured. everything was going into foreclosure. and i went public into an op-ed. and what to speak to another industry group in the securitization industry in new york. i said to them coming in to get these loans restructured and you need to do in a systemic way. to the extent they redoing it was this one by one laborious negotiating process and the volume of such -- we've joked that they step over a dollar to pick up a nickel. there were so worried that some

borrower would get some great they shouldn't have. they were going to have to go and get whatever they could from each individual barring of course that was just against their self-interest. so anyway, i gave this speech and a hand shot up in the back of the room. it was not well-received. a hand goes up in here again they said you can't help these people. you can't help these people. you give them a break on their mortgage, they'll just go out and buy a flatscreen tv. so i said okay. if you feel that way, why did you make a mortgages to begin with? [laughter] film of her day, he said bad regulation. so, it was my fault. why didn't i figure that out before quite this is securitization industry. these aren't even bankers. and i just couldn't believe it. all these years of the self-regulating market. as soon as things go bad if the regulator's fault. we still hear that a lot.

so it is shortsighted not industry's part that was one reason why i felt so strongly that we were not going to go borrow from taxpayers to pay for the losses we are suffering because of this crisis. we ask industry to pay. we have $75 billion from the crisis to cover losses for the resolution of field names that they did pan out they take pride in the fact that they paid them cut their insurance fund self-funded. i knew the minute we went to text here borrowing, that would be a very bad signal and who knew on how long it would take us to pay a factor may get pressure from the industry not to assess and i didn't want to do that because it is their deposit insurance fund and they need to do this game. economic incentives are in the consequences. next time around if we make sure the industry absorbs this, maybe they'll think a little harder when we try to tighten up on bad practices.

that theory has been met with mixed results, but i still think of is the right thing to do. >> i know the chairman has a tight schedule, so we should probably let you go. but not without thanking you for your wonderful speech. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> sunday, testimony from treasury secretary tim g eithner. he faced criticism from the ranking republican on the committee, senator olympia snowe. >> i was here when president reagan was elected and it was severe circumstances and we had 10.6% unemployment and guess what? we have a democratic house and republican senate and we workeed d hand in glove to get it done for the american people. we are facing a decimation of our communities and they want help and they feel they are not getting any deference from the administration and in congress to work together. but if you're talking about policy in 2014 and 2016, we have policy in 2014 and 2016, we have had three years of the