they just wouldn't be under fdic insurance umbrella.ld not be essentially subsidized by the taxpayer in that way. so they would have been more properly priced in the market somewhere else. lou: and, senator, as you look toward the year ahead of us, do you think that this is going to be a constructive, effective senate and house that will be able to do, to do business with this president who refused to compromise through the first six years? >> well, first of all moving beyond the harry reid senate has to be constructive around productive. i'm celebrating this week because this is the last few days of the harry reid senate in history. that has to be positive to end that. i hope we get to a more productive place with the president obama but that is largely up to him. that is about whether he is open to real compromise working with congress. so far unfortunately showed no willingness in that direction since the election. lou: senator david vittert, vitter good to talk with you. let's look at our online poll results. whether both parties ar

institutions to maintain derivative trading within their corporate structure, which means that the fdic as the senator just said will be insuring what would be risk that dodd-frank did not, did not anticipate or in point of fact, tried to remove. >> lou, if we had blocked the rollback, as you know, those derivatives could still happen. they just wouldn't be under the fdic insurance umbrella, wouldn't essentially be subsidized by the taxpayer in that way and so they would have been more properly priced in the market somewhere else. >> senator, as you look toward the year ahead of us, you think that this is going to be a constructive, effective senate and house that will be able to do business with this president who has refused to compromise through the first six years? >> well, first of all, moving beyond the harry reid senate has got to be productive and constructive. i'm celebrating this week because this is the last few days of the harry reid senate in history and that's got to be positive to end that. i hope we get to a more productive place with president obama but that's largely u

former fdic chair sheila bair is here next with reaction. stay tuned. can it make a dentist when my teeth are ready? can it track my crew's performance, and protect their heads? can it tell the flight attendant to please not wake me this time? at cognizant, we see opportunities for every company. to meet the new digital demands of their customers. can it process my insurance claim? like, right now? can it download a track while i'm sampling it? can my keys find me? with the power of digital, analytics and automation, now every little "thing" can provide even greater value. ok, so can it tell the doctor how long i have to wear this thing? the answer is yes, it can. so, the question your customers are really asking is, can your business deliver? >>> welcome back. it's t is the spending bill that would keep the government open in jeopardy? john harwood has the details. >> there's an agreement negotiated by the republican house, democratic senate, and the white house to fund the government through the end of the next fiscal year with the exception of homela

that is where you are accepting consumer deposits and you are backed up high fdic insurance. the push out rule says you have to push it out into separate units. warren adamant this was the wrong way to go. this is a headline you have -- wall street scores a win and eyes more victory. guest: there is a wish list of things they would like to scale back in. frank and you have seen a lot of these things pop up 2010.the law passed in they want changes to the focal rule.- to the volker all of these things are things that they are going to push in the next congress. as republicans who have been critics of dodd frank, you will see more of these things coming up. own stocks, why should this be of concern? guest: this is the response to the financial crisis. to scale back to make things safer work to restructure of the bureau that was created to look out for the consumer financial interest will be relevant to you. it wallat is on street's target? guest: along with the swap provision, there is the volker rule. banks cannot make risky trade with their own money. regulators have finalized

their -- some of the allegedly controversial trades, swaps in the insured side of the business by the fdic. all controversial. elizabeth warren on the left come out against the plan. you've got democrats in the house raising objections, not clear how serious those objections will ultimately prove. >> this is so frustrating because the deal was negotiated between a republican house, a democratic senate. why these last minute controversies? >> reporter: in addition to that, susie, negotiated with the assistants of the white house, but what happens is when you got people, staff, and members of congress, white house staff behind closed doors a deal they think they can hold together, sometimes in the light of day, you get members, especially more ied logical members on left or right saying, hey, i can't live with that and then a crisis. that's the classic way that washington gets itself in a ditch and i think we will still avoid a government shutdown but it's unclear for tomorrow. >> we avoid government shutdown quickly. do we get a bill to carry through the rest of the fiscal year or a stopgap

to basically put us all at risk because they want to trade these derivatives and be protected with fdic cannot go on. and so there are a lot of other things in this bill that's unacceptable. i am the ranking member of the financial services committee and i worked on dodd-frank. they're trying to undermine dodd-frank. they've been trying to get rid of dodd-frank piece by piece. we have to fight it every day. i am not going to let the people down. democrats are not going to let the people down. we're not going to vote for anything that's going to give the store to the biggest banks in america one more time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky -- the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished minority whip, mr. hoyer of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. ever aker, and members, since the conference report was reported out, leader pelosi and i have told everyone h

banks to continue to trade their riskiest assets with the backstop of the federal reserve and the fdic. democrats cried bloody murder over the provision and said it was unrelated to the overall spending bill. trillion that funds the government through september of next year and there were reports that jamie diamond was calling democrats asking for their votes and there is clear indication that president obama was calling up democrats. the vote itself was pretty bipartisan, the final vote was 219 four and 217 against. if you want to donate to either political party, you now have 10 times the opportunity up to $324,000, not ghost of the senate to see whether or not they can pass this and there may be objections. >> not all about spending it seems. is it going to be smooth sailing in the senate? the way the calendar works -- the deadline is monday -- they passed a two day extension. you could have senator ted cruz a republican from texas or a elizabeth warren a democrat from massachusetts and she is particularly incensed, here is what she tweeted. citigroup is holding government funding h

but no, when i was at the fdic wells fargo was not the bank i'd worry about. the big derivatives books, those are the ones i'd worry about having systemic impact and very difficult to wind down. >> raise the hypothetical, a big bank we all think of being prudentially sound gets into trouble. isn't there no doubt that the u.s. would step in this whatever way it could to save it? wouldn't you agree with that, chairman hensarling? >> well, i can't speak to what future that? >> i can't speak to what future policy holders -- policy makers would necessarily do. i can add vocate for policies i think would work best. i can say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. certainly after the crisis, i think you can make the case quite clearly that capital in leverage standards were inadequate, insufficient. i don't think you can make the case they were insufficiently complex. i'm afraid that dodd frank and bozul 1, 2, 2.5 a have are made them far more complex which i do not believe serves our economy and our nation well. so to me again the answer is to make sure, e

they took away the fdic condition, fdic's guaranty authority and i think lesss consequentially, littletightening stuff i recommended actually on the fed. we said, for example, i thoughtt the fed shouldn't be able to do firm-specific interventions in the future like aig or bear stearns. only generally available stuff. if you want to do firm-specific things, that should be left to the government. that was my view. the guaranty authority i think is very consequential because it was one of the most effective things that was done to limit the force of the panic in fall of 08. it is only way you break panics. one of the only ways you break panics. what happened was, congress, although it wasn't very controversial at the time, congress got caught up in a belief, the financial stations is what caused fires. it is not true. it doesn't happen that way. they got caught up in this belief, somehow if you limit the tools available to the fire station, you make fires less likely. that is also not true. but still they got caught up in that basic belief. so they limited condition that authority and wha

eliminate, get rid of the prohibition on fdic from trading risky derivatives.lizabeth warren has been leading the charge on that. she says by allowing government-backed banks to trade these risky derivatives, which warren buffett called the weapons of mass destruction, you put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. she is pushing an amendment to strip that provision and has cosponsored it with david bitter . apparently won't get it appeared on the republican side, jeff sessions of alabama and ted cruz ng to theare objectiv president's executive order. they say this bill should defund that executive action. they're pushing an amendment that would do that. that is not going to get a vote either. it provides a great opportunity for democrats and republicans to make their points loudly. it would probably get more attention of the government shutdown were imminent. i don't think that's going to happen. itemsother legislative option out there. what are they? caller: in addition to the on the best, you have a package of tax extenders. this would extend a variety o

banks banks and we're talking about, 99% of their derivatives are traded within the unit covered by fdicction. we are talking about all of it. >> it just puts us at risk and says -- if you are too risky staff,08 you have a back we have your back. >> we need a banker here to argue with us. i will give you the other side, they will say that it cost other people that get the money more money because they won't have the resources, that is the pass through. withll come back on this the cftc. advertisingrack dollars and what they say about the future of media, it is the single best chart next on bloomberg surveillance. ♪ >> next week she is so busy we cannot get her in here, shannon o'neill will join us for a council on foreign relations. oforing the collapse venezuela, it is happening in real time, shannon o'neill next week, look for that on bloomberg "surveillance." best chart.single >> it's not my chart, it is mary's chart. >> it turns out that old media it like rent and television still attract more advertising than they deserved. as part of the annual internet trend report -- >> it's wher

this required banks take the riskiest assets and have them not be backstopped by the fdic or the federal reserve. the bank wanted to rectify that. they are successful in attaching that to this overall spending bill. democrats cried foul. they are quite upset. jamie dimon is supporting the , as is president obama and white house chief of staff. the overall vote passed with republican and democratic support, but 67 democrats voted against it. now it's going to go to the senate. no sure thing. just a quick residual note. to keep the government funded through monday they passed a 48 hour extension. that was passed by the president into law, but we still need to see how the senate is going to react. >> when this goes to the senate, how big will the hurdle be to get this through? >> any senator can make a procedural objection. you just need one senator. what elizabeth warren or ted cruz has to say. it could delay the final passage. >> thank you very much. we will continue the political discussion after the break. we will talk to pam. ab -- talk japan. shinzo abe looks to strengthen his mandate

a bombshell new report says a program called operation choke point used the fdic to encourage banks to make sure illegal businesses don't have the access to u.s. financial system. many republicans say they use it to create hurdles for companies that it doesn't support s.>> the storms had to bring days of heavy wind, rain and snow. it is churning up the coast. >> we are dealing with another another easte -- nor' easter th second in weeks. it will be mainly a raiven vent but interior sections could get a foot or more of snow. the storm is just starting to get its act together. as you can see we are seeing rain across dc up towards philadelphia and new york city. then we have the mixture sort of west of the i 95 corridor. interior sections could get a foot or more of snow. look at the rainfall. we have flood warnings from new jersey to maine where we could get several inches of rain and wind. also the potential for 6 to 12, even 18 inches of snow. flood advisories posted among the areas here where we could see several inches of rain. the real story is going to be the wind, 30, 40, 50 mile

. >> is the fdic prepared to handle systemic crisis? >> not like 2007-2008. we came this close to a global and financial melt down. dodd frank is meant to address some of those problems. in some sense generals fighting the last war. there are going to be new crises break out but we don't know where they'll appear. >> mr. morrissey? >> i don't think we're at all prepared to handle another crisis. this thing became politicized. in detroit they got rid of the ceo of general motors and chrysler because they had to bail them out. jamie dimon is still there. the chairman and ceo is still there. they are not going to get restructured as long as mr. obama is sitting in the white house. >> taking this away from big business, i want to talk about small business, what does this mean to small business and access to credit? >> it means they don't get enough credit, that's the bottom line. jamie dimon has about enough interest in financing small business loans to companies in detroit as in advancing my career. >> i agree with that. it's bad for consumers and taxpayers beca

this said you can risk fdic money. it will increase the odds of their collapsing the economy again.he taxpayers will be on the hook. as someone said, i forget who, if there is a bailout a few years down the road, people look back and see who voted for this and they voted for the taxpayer glout. >> not that many years out from the last crisis. the chipping away of dodd frank is not the only 1 that got snuck this there. there was access to abortions and defending and clean air and water regulations and the campaign finance changes. >> the increases and the derivatives were the two big ones we didn't know about. we were being brief and negotiated and we didn't hear about it until a day or two before. the other stuff, we were negotiating with the house is controlled by the republicans. we were having bad provisions. i knew that. i didn't like the bill for a lot of other reasons. the funding levels and things like health and scientific research and housing and education, all these things we have. >> we keep hearing from representatives and reporters on this. we didn't know what was in th

fact one -- during the financial crisis, when all the support through tarp and from the fdic and the fed is added up, citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. that's half a trillion, with a t. that's almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got. fact two -- during dodd-frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleagues senator brown and senator kaufman that would have broken up citigroup and the other largest banks. now, that amendment had bipartisan support and it might have passed but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between wall streeters on wall street and wall streeters who held powerful government jobs. they teamed up and they blocked the move to break up the banks, and now citi is larger than ever. the role that senior officials played from the treasury department played in killing the amendment wasn't subtle. a senior treasury officials acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with "new york magazine." the official from treasury said -- and i'm going to quote here -- "if we had been for it, it probably would have

in the passage of the omnibus bill making sure that the derivatives markets would be protected by fdic and the banking system. that is big-time stuff. they know what is going on. they know it is very fragile. and big banks were not going to get stuck with this so the five big banks got their protection. it will be dumped on taxpayers just as the lasko laps was. melissa: ron paul, thank you so much for joining us. we appreciate your time, congressman. >> thank you. melissa: the panel is fired up and ready to react to ron paul as we count down minutes until janet yellen takes the stage and moves the markets again. do you ever have too much money? no way. we'll be right back. here's a question for you: as nations develop over the next 25 years, the world will have almost twice as many cars. how much fuel will be needed to power them? about the same as today? 50% more? 100% more? the answer is... about the same as today. by 2040, advances in fuels and vehicles could enable about 75% better fuel economy than today. take the energy quiz -- round 2. energy lives here. melissa: joining me now,

now, if that sounds ridiculous to you, you are not alone. , a republican, and former head of the fdic, responded that only in the wonderland of wall street logic could one argue that this looks like anything other than a bribe. , we want people entering public service because they want to serve the public. frankly, if they need a $20 million incentive, i would rather they stay away. why does the revolving door matter? well, because it means that too much of the time, the wind blows from the same direction. ,ime after time in government the wall street view prevails. and time after time, conflicting views are crowded out. consider the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980's and 1990's, followed by the no strings attached bank bailout in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. and most recently, the anemic efforts to help homeowners who had been systematically cheated by financial giants. the wind always blows in the same direction. the impact of the revolving door can sometimes be subtle. formerg phone calls from colleagues. no one likes to events policies that could sho

if they lost, they were bailed out by the taxpayer through fdic. dodd frank moved that kind of credit default swap bet out of the category that taxpayers could bail out. put them in a category that could not be bailed out by us, by you and me by the taxpayer. now the financial services industry has been pushing to get back in the category where they get bailed out. this would literally reinstitute the kind of casino betting the taxpayer would bail them out if they lose and they would make all the money if they win. it would put things exactly back where they were before dodd frank. so it is a really outrageous debate. it didn't get debated on the house floor. it was put in in the last minute. it is from the lobbyist's desk directly to the house of representatives. if this goes through, then democrats, i'm not sure how they can call themselves that. nancy pelosi has to wlim this vote for it to go through. they need 218 votes. if she does, there will be a lot of questions. >> now congresswoman, it seems also that they did didn't push, they didn't bar

from the dodd-frank wall street reform law that would leave derivitives still in institutions by the fdic keep you updated on the senate throughout this hour. >>> first, a few comments on what the "washington post" reports is a new malaise in america. reading the post article casts my mind back to july 1979. a lot of people who worked for then president jimmy carter finally realized folks across america stopped listen to the president. most of us were well up with a stagnant economy, high inflation, long gas lines and inflation. and, yes, we'd had a belly full of sanctimonious self-righteous incompetent in the white house. he loved to wear sweaters and play a somber part. wringing his hands over what he judged to be increasingly scarce natural resources, and insisting that we mere citizens set our top speed at 55 miles an hour and thermostats no higher than 68 degrees. president carter's ineptitude and inability to inspire the american people of course prompted him to go on national television and blame his failures, his lack of vision and inability to lead on those he thought should be f

that is where you are accepting consumer deposits and you are backed up high fdic insurance.he push out rule says you have to push it out into separate units. warren adamant this was the wrong way to go. this is a headline you have -- wall street scores a win and eyes more victory. guest: there is a wish list of things they would like to scale back in. frank and you have seen a lot of these things pop up 2010.the law passed in they want changes to the focal rule.- to the volker all of these things are things that they are going to push in the next congress. as republicans who have been critics of dodd frank, you will see more of these things coming up. own stocks, why should this be of concern? guest: this is the response to the financial crisis. to scale back to make things safer work to restructure of the bureau that was created to look out for the consumer financial interest will be relevant to you. it wallat is on street's target? guest: along with the swap provision, there is the volker rule. banks cannot make risky trade with their own money. regulators have finalized t

explodes, it's not going to take down the insured part of the business, the deposits that are insured by fdicnsurance. and that provision has been in dodd/frank all along. everybody has adjusted to it. but what happens now in the spending bill is they just repealed that provision, which means that the taxpayers ultimately will be on the hook if they get out there and engage in derivatives trading and it blows up the entire financial institution or the entire economy. you know, this is just one of those -- this is a basic safety and soundness provision. and it only applies to just a handful of the biggest financial institutions in this country. so what's really going on here? well, they can make more money if they can do all of this business under the umbrella of their insured operations. they want the american taxpayers to subsidize their risk taking. they'll take all the profits when it works and push the losses off on everyone else if it blows up. >> the republican lesson from the bailout, from the financial crisis, at least on the very far right side of the republican party, was supposedly

. >> you have the insurance from the fdic, we'll backstop you as a taxpayer. if you want to go and play in this very risky, lucrative market that can blow up in a massively destructive way, you have to set up a spin-off that be walled off from our system that protects you as a back stop? >> right, i want to make this distinction. we protect and continue to protect depositors. we no longer protect as a result of this bill, the institution, an aig or any other. the institution could still fail but there would be a claim on deposit insurance. i don't want to protect shareholders or bond holders or boards of directors from imprudent decisions, but you can't penalize the average depositor since we're talking about sums of $250,000 or less. what the amendment does is to remove that safeguard and let them tap back into and put at risk the deposit insurance funds. >> nothing gets a lobbyist more excited than the phrase must pass bill. and the wall street lobbyists were like we want to be able to do this risky lucrative stuff. maybe we can shove this in here and nobody

same time as we say to wall street, you can engage in risky activity th your derivatives, and the fdic will insure your action. that's just plain wrong. under this bill, under the act, if the bank wanted to engage in those risky activities, they had to be pushed out to another entity. and that entity could engage in those activities. but they were not insured by the american taxpayer. with this bill now we are saying the exposure, the recourse is with the u.s. taxpayer. just plain wrong. what is it doing on an appropriations bill except to be -- have this bill be taken hostage. this is a ransom. this is blackmail. you won't get a bill unless wall street gets its taxpayer coverage. so it's really so sad that something as -- which i respect enormously the appropriation process, because it's hard. there's so many competing calls on resources, so much that we have to try to invest in the american people, their health, their education, the economic stability, their family, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and how we fund all of that. and i have some questions about some of that i

this summer, the fed and the fdic determined that 11 of the country's biggest banks have no credible plan for being resolved in bankruptcy. that means that if anyone of them takes on too much risk and starts to fail, the taxpayers would have to bail it out to prevent another crash. we are all relying on the fed to stop that from happening, which means we are all relying on the fed to get tough in regulating the biggest banks. the question is whether the bank regulators can do the job we need them to do. that raises an issue about the influence of wall street on financial regulation and economic policy. it is an issue that affects not d but also the other banking regulators, the treasury department, and our government's entire economic policymaking structure. let's look at some facts. fact 1 -- wall street spends a lot of time and money influencing congress. public citizen and the center for responsible politics found that in the run-up to dodd frank, the financial services sector employed 1447 former employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, including 73 former members of congre

the swaps pushout rule makes big banks separate the riskiest part of their trading from the fdic-insuredounts. that means if risky trades fail like they did in 2008 we need a refresher course it won't crash the insured part of the business. it also means you, the taxpayer wouldn't have to pick up the tab for risky, reckless behavior on wall street. i thought we had enough of that. earlier today john boehner was asked about this provision in the spending bill. >> why should big banks be able to trade derivatives and have their risks covered by us, for the taxpayers. why should they be able to do that? >> i don't believe that to be the case. jessica? i don't believe that your description of this is the case. >> sounds like he went to the dick cheney school of communication on that one. a great nonresponse, a non-answer from the speaker of the house. i would like to know exactly how speaker boehner interprets repealing this key provision of dodd frank. one of the key democrats leading the charge to protect dodd frank is senator elizabeth warren. on wednesday night senator warren said this i

. >> tif they're allowed to move them into the banking arena, that means they've covered bit fdic, theallows the gamble olgt public dime that was gotten rid of by dodd/frank. that's pretty frightening and according to luke russert that's causing problems with democrats on the hill, saying they're not too happy and may not support the bill. let's talk about what's going on with political donations. that's a huge change. >> it is. in fact, this is the one causing just as much or if not more concern, especially among democrats at this hour. essentially if you're a top political donor who's maxed out, let's say, to the dnc, you'll be able to give even more now to three new political committees that essentially set up to help pay for the political conventions for something called building expenses and for another account that essentially would pay for election recounts. a lot of this actually used to exist. this essentially continues to chip away at the mccain/feingold campaign. democrats said, look, we were aware of the attempts to raise the caps on how much you could give, but we didn't s

a real opening here and it kills a key provision of dodd frank that has risky derivative trades of fdicounts. what they are doing is privatizing profit and they are socializing the risk. that's wall street's deal. what's the deal for the workers? you've got to take a cut. basically, this spending bill is great for wall street. it's horrible for the middle class, and i think the president of the united states punted on this big time. tomorrow the president's going to hold his final press conference the year. i'm not going to be there, but if i was i would ask the president, mr. president, you advocated for the middle class. we could pull out hoards of tape of you talking about the middle class in this country. why did you take a deal, why did you advocate for a deal that would cut the benefits for retirees who come from the middle class? why do they have to suck it up? what about that, mr. president? i would like an explanation because it flies in the face of everything the president talked about on the campaign trail. the president should have fought for these retirees, but instead he t

would be gutted pertaining to derivatives and whether or not banks could trade in those if they're fdic insured. so john boehner, andrea, needs democrats in order to pass this. if nancy pelosi is saying democrats should be in this bill, we might have to do some serious counting to the path of 218. i'm not saying this is going to go downright now yet, but things got a little bit more interesting, andrea. >> let's talk about home rule. what we used to call home rule. you know, we -- supposedly have a vote. we can't vote for a voting member of the house or senate. but we district of columbia residents are supposed to be able to vote. there was a referendum on legalizing marijuana. a lot of people voted for it. now it's been invalidated because congress can take things out of the district of columbia because we're not either a state or entity in legal standing. >> i think this probably reups the state hood debate. but the problem there is, if you believe in statehood fervently, this is more sort of kindling to light that fire. a lot of people will not pay attention to it. but you're right.

fact one, during the financial crisis, when all the support through tarp and from the fdic and the fedadded up, citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. that's half a trillion with a t. that's almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got. fact two, during dodd-frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague, senator brown and senator kauffman, that would have broken up citigroup and the other largest banks. now, that amendment had bipartisan support and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between wall streeters on wall street and wall streeters who held powerful government jobs. they teamed up and they blocked the move to break up the banks. and now citi is larger than ever. the role that senior officials played from the treasury department, played in killing the amendment wasn't subtle. a senior treasury official acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with new york magazine, the official from treasury said and i'm going to quote here, if we had been for it, it probably would have happened. but w

that means no longer allowing banks to leverage fdic insured deposits and their access to the federal reserve for speculative trades. in part, dodd-frank accomplished this through the swap pushout rule. the swap pushout rule, which is section 1716 of dodd-frank, makes federally insured institutions move their swap trades into a separate uninsured entity that does not have access to federal reserve discount window or other fed assistance. these trades are incredibly complex and risky and there's no public policy justification for the government to effectively subsidize them. before we even passed section 716, the biggest financial institutions were able to water it down. they won an exemption for swaps for -- quote -- "hedging purposes," which could be interpreted to mean a wide range of activities. but that was not enough. now they want to do away with section 716 by making the exemption so broad that the rule becomes meaningless. let's be very clear. this change primarily benefits the five biggest financial firms in the country. they account for well over 90% of swap transactions. th

to push out some of their derivative trading into separate accounts so they weren't subject to the fdic, the government insurance program. if that provision could be used for risky trading and could result in government bailouts. that's bad. let's work to make sure that doesn't happen. let's work together to restore that type of protection in our financial services. the i.m.f. doesn't receive funds under this omnibus bill. i think that's a mistake. i think our responsibilities internationally require us to -- to cooperate in that. there is provisions in here that interfere with the district of columbia home rule. mr. president, that won't be the first time we've done that, and i regret that. so it's not unusual to see those provisions in an appropriation bill, but it still doesn't make it right. it's not right. there are some missed opportunities here. i'm sorry that we're not participating in the green climate fund. this is an international effort to deal with the realities of climate change. the united states needs to be a leader. we're missing an opportunity by not participating in t

are the american institutions, our fdic, central bank, our congress for that matter, are they as strong and resilient as they need to be if we see some further crisis? >> on balance, i would say everybody tends to be self critical. of their own institutions. but on balance, hours are pretty solid. the federal reserve is a next-door near institution that mountaineers us through many things. institutionnary that mountaineers us through many things. great strength in the american economy. the judicial system, and so on. when we are fussing, we might think it would be nice of congress -- >> we never fuss. >> congress would stop disagreeing about things and get on with some programs -- >> but the institutional character is there if we face another crisis? >> the main front line of attack is the federal reserve -- >> and a great metaphor to use. the federal reserve has really been a sure but in this crisis ina at whose doorstep do you lay the blame for that? >> there are lots of parties like it to be on the list. excessive conservatism in response to the crisis -- >> the berlin prescription a

those accounts are backed by the fdic.overnment for the rich and powerful. we put this rule in place because people of all political persuasions were disgusted at the idea of future bailouts. and now no debate, no discussion. republicans in the house of representatives are threatening to shut down the government if they don't get a chance to repeal it. that raises the simple question, why. the reason unfortunately is simple. it's about money. it's about power. >> is she going to shut down the government? >> no, absolutely not. >> she's protecting the consumer. >> she's doing what she does very well. >> what's that? >> speaking to financial disclosure and -- >> thank you, mike. >> -- the potential destruction of dodd/frank. two, what she's doing, is giving us a preview of what's going to happen every day in the next congress of the united states. >> well, we need that. >> which is the republican majority in the house and the republican majority in the senate are going to -- >> debate. >> they're going to favor things that e

same time as we say to wall street, you can engage in risky activity th your derivatives, and the fdic will insure your action. that's just plain wrong. under this bill, under the act, if the bank wanted to engage in those risky activities, they had to be pushed out to another entity. and that entity could engage in those activities. but they were not insured by the american taxpayer. with this bill now we are saying the exposure, the recourse is with the u.s. taxpayer. just plain wrong. what is it doing on an appropriations bill except to be -- have this bill be taken hostage. this is a ransom. this is blackmail. you won't get a bill unless wall street gets its taxpayer coverage. so it's really so sad that something as -- which i respect enormously the appropriation process, because it's hard. there's so many competing calls on resources, so much that we have to try to invest in the american people, their health, their education, the economic stability, their family, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and how we fund all of that. and i have some questions about some of that i

the risk of another crisis remains unacceptably high take one example this summer, the fed and the fdicermined that 11 of the country's biggest banks have no credible plan for being resolved in bankruptcy that means that if anyone of ;d them takes on too much risk and starts to fail, the taxpayers would have to bail it out to prevent another crash we are all relying on the fed to stop that from happening, which means we are all relying on the fed to get tough in regulating the biggest banks. the question is whether the bank regulators can do the job we need them to do. that raises an issue about the influence of wall street on financial regulation and economic policy. it affects the head and the other banking regulators, the treasury department, and our government's entire economic policymaking structure. let's look at some facts fact one: wall street spends a lot of time and money influencing congress public citizen found that in the run-up to dodd frank, the financial services sector employed 1447 former employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, including 73 former members of con

spending bill that is most a continuation resolution and omnibus allows a rider with a guarantee from the fdic joins us now with more. phil, elizabeth warren is going to conduct this fight in the senate. is she going to win this battle, or is this bill going to pass? >> it's going to pass. i think there's a reality here that finally showed itself last night after a lot of hemming and hawing, and that is that people actually want to go home, and this will fund the government through september, which for people on capitol hill, that's like the longest time period they've actually dealt with in a very long period of time. so for economic stability and also for the ability to actually come back in january and do other issues other than fight about spending bills, this is important. >> what's amazing about what happened with elizabeth warren because of her in the house yesterday, it's the ability of this kind of anti-wall street strain, which has kind of been immering for a while, really think this changes the dynamic as we head into january. democrats have found an issue, and they want to seize it

don't try and use the people's back stop, fdic protection, do this risky trading with. if you think the american public is going to stand for a bailout of the biggest banks in america one more time, you're wrong. this bill is going nowhere. because we have enough people, i believe, that are going to stand up and fight on this issue and other issues in the bill. as the ranking member of the financial services committee, i'm just focusing on this one bad part of the bill because it is so outrageous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waters: i ask for a no vote on the rule and a no vote on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: this bill is bipartisan and bicameral. it was negotiated with the democratic senate and both sides aproved it before it was submitted to the rules committee for consideration. it's been alleged that the swaps pushout language was snuck into the bill, that it allows for risky tradi