it's a key part of my anwar legislation which would raise an estimated $150 billion for the federal treasuryices. even a fraction of those revenues could go a long way towards developing the resources and technologies that we'll rely on in the future. so i'm glad to see the revenues from energy production listed as a possibility in the catalyzing american ingenuity report. now beyond how much we spend, i think we also need to think carefully about our priorities. when we look back at where taxpayer dollars have been spent in recent years i think it's clear that we haven't really gotten to that all of the above policy. we can see that in how much the federal government has spent on solar and wind as opposed to some of the other areas. i'm always pointing out the opportunities that we have with methane hydrates. we can see that in the direction the administration has taken in choosing to focus on an electric vehicle, perhaps as compared to other promising alternatives. and finally, a point about how long we should be involved here. it makes good sense to invest in energy r&d, that's clearly in

designed so that in years where there was excessive claims payments, the nfip could borrow from the federal treasury and repay that with interest, which worked fine when there was losses and in the good years they could repay that. in 2005 they had to borrow billions of dollars, the debt peaked around $19 billion. it's currentry at $17.75 billion. with the current structure, the nfip is going to be unable to repay this debt essentially, so bringing us all back now to the reform, one of the key things in the house and senate bill is phasing out those discounts on a sub-class of property owners, commercial properties, for second homes and vacation homes, for what are referred to as severe repetitive loss properties, essentially the riskiest of the riskiest of properties, also some of the bills, i think they differ slightly. one of the bills would phase out the discounts every time the property turns over, so if a new person purchases a home or if an owner lets their policy lapse, when they go out to renew it, they'd phase out the discount too. >> there's been pushback, generally, on the program overal

bush was born with millions of dollars in a trust fund that was in federal treasuries it was in t. bills that he was born with nothing but ious i'm saying that if that money had been segregated and invested wisely i think it's i think it's a shame in this country are we should they are you are going to go back i seen you as an eight who paid in their whole lives to live on eight hundred dollars a month or so you wanted in the stock market so in two thousand and eight over there buddy everybody got wiped out if in two thousand and eight if you want to pick that point to go through then far and if you want take it back to now after we've recovered in the back of twelve thirteen thousand whatever you got there you're missing the point that social security is not and market we have thirty seconds to bring you into social security is not a retirement program it's an it's insurance against disability and poverty well it's supposed to be who's being held hostage here the american people this is a run out the clock shell game and they never get it done you should have to have a budget shou

it will hurt when abbott writes that check to the federal treasury., but several seniors across the country to suffer severe dehydration and exhaustion as a result. >> if there is one there has to be more. >> it should not be allowed, but obviously it goes on. i do not think it is an isolated situation. i think it is prevalent in most industries. >> the justice department said the company went to the extent of paying off pharmacists and in some cases nursing homes to get the drugs to its clients. >> that is it now for abc 7 news at 5:00. we will check in now for abc 7 news at 6:00. >> live and in hd, this is a abc 7 news at 6:00, on your side. >> good evening. our big story, a maryland man's plea to president obama from halfway around the world. next american hostage warren weinstein saying he would be killed unless america agrees to his -- agrees to al qaeda's demands. jennifer is following tonight's top story from rockville. >> the stated firm says it is working to validate the video. as for one son was a family, he has a wife and two daughters. the

system in which if expansion alone by the federal reserve it does not require appropriated funds but exactly the same use of sovereign resources by the treasury does. the only difference of whether the assets are held on the federal reserve or the treasury's balance sheet is the fact of the accounting procedure. and the inability or unwillingness for treasury department to go to the hill to get appropriatuations for that is what created a big problem for the federal reserve because they were involved in fiscal actions which is not the role of the central bank should be. >> you and others but you in particular have been criticized for not raising rates in 2003 and 2004. jeffrey lacquer says in 1994 you did get out in front with preemption. when you see the global debate today, not the fed but the global central bank debate today about when we raise interest rates, what data and you as a great student of data, what data should any central bank study as to know when to raise interest rates? >> well, it basically is of necessity involved in the forecast. all central bank actions presuppose an outlook which you are addressing because obviously the

treasury and the federal reserve are so heavily aligned with the interest of the largest banks in the world the systemically dangerous institutions and then on the flip side of this you have the senate banking committee holding this hearing today and a lot of the media outlets have been previewing that this is where jamie diamond will testify soon you have the chair man who according to the center for responsive politics can thank j.p. morgan as his largest campaign contributor so should we take a hearing like this seriously at all or is it just a dog and pony show well you should take it is possibly serious it's amazing sometimes even in dog and pony shows people. blunder so badly that they hurt themselves tremendously. it is true that. finding out is the leading contributor to both political parties and it's certainly true that you know for example house finance committee is now gargantuan when you look there's a cli and the seat just for the members swallow all in which they meet and the reason is that committee has been expanded dramatically and the reason the committee he has bee

senate leader says it would pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasury. >>> federal budget cuts in health care and social service for people living with hiv/aids. cuts which one supervisor calls devastating according to the "san francisco chronicle." a spokeswoman says he is willing, but the mayor has to cope with a $170 million budget deficit. >>> another setback for the sheriff. a judge ruled today that video taken of the sheriff's wife can be used during misconduct proceedings. these are still shots of the video why which you can see a bruise on her right arm. mayor lee wants the sheriff removed from the position. back in march, he pleaded guilty to a false imprisonment charge. >>> this evening, san jose could be making pay day history. the city council could make it the nation's largest city to cap the number of pay day store fronts. the pay day lenders with the ads and dollar signs crowding their windows are numerous in the lower-income neighborhoods where they are accused of taking advantage of the poor with the high interest rates on their short-term loans. measure f

circumstances that you describe, but i'm not sure it's right to think of other branches of the federal government, the treasury, congress and so on, and the fed as being sort of antagonists, competing against each other or playing off each other. i mean, one of the major functions performed by, you know, in open market operations is as has already been discussed earlier this morning, monetizing the debt. so the fed facilitates government expenditures and government borrowing, but otherwise would not be politically feasible if the fed were not there to monetize the debt. i think the fed and the rest of the federal government are much more likely to be seen as working hand in hand than opposing each other. >> which is actually what i meant exactly. i mean, the fed has been the government's enabler to a certain extent. the federal government's enabler, it's a that's part of our problem. it's difficult to use monetary policy to endlessly accommodate what we've taken on. >> yes, i agree with that. >> thank you, sir. dr. herbener? thank you. >> yes. i agree as well that it create as certain type of moral hazard to b

kucinich, would make the federal reserve an arm of the treasury. the other bills would make various changes either to the mandate or to the federal open market committees governance. i want to focus on the dual man date of maintaining stable prices and full employment for monetary policy. the full employment and balanced growth act set four benchmarks for the economy. full employment, growth and production, price stability, and the balance of trade and budget. to monitor progress towards these goals, the full employment and balance growth act of 1978 mandated that a the board of governors of the federal reserve present semi-annual reports to congress on the state of the u.s. economy and the nation's financial welfare. the humphrey hawkins charges the federal reserve with a dual mandate, both maintaining stable prices and full employment. currently, the unemployment rate is 8.1%. since president obama took office, it's gone from 7.8% around inauguration to 10% as the impact of the financial crisis spread, to 8.1% today. i do believe that the u.s. eco

and as a result, we have come to a standstill, because the income coming in to the federal treasury tosupport this government is the lowest level since president eisenhower was the president. so they can come to the floor all day long and criticize the president, criticize the democrats, but democrats just in the last two years have put over $2 trillion of cuts and reductions to some very important programs on the table. some of us have even been willing to say yes, we know we have to reform social security and medicare and medicaid, and been willing to speak those words, which are not easy. but yet, not one single republican leader -- not one -- on either side of the house or the senate, not one has come to this floor in public, on this floor -- i've heard them say it in private. i've been in meetings when they've said it. but not one has come to this floor to say "we're willing to put revenues on the table so that we can match some cuts and move this country forward." so i'm a little tired of hearing them beat up on either president obama or the democrats when they are more to blame

the nfip was designed as ole years there were excessive payments that it could borrow from the federal treasury repaid with interest, which works find that there is a few losses, but in 2005 and had to borrow billions of dollars. it peaked in 2008 after hurricane ike it is currently at $17 billion and it has been a focus of the reform efforts with the current premium structure that they will be unable to repay this debt, essentially. one of the key things in the house and senate bill is phasing out those discounts on that sub- class of owners for business owners, second homes, vacation homes, the riskiest properties. they differ slightly. every time the property turns over or if the policy lapses, they phase out the discount. host: there is been some push back on the program generally overall. let's listen to this republican from michigan. this is debate from last week on the national flood insurance program. [video clip] this charges some of the highest risk areas a subsidized rates and charges some other areas astronomical rates. you can use my home state of michigan as a great example where

the nfip was designed as ole years there were excessive payments that it could borrow from the federal treasury and repaid with interest, which works find that there is a few losses, but in 2005 and had to borrow billions of dollars. it peaked in 2008 after hurricane ike it is currently at $17 billion and it has been a focus of the reform efforts with the current premium structure that they will be unable to repay this debt, essentially. one of the key things in the house and senate bill is phasing out those discounts on that sub-class of owners for business owners, second homes, vacation homes, the riskiest properties. they differ slightly. every time the property turns over or if the policy lapses, they phase out the discount. host: there is been some push back on the program generally overall. let's listen to this republican from michigan. this is debate from last week on the national flood insurance program. [video clip] >> this charges some of the highest risk areas a subsidized rates and charges some other areas astronomical rates. you can use my home state of michigan as a great example

it is a key part of the legislation which would raise an estimated $150 billion to the federal treasury at today's prices even a fraction of the revenues could go a long way towards developing the resources and the technology that will rely on the features we are glad to see the energy listed as a possibility in the catalyzing american ingenuity report. now we on how much we spend i think we also need to think carefully about the pretty. and when we look back at where the taxpayers' dollars have been spent in recent years i think it's clear that we haven't really gotten to that all of the above policy. we can see that and how much the federal government spent on solar and wind as opposed to the other areas. i am always pointing out the opportunity that we have with the methane hydrates. we can see that in the direction the administration has taken in choosing to focus on electric vehicles perhaps as compared to other promising alternatives. finally point about how long should be involved here. it makes sense to invest in energy r&d. that's clearly in our interest but it's against our in

is there anybody in the room from department treasury or the federal reserve? see, that's the problem. they testify first. then they leave. and they don't listen to you. it's a chronic problem with the agencies that refuse to be on the same panel as to those who are regulated. these departments and agencies should be ashamed of themselves. it deprives you to represent the government. that's why mr. wheeler, i asked the questions that you wanted to ask. and that's the problem with washington. this is why the city is broken. they don't think they have to stick around in order to listen to the people impacted. i would suggest the next hearing we have is put force them to listen to the testimony. there's no reason they should go first. it wasn't until october 1st of 2009 that the fed actually adopted a policy -- are you ready for this? -- requiring written proof of a person's earnings before that person could fill out a mortgage application. now i would say that's pretty basic. they took an entire year to review everything. a bottom up review of what was necessary.

we are going to bring dollars into the federal treasury.we want to make sure we are giving our businesses an opportunity to compete because what this is about is it's about making sure we can sell american all over the globe. so i want to urge my colleagues to support this bill. in 2011 alone the bank supported over 288,000 american jobs and help finance over 3,600 american companies. this is an important piece of legislation. and one we should all be ab

it is hard to separate out what aig would be doing without the treasury and the federal reserve.s of billions of dollars in tax shields. the business looks a bit lackluster. the life insurance business is a tough environment. when you get access money after paying out claims and expenses, the interest-rate environment is not very helpful. it is not like you couldn't that back into a treasury and get a good rate. host: the tax situation is highlighted as is the ability for aig to buy back stock. guest: the two are linked. the treasury and federal reserve combined in the throes of the financial crisis put up about $180 billion to backstop aig. when a bankrupt company changes control, you're not allowed to move over the operating losses. this goes back to the 1980's. people were looking for companies with tons of losses. you could use that to wash away gains on income when you acquire it. the treasury department listed that ban on being able to carry over operating losses. gain.d a tax shield aig is not going to have to pay taxes. that is a huge selling point to tax holders. treasur

the treasury department was broke. federalpending multiplying as never before. $6 would be spent in 1862 for every dollar spent by the government in 1861. northern banks fearing a panic by demoralized investors had closed their exchange windows in late december of 1861, and were refusing to honor paper money by redeeming it with gold or silver. and if the chances of restoring the union seemed slim, even more remote was the notion that a freely elected government of the people would be strong enough to endure this crisis. from the days of the roman republic, to revolutionary france, no republic had ever survived such a calamity as this. both experienced and history taught the people of 1862 that was so much at risk and is up strong enemies, only a dictatorship was sufficient. in the smoke-choked barrooms of washington's final hotels and at the dinner tables of senior union army officers, in the drawing rooms of washington leading politicians, the idea of a military dictator was endlessly discussed. george mcclellan, union comma

british senator drawing it but the entire i mean bernie sanders wants to take this the federal reserve has taken in treasury all right i think you just get it all together and you have the same conflicts i mean come on one of the first it was i did it was very private it's run by the banks but if it's run by the u.s. government that's not any better they're doing the if you look at the structure it's freshest ok it's a public private enterprise so i mean it's got shareholders but they can't sell the shares it's not it's you just get rid of it completely the fact that. it's a trying still thing here and there but i mean i wouldn't even concern myself with giving jamie off because that's that's that's challenging the that's part of the good it's part of the deal if you have a fed you don't just get rid of the think entirely get rid of it oh so you're saying as long as we have a fed you're going to have jamie diamond on the board and of course the name of the game a senator you want to add me think. the senators might want to watch out for their pac funding and their funding for their reelection campaigns beca

treasury does. the only difference of whether the assets are held and the federal reserve or treasuries balance sheet is the fact of the incumbent procedure. the unwillingness of the treasury department to go up to the hill to get appropriations for that is what created a big problem for the federal reserve. they were involved very obviously in fiscal actions which is not what the role of the central bank should be. >> you were criticized for not raising rates and jeffrey lacquer says you did get out in front with preemption. at the global central bank debate today about when we raise interest rates, what data, and he is a great student of data, what data should in the central bank study to know when to raise interest rates? >> there is necessity involved in the forecast. all central bank options -- the impact of monetary policy drags out over time and you have to try to infer what is going on. the question of lowering rates in 2003 i think was the right thing and still think it is the right thing as an insurance against the type of deflationary forces we're looking at now. it but it never had any im

the same thing and what is happened in congress to some extent but a much greater extent treasury and the federal reserve they've gotten at this point a rule that says anything you call it. is ahead even though it operates the opposite way of a hedge and actually makes your last bigger than i call that's exactly we spoke about you know a lot of times when you're on the show with head you know it's morgan paying you had you have seen it was first blowing up but explain this to me because you have actually been invited and you wrote about this five times just since the recent financial crisis and so what makes this time different that you would be disinvited because you want everyone to get well first we don't know i mean they are the ones who does this in garb respect what they explained was the bank bashing here's what we know the setting is j.p. morgan just stepped in it and i've been writing about this. article after article explaining how morgan is a disaster how diamond should be removed from office like j.p. morgan isn't that what they're going to be briefing are all right if the numbers of

the federal reserve works with fannie and freddie's regulator and with the treasury to determine the size of the shortfall and over the weekend, the treasury with the feds came in and took those firms and put them in to a limited bankruptcy called conservatorship and at the same time the treasury got authorization from congress to guarantee all of the fannie and freddie obligations. so if you held a fannie and freddie mortgage-backed security the company itself was in partial bankruptcy but the u.s. government now guaranteed it so that protected those investors. that had to be done or else there would have been an enormous intensification of the crisis because investors all over the world held literally hundreds of millions of those securities. famously the middle of september lehman brothers a broke her dealer, and i will talk more about this in a the study coming up, had severe losses and came under great pressure. they couldn't find either anybody to buy it or provide capital for it so september 15 it filed for bankruptcy. on the same day merrill lynch and another big roker dealer

millions and billions parked in treasuries which means if their republican surrogates are successful in creating a crisis in congress the jacks up interest rates to the federal government the rates that are paid in treasuries these millionaires and billionaires will make more money in interest payments from taxpayers like you and me to the billionaire bond holders. they will win politically and they will make money in the process plus they have the perfect excuse to kill off programs that help those pesky working people and unemployed people probably ninety nine percent of americans don't realize that every time republicans provoke a crisis it causes the rating agencies to downgrade our debt like they did last year their billionaire benefactors make more profits from their investments in treasuries and that in the meantime while the rich are getting richer our nation is getting poorer and weaker the ultimate republican dream seems to be to turn america into greece total disaster capitalism so the working people can be stripped of their very last pennies and the rich can end up owning pretty much everything and pain virtually no taxes and they'll do it by scr

you talk about a bank like jp morgan it is regulated as you know by the s.e.c., by the federal reserve, by the treasury department and by the fcc -- >> i'm not sure either one of us was calling for more regulation. you have lloyd blankfein asking for better regulation. i think that's what dimon is saying, better regulation would make more sense. i think better internal risk management would make better sense. >> i think we both agree on that. let's look at the losers here. thank goodness the losers are not the taxpayers because it doesn't like jp morgan is going to get to a bailout. the losers were the shareholders that's the way it should be. when a bank makes a bad decision, the people should lose money out of the shareholders. >> and by the way, the shareholders are regular people who have jp morgan in their 401(k)s. if that made sense to norman people, this wouldn't have happened. i mean, the ceo of the bank said a month ago this was hog wash and then he lost $3 billion. could it have been 30 or more? could 2008 happen again? >> well, it could. we have the multiple tier of regulations already and t

when you talk about a bank like jpmorgan it is regulated as you know by the fcc, by the federal reserve, by the treasury department, by the fdic. we have -- >> wait. i'm not sure either was calling for more reguonstev a in, i ink less regulation doesn't make any sense. you've got people like lloyd blankfine asking for better regulation. maybe that's what jamie dimon is saying. better regulations would make sense. better risk management internally is what's really needed he. >> we agree on that. look, let's look at who are the losers here. thank goodness the losers, erin, are not the taxpayers, because it doesn't look like jpmorgan's going to get a bailout, thank goodness, and actually the losers were not the depositors. the losers were the shareholders. that's the way it should be, when a bank makes bad decision, like any business, the people should lose money, they're the shareholders. >> true. a lot of them are regular people hoop have jp morguen in their 401(k). when people make an argument about don't reg late. i mean, if that made sense to normal people, this wouldn't have happened. i mean, the ceo

a deputy assistant treasury secretary testified with the federal reserve board's michael gibson. they explained the designation process of the financial stability oversight council and how to avoid a one size fits all approach. this is about two hours. >> this hearing is called to order. i want to welcome everyone. this morning the financial institutions and the consumer credit subcommittee will examine the impact of being designated as systematically important financial institutions, specifically for nonbank financial entities. but i couldn't begin the hearing without talking about the most topical subject of the day or of the week there is no doubt that this week's news of jpmorgan's trading loss has raised significant questions about the supervision of risk within an institution. the story is still unfolding. and although it appears that the -- and seems to be that the firm had sufficient capital to absorb the significant loss, one of the questions i would ask is would a less capitalized institution survive a similar loss. are other financial firms that are deemed systemically

one piece to abolish the federal reserve sponsored by our chairman and another one sponsored by mr. kucinich would make it an arm of the treasurye others would make changes to the mandate for the federal market committee's governance and as ranking member of this committee i want to focus on the federal reserve's jewell mandate of maintaining stable prices as monetary policy. and the imbalance grows since 1978 better known as the humphrey-hawkins act, set four benchmarks for the economy. full implement, price stability and balance of trade and money. of full and balanced growth act mandated board and the federal reserve submit reports to congress on the status of the u.s. economy and the nation's financial welfare. the humphrey-hawkins charges the federal reserve with a dual mandate maintaining stable prices and full employment. currently the unemployment rate is 8.1%. since president obama took office in january of 2009 the unemployment rate has gone from 7.8% around moderation to 10% as the impact of the financial crisis spread. to 8.1% today. i do believe the u.s. economy is heading in the right direction with the proper nud

abolish the federal reserve sponsored by our chair then and another one will make the federal reserve an arm of the treasury. the other deals would make various changes either to the mandate or to the federal market committee's governance. as ranking member, i want to focus on the federal reserve dual mandate of maintaining stable prices. the growth act of 1970 a, better known as the humphrey- hawkins act, says benchmarks, growth, and price stability, and the balance of trade. to monitor progress, it mandated that the board of governors at the federal reserve presents semiannual reports to congress on the state of the u.s. economy. the humphrey-hawkins charges charges a dual mandate both maintaining stable prices and full employment. currently the unemployment rate is 8.1%. since president obama took office in january of 09, the unemployment rate has gone from 7.8% to around 10% as the impact of financial crisis spreads. i do believe the u.s. economy is heading in the right direction. as of march, at the consumer price index was 2.7 and%. over the past year a decline of 2.9 term. during the same time, energ

require corporate funds but exactly the same use of sovereign resources and the treasury was to the assets are held on the federal reserve on the treasury's balance sheet is the fact of the incumbent procedure, period. the inability or the unwillingness of the treasury department to go after the hell to get appropriations for that is what created big problems in the federal reserve because they were during involved obviously and fiscal actions, which is not the role of the central bank. >> you and others, but you in particular, have been criticized for not raising rates in 20003 come 2,004 i'm guessing. jeffrey among others said in 1994 you did get out in front with preemption. when you see the global debate today, not the fed put the global central bank today about when we raise interest rates, but data coming in you as a great student of data, what data should any central bank study when to raise interest rates? >> it basically is a necessity involved in the forecast. all central bank actions presuppose and not look which you are investing because obviously the impact of the monetary policy brazil over time and

and b, so will the federal reserve, and c, your treasury bond rates is going to one patrick dempsey it'sbe they're going to 50 basis points or 75 base points. we have never seen anything like this. could that happen in this new deflationary environment? >> if you end up with greece exiting, whether they opt to exit or they're pushed out all of a sudden they go to a drokma. oh, a drakma is worth a euro. i don't think so. you pointed out other banks have losses on their holdings. it could happen to spain. then the dollar goes down. >> thank you. i'm not saying all this is going to happen. i'm just raising these issues because i don't hear other people raising them. and that's why i'm larry kudlow. we'll be back tomorrow evening. we're america's natural gas and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and

dodd-frank gave huge lead way to agencies with be sec, treasury department and federal reserve on justte the new financial regulations that the bill prescribed. so the big banks and financial consultant did exactly what you would expect them to do. hired out the congressional officials who wrote the bill. for instance, amy friend was a general council ever the senate banking committee during bailouts and dodd-frank. senator dodd thanked her repeatedly from the senate floor for her work on the bill. in january 2011 she left capitol hill for a financial group a politically connected consulting firm for big banks and other financial companies. when they hired amy friend they noted her work on dod franks and explained she would work for the firm's client on quote the regulatory implementation of the dodd-frank wall street reform which is the 2300 page says one of the most complex and wide ranging overhauls of the financial regulatory framework in decades. next through the revolving door came daniel need chief council to barney franks financial services committee. need cashed out to k stree