worse it makes one wonder what goldman sachs has to hide. otherwise why send irrelevant information to the commission and with hold other information? yet goldman continues to drag its feet in responding and the commission had to subpoena. goldman sachs could and should do better. they could lead wall street in corporate citizenship. we now know that goldman sachs could easily reduce the principle on every loan, write up all the late fees and give 320,000 citizens some relief from the housing crisis that goldman, along with the rest of wall street's biggest investment banks, or i should say speculators, had in creating. how much do you want to bet that they won't? anyone want to hedge a bet with a credit default swap or a synthetic collateralized debt obligation? i bet goldman would be willing to sell you one. but you know? what they're really doing is they're trying to send their lobbyists to try to meet with members of the commission that he heads. "the new york times" reports that lobbyists representing goldman in washington try to arrange

. >> in an april 14 report by goldman sachs on historical physical consolidations across the world, they found that the vast majority of consolidations consisted mainly of spending cuts, in addition to some tax revenue. but those physical consolidations happened almost unilaterally after a change in government. what are your thoughts on this congresses and this administration's courage to step in and make the cuts that may be almost universally viewed as unhealthy or unwanted. >> let me say i do not want to curse words with you. as you know, budget projections are on what current policy is. frankly, what cuts are certainly appropriate, what is critical is restraints. we need to restrain some of the growth of our spending. i have been in congress 29 years. this is my 30th year. i have served 20 of those years with a republican president. nobody in this room was alive when another president had four years of surplus other than bill clinton. is that totally attributable to his policies? it is not. we had extraordinary growth in the economy. in the '80s, we were worried about the world going

when goldman sachs was willing to take my on terms i found satisfactory, which had not even been the case the week before, i came to the conclusion that unless the american financial system totally fell apart, that it was going to be a sound investment. i had far more confidence in their risk management that i had with some of the other wall street firms that were coming to me earlier. if the system had fallen apart, at the federal reserve had not acted, in terms of commercial paper and the money market funds and all, everyone would have been toast, i think, basically. but my basic conclusion was that the american government knew what was necessary to get the engine started again. and that that was the case, goldman sachs was in fine shape. >> but they did change the terms under which they were willing to except your investment as time went on. >> they would not have paid as remotely what they did at april 1 -- i cannot remember the was september 21 or 23rd. at that point, but not only wanted to shore up confidence. and the world was not going to come back and and financially, becaus

the famous one is goldman sachs. they made a lot f money on subprime mortgages, a lot of money on buying and selling commodities, they went from an investment bank that made most of its money by lending money to businesses, to people who had ideas about how to creete jobs and create companies and create wealth they trands form from that to buying and selling derivatives, currencies, and banking money on trading. nothing wrong with that, but it's not banking. it's not putting money into the financial sector. when they had a client a hedge fund billionaire who called up and said, i have an idea. i think that this explosion in real estate valuessis going to collapse, i wanttyou to put together a package of subprime mortgages that you believe will fail that i believv will fail, that i can then sell those and bet against them, goldman sachs said, fine, it's a client, thee're paying money they pay big fees, they had a request, nothing illegal about it. nothing useful about it, but nothing illegal about it. goldman sachs pu

goldman sachs. hsbc. wells fargo. bank of america. morgan stanley. they have a whole lot more power than the people in my community in the financial realm. why is that? chances are if you talk to your relatives and neighbors, you'll find that over half of the money that they are spending to pay for their mortgage or pay for their car loans doesn't go to a local financial institution in the town in which you live, it goes to a distant institution somewhere else that sucks money, sucks wealth, sucks power away from your community and places it somewhere else system of this is a really threshold question. what does the bill do with the power to create money? today, it's shocking, but 2/3 of the financial assets of this country, 2/3, are held by those six institutions. before the financial crisis of 2008, they only held a third of the power. now they have 2/3 of the power. i say that's way too much. that's not a competitive financial system. that's what economists would call an oligopoly. very few having very much and taking it away from the rest of us s

whether you call them aig, goldman sachs, or j.p. morgan, we will constrain the leverage and risk that the take on. if they get to a pooition where they could not survive on their own, we will step in and dismember them safely. we will minimize the risk of loss to the taxpayer, and make sure they can be broken up in a quasi bank like mechanism. that is what this does. the absence of tools is what forced us to take those exceptionally offensive measures in the fall of 2008 and the first half of 2009 it to put up >> the example of long-term capital management will be one where that was not a bank,,and the government came into backstop. they did arrange a rrscue that would lead one to think that that is what the government is quick to do for the other ffrms. rescuing became an expected normm there are zerro entities out%% there, presummbly credit holders' equity holders that are supposed to be regulating these firms. the creditors, who did not experienced the upside, were the ones that had the most to lose. it is not a large stretch to

whether you call them aig, goldman sachs, or j.p. morgan, we will constrain the leverage and risk that the take on. if they get to a pooition where they couud not survive on their own, we will step in and dismember them safely. we will minimize the risk of loss to the taxpayer, and make sure they can be broken up in a quasi bank like mechanism. that is what this does. the absence of tools is what forced us to take those exceptionally offensive measures in the fall of 2008 and the first half of 2009 it to put up >> the example of long-term capital management will be one where that was not a bank, and the government came into backstop. they did arrange a rrscue that would lead one to think that that is what the government is quick to do for the other ffrms. rescuing became an exxected norm. there are zero entities out there, presumably credit holders' equity holders that are supposed to be regulating these firms. the creditors, who did not experienced the upside, were the ones that had the most to lose. it is not a large stretch to thi

goldman sachs and j.p.an taste and blackstone and the other large hedge funds and they're making a small contribution and we think that is reasonable. $1.5 billion goes to help the unemployed to pay their mortgages so they can get their jobs back. the bulk of the cost is from the administrative reforms increase regulation in the bill. that is over a 10-year period. that is $22 billion. we would pay it all off with this in the first five years so there would be no deficit contribution over time, but we would get an advance payment on this so we will be ahead of the game for the first five years. i recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first point is that this bank tax acknowledges that the truly massive bureaucracy that will be built here will cost billions of dollars. over time and this bank tax will siphon those billions of dollars out of the financial system to fund yet another government bureaucracy with a very vague mandate. . . >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will finish

when goldman sachs was willing to take my on terms i found satisfactory, which had not even been the case the week before, i came to the conclusion that unless the american financial system totally fell apart, that it was going to be a sound investment. i had f more confidence in their risk management that i had with some of the other wall street firms that were coming to me earlier. if the system had fallen apart, at the fedal reserve had not acted, in terms of commercial paper and the money market funds and all, everyone would have been toast, i think, basically. but my basic conclusion was that the american government knew what was necessary to get the engine started again. and that that was the case, goldman sachs was in fine shape. >> but they did change the terms under which they were willing to except your investment as time went on. >> they would not have paid as remotely what they did at apl 1 -- i cannot rememberhe was september 21 or 23rd. at that point, but not only wanted to shore up confidence. and the worldas not going to come back and and financially, because i though

and that that was the case, goldman sachs was in fine shape. >> but they did change the terms under which they we willing to except your investment as time went on. >> they would n have paid as remotely what they did at aril 1 -- iannot remember the was september 21 or 23rd. at that point, but not only wanted to shore up confidence. and the world was notoing to come back anand financially, because i thought the federal government would have to act. it was so what is that they had to. and i thought that our $5 million would not be injured at all and the terms were attrtive. i made the decision that that was good use for the money. >> bank. >> mr. holtz-eakin. >> mr. mcdaniel, you're tking about the inherent conflict of providing rtings to the market d running the compy for profit. however affected the outcome of your rating process. how do you manage that conflict? what dyou put in place to keep that underontrol? >> from my office, i think it is important to emphasizend reemphasize the fact that we are trying to create long-term show rover value. and i think the way to do that is to have c

and the answer is well, you ago goldman sachs and say can you write me of a derivative security here? hose value will beenhanced if the real-estate markt collapses,nd can you find somebody to sell that to me? i think that this totally legitimate actiity. it may hav beenthat the realstate bubble didn't collapse and those contracts would have expired worthless, but of course theproblem is when somebody takes the other side of he bet and they desn the instrument that will be highly profitable, secure is john ulson running a hedge fund and he wants to have an instrument if the housing market collapses. you can't go out and buy that kindf thing in the marketplace very easily. and so you go to a sophistated financial boutique and sy plse design me such a thing and they do it. and then it's essentially hedging and youollect a fee for it. it's very tempting for people to take the other side of the bet. tempting for them to say all i havedo is offer a guarantee that will lose value if the reistic market collapses and i will get premium paid up front, i will get a bonus paid up front sohat is a

corporate america is not everybody's favorite friend, will have to answer about some of her ties to goldman sachs and also demonstrate after arnold schwarzenegger that she can make sacramento work as an outsider and not somebody with a lot of experience. this is going to be a wonderful and interesting race and as you say, one that's going to break all records for spending. >> woodruff: it's often said california may be the toughest state in the country to govern. amy, all the way across the country to south carolina, everybody was talking about the that race. nikki haley just barely missed getting 50%. she's got a runoff, but she's now considered to be the favorite. what's the lesson here? >> i wish-- well, one is , can you actually run a gubernatorial race where a candidate agrees to take a lie detector test? that, to me, was one of my favorite parts here. i think the lesson is this is a great case where the anti-establishment candidate was able to still keep that mantle even as she was being attacked. in fact, the more she was attacked, the more she grew in stature because what i think she was

it means that goldman sachs can influence elections. no limit, no boundaries. that's what will happen if we don't pass the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is elatively simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting footh ads for or+ against candidates as thee campaigns go on. we do that as elected officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certain

goldman sachs did the same. so, that danger, the reputation risk and how the big banks need to rescue their hedge funds, that was not really fixed so there was some compromise. host: so, the volcker rule, was this contentious and opposed by the big banks? the guest: yes, it was, because the biggest bank -- j.p. morgan, goldman sachs, bank of america, all of them have huge operations of hedge funds. j.p. morgan is actually -- it operates the largest hedge fund in the world, according to some rankings. so, they would really be forced to spin off their hedge fund operations, separate them from their main businesses, sell them off. and the also have major investments in those funds and the private equity, especially their private equity. they invest heavily, along with their clients. they still have to scale those back, but it is not going to be as much as they steer it was going to be. host: 202 is the area code if you would like to talk about the regulations deal that was reached at 540 -- 5:40 a.m. by the confere

goldman sachs is an ant? a.i.g. is anant? bank of america an ant? they chewed up $17 trillion worth of american citizens' net worth. no, we can't let ants this dangerous loose on our economy. we have to impose reasonable regulations and that's what we're doing. we have to make sure that the american economy works for everyone and not just for the people on wall street. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. cummings: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cummings: every single member who voted no yesterday should be ashamed of themselves. people are suffering. they are hurting. they are in pain. they cannot make ends meet. and too many, just too many on the other side of the aisle turn a deaf ear. mr. lewis: i asked my republican colleagues, can't you hear, can't you feel, can't you see? where is your heart? where is your compassion? where is your concern? exten

a.i.g., goldman sachs, wall street, some of them at least, they let lay man brothers -- lehman brothers go. they got greedy and ran their car into a ditch and should have been forced to go into bankruptcy like every other entity. america, most of us didn't like the idea. we didn't support it. we were totally against it. but nonetheless, we were forced to get goldman sachs' cart out of the ditch and what has happened since? they got in their cart, motorized it and run the rest of us over. in january of 2009 when we heard that timothy geithner was going to be appointed to be secretary of treasury, what we heard from folks from the other end of the hall, we need to confirm him because he worked with paulsen on the plan. to me, that meant this guy should not get near. we have had the federal government take over more and more authority, usurp of individuals's monies, their credit, the potential capital out there to create private jobs, just suck it up in washington and mean tile time, federal reserve is printing lots of money. and so we are doing all kinds of good things and it is continuin

whether you call them aig, goldman sachs, or j.p. morgan, we will constrain the leverage and risk that the take on. if they get to a pooition where they could not survive on their own, we will step in and dismember them safely. we will minimize the risk of loss to the taxpayer, and make sure they can be broken up in a quasi bank like mechanism. that is what this does. the absence of tools is what forced us to take those exceptionally offensive measures in the fall of 2008 and the first half of 2009 it to put up >> the example of long-term capital management will be one where that was not a bank, and the government came into backstop. they did arrange a rrscue that would lead one to think that that is what the government is quick to do for the other ffrms. rescuing became an expected norm. there are zero entities out there, presumably credit holders' equity holders that are supposed to be regulating these firms. the creditors, who did not experienced the upside, were the ones that had the most to lose. it is not a large stretch to thi

whether you call them aig, goldman sachs, or j.p. morgan, we will constrain the leverage and risk that the take on. if they get to a pooition where they could not survive on their own, we will step in and dismember them safely. we will minimize the risk of loss to the taxpayer, and make sure they can be broken up in a quasi bank like mechanism. that is what this does. the absence of tools is what forced us to take those exceptionally offensive measures in the fall of 2008 and the first half of 2009 it to put up >> the example of long-term capital management will be one where that was not a bank, and the government came into backstop. they did arrange a rrscue that would lead one to think that that is what the government is quick to do for the other ffrms. rescuing became an expected norm. there are zero entities out there, presumably credit holders' equity holders that are supposed to be regulating these firms. the creditors, who did not experienced the upside, were the ones that had the most to lose. it is not a large stretch to thi

this avoids favorable treatment of select creditors like goldman sachs. while we have made it many improvements in the senate text, my preference and best of all worlds would have been the bankruptcy code and the rule of law to resolve failing firms. i think this is a big improvement over where we started, and i intend to support that and support the chairman. i would also like to say a word or two about title 8. house offer to striped title 8 i don't think it is -- to strike title 8 i don't think is inappropriate. i don't believe we could have an effective derivatives title if we don't have effective payment, clearing, and settlement title. unfortunately, the careless way this was written makes it very unlikely regulators from clearing houses will be rushing to get this cleared before the risk is fully understood and without regard to whether the clearing houses can handle the load. the risk oversight role for the federal reserve and discount window access for clearing houses in the event of liquidity crunch will be important to assure the stability of o

goldman sachs did the same. so, that danger, the reputation risk and how the big banks need to rescue their hedge funds, that was not really fixed so there was some compromise. host: so, the volcker rule, was this contentious and opposed by the big banks? the guest: yes, it was, because the biggest bank -- j.p. morgan, goldman sachs, bank of america, all of them have huge operations of hedge funds. j.p. morgan is actually -- it operates the largest hedge fund in the world, according to some rankings. so, they would really be forced to spin off their hedge fund operations, separate them from their main businesses, sell them off. and the also have major investments in those funds and the private equity, especially their private equity. they invest heavily, along with their clients. they still have to scale those back, but it is not going to be as much as they steer it was going to be. host: 202 is the area code if you would like to talk about the regulations deal that was reached at 540 -- 5:40 a.m. by the confere

regulators to pay goldman sachs and other large european banks 100 cents on the dollar at the expense of smaller institutions and companies which were considered too insignificant or all to save or to pay. the democrats like to call their plan a death panel for large financial firms. but if you read the bill, in reality it's nothing less than a taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors. they could pay some of the creditors and let others hang out to dry. we saw that with a.i.g. and other bailouts. and don't forget the so-called too big to fail institutions have only grown larger and more dominant through the regulator directed taxpayer-funded bailout process, a process this legislation institutionalizes. a better, more equitable approach to dealing with failed nonbank financial institutions, the only wayto make sure taxpayers are protected from paying for lost -- past mistakes is bankruptcy, first proposed by republicans. unlike the fdic, which is funnel unlimited of taxpayer cash to failing firm's credito

regulators to pay goldman sachs and other large european banks 100 cents on the dollar at the expenseof smaller institutions and companies which were considered too insignificant or all to save or to pay. the democrats like to call their plan a death panel for large financial firms. but if you read the bill, in reality it's nothing less than a taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors. they could pay some of the creditors and let others hang out to dry. we saw that with a.i.g. and other bailouts. and don forget the so-called too big to fail institutions have only grown larger and more dominant through the regulator directed taxpayer-funded bailout process, a process this leslation institutionalizes. a better, more equitable approach to dealing with failed nonbank financial institutions, the only wayto make sure taxpayers are protected from paying for lost -- past mistakes is bankruptcy, first proposed by republicans. unlike the fdic, which is funnel unlimited of taxpayer cash to iling firm's creditor as pa

that's why goldman sachs had their biggest profit in their whole company's history last year as the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the white house. and i'm trying to dig. we found some contract. but i'm wondering how much of that was government money coming from this coping and this administration -- congress and this administration into the coffers. the contracts indicates that. as far as the oil spill, you got companies and countries around the world willing to help. president bush, for all the criticism, actually within three days of the katrina hurricane had suspended the jones act so foreign countries could send ships and send help and go ahead and give us all the assistance they could. this administration still has not suspended the jones act. we had the netherlands within days. they know something about building barrier eye lansdz. this administration said, no, we don't want that. allow millions and millions of dollars to pile up. you look a little deeper and find, oh, gee, after the president said that about the cozy relationship that existed between big oil and the re

i prefer what we had in our provision, to assess the goldman sachs, j.p. morgan chase, mr. paulsen's hedge fund, that's the way we wanted to do it, we couldn't get it through republicans in the senate. first republicans in the senate said don't do it, other republicans then say why did you do it? i'll make a pledge right now, the economy i chair will bring out a bill that has an assessment on the financial institutions above $50 billion so members who miss it will get a chance to show us they care. we'll bring it there and have that come forward. i don't want to talk a little bit about subprime lending and the partial history we get. the fact is, the republican party controlled the house and the senate from 1995 through 2006. during that period they showed remarkable restraint. as eager as they were to destroy subprime lending, as passionate as they were to reform fannie mae and freddie mac they didn't do it. that's a degree of abstinence unparalleled in political history. they were in charge. whose fault was it? it was my fault. as people said before, people have accused m

it means that goldman sachs can influence elections. no limit, no boundaries. that's what will happen if we don't pass the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the ntleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and a half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is relately simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is puttingorth ads for or against candidates as the campaigns go on. we do that as elected officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certain amou

just remember, we bailed out aid for $180 billion and $12.90 billion went straight to goldman sachs.e question is-- why isn't the greater urgency coming out of washington? when wall street was in trouble, they threw everything against the wall because they did not know exactly what was going to do, -- what was going to work and they saved wall street. what are they doing now to save main street? [applause] contrary to what the republicans are saying, there is no question the stimulus bill did it save and add jobs. but as the british prime minister lloyd george said, you cannot jump across a -- in two jumps. you asked to do it in one. the stimulus bill was one jump. it was not enough. we are seeing the results of that ever were. again and again we are told that jobs are next. how many times have we heard that? after we do healthcare, after financial reform, jobs is next. after the energy bill, jobs is next. i have this nightmare in which i am stuck in a forest and i cannot find my way out. that is how i feel about this illusion that jobs is next, because it is not. another warning sig

but, boy, everybody needs to feel good, though, goldman sachs had their biggest profit year in their history last year so their jobs are scrure, they're doing good. but the -- secure, they're doing good. but for the rest of america, there's a problem with capital, there's a problem with too little regulation over the investment banks, no reform over fannie mae and freddie mac, none, not even in this so-called financial reform that's really a financial deform bill. because it has a systemic risk council that allowed the federal government in complete abrogation of what my friends are talking about in the prior hour, about the 10th amendment and the power reserved to the states and people. just complete ignoring of all of that, they're going to pick and choose winners and losers. your company's too big to fail, we will never let it fail. that means they can run in the red, they can run their competition out of business, they'll be the last business standing in that particular area because our systemic risk council from washington, their lofty mount zion realm, said, we pick this one to

just ttlk to the people at goldman sachs about the ability to sell a good news story. i think most of the news is pretty grim and i think people realize that. certainly reporters do. >> thank you for being here. tell everybody we are nearing the end of our time here. probably can't take too many more questions here. >> i'll be quick. i sort of think of you gentlemen as the lenon-mccartney of journalism. >> ham and eggs. go ahead. >> well, it seems to me that what i know about you, what little i know, that you sort of have a creative tension. along the lines ever lennon d.c. mccartney and i'm wondering about the creative tension, political tension that came to bear when you were working on the watergate project, for lack of a better term, and how you think that might have had a positive or negative impact on the work that you did? >> good question. first ever all i think both of us -- first of all i think both of us would say today that team reporting and group reporting can produce results and give you an extra element that is pretty hard to beat. in our case, we asked

i preferred asking goldman sachs and jpmorgan chase and all those others, hedge fund above to million dollars -- $10 million, to be assessed to the tune of $19 billion over two- years from t. people that have not shown any concern in context of what they make was some help drive up atm fees. no, not entirely this man a consumer bureau. i much preferred what we do. i do not understand why some members on the republican side who are not here preferred what we are being talked about through levying a financial hit on these institutions. the fdic does hit the larger institutions and not because there is the cut on the $10 billion, but because on the initiative working with sheila bair where mandated the fdic to put a risk weighting in to the assessment. there is less risk of the institutions that will pay more. if it passes, small institutions will be advantaged. i regret that we are making the change. these are important considerations to get enough votes to pass this bill. we have to do this. it is a very important bill. there is regulation of derivatives. mary schapiro of the sec is a

in 2007, before october, 2008, when everything became unplugged, goldman sachs had year-end profits of $11.70 billion and pay out billions in salaries and bonuses -- paid out billions and salaries --in the salaries and bonuses. they reported profits of $13.9 billion and again paid out bonuses in the billions of dollars just short late -- billions of dollars just two short years later. some people call this unethical. i call it our readers. some people call this wrong. i call it criminal. -- i call it outrageous. some people call this wrong. i call it criminal. [applause] some people call this an unfair. i call it robbery. in the words of our own woody guthrie, and parallel songwriter -- an unparalleled songwriter, some will rob you with a sixth gun and some with a fountain pen -- six gun and some with a fountain pen. ain't that the truth. over the past 30 years, they have turned the economy into a high-stakes casino. the damage they have done is incalculable. there are many statistics. i could mention arena of statistics -- a ream of statistics. 30 million workers are either unemployed

bp, goldman sachs, bank of america, i have taken to: d. bp disaster wall street under water because it is an example of the corrosion of our democracy. i stood up here last year and spoke to you and said there is a false dichotomy in the age of obama between the insiders and outsiders. our responsibility was not to beat the door down, but take the door off the hinges and smash the windows ou so there was no more inside and outside. i'm here to tell you that i was wrong last year. i was wrong. there is an inside and outside. it is our job now to actually call what is inside inside and that is democracy ruled by a corporate elite. those of us who cannot afford lobbyists, who are paying the price for what decades of corporate influence in our government have done, we are on the outside. we will continue to be on the outside until we demand every single politician that is elected in washington d.c. choose whether they are going to be on the inside or the outside. we ran an ad last week that said president obama, you did not create this problem

he was trying to ask -- he heard bp and goldman saches had sold off the day before.ou did not let the representative answer. you went to a side article. host: i was just adding to the question. she was welcome to answer any part of it. caller: you read from an article. you distracted from the question. i wish you'd let the calls go through. any time there's a call about 9/11 or some conspiracy, you never let them answer. i'd like to hear the answer. host: west palm beach, florida. caller: i'd like to see a listing of who, what and when specific ex-entions were given out to all of them so that the people can see and by who, i mean specific individuals and what agencies, government and bp and all the others affiliated. i think there's a lot of people affected. everybody should be held accountable if the government played a role in this, we should eat some of this. i want to know what exchange is had. thank you very much. host: on the democratic line from little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. good to see you. greta, what i want to say is, the-o i've made since ob

companies like goldman sachs would be greatly affected.merica basically has a corner on the market with swaps and derivatives with about 97% of the market. there are many foreign banks like the royal bank of scotland salivating at that prospect of them americans giving away their market share. leave it to congress to make a mistake and do this. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guests, at one time or legislative director for a republican congressional member from florida. he is the director of senate dilutions of heritage action for america. how is that related to the heritage foundation? guest: the heritage foundation has been a 5013c for more than 35 years, a conservative think+ tank mainly focused on limited government, a free economy. things like that, strong national defense. through the years we have been limited to what we could do on capitol hill, having a certain tax exemption. from the healthcare bill with so many groups on the left from unions to environmental groups coalesce around the healthcare b

the financial crisis inquiry commission accuses goldman sachs of "abysmal response" in requests for information. that is an "the financial times." new york city, barbara, back to the budget cut its. caller: i have a couple of ideas. number one, i would raise taxes on all corporations, especially those who have their work force offshore. i would raise gasoline to $5 a gallon. i would cut the interest deduction for home mortgages. i would cut charitable deductions. i would cut medical deductions. i would tax educational institutions, religious institutions. eliminate the military base is not on united states soil, including guantanamo. keep medicare at 65 but raise social security to 70 and take the cap off of social security. everybody would pay into it regardless of their income level. i would do that the first week and then i would think of some other things the second week. host: a lot of ideas. north carolina. mark on the line for democrats. caller: i have like four points. for the oil, in our sound, the body of water, like some people have a day -- bay, the dredged keeps it clear. if they c

today with former gold gold -- goldman sachs managing director and losing our religion the liberal media's attack on christianty. tammy bruce on the death of right and wrong. and piper kerrman on her experience in the american legal system. orange is the new black, my year in a woman's prison. book tv on c-span two. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is a gentleman by the name of brian o'neal. he is someone who has spent 21 years of his professional life as an attorney representing 32,000 alaskan fisherman and natives in their quest for damages and repneumonia ration from the exxon valdez oil spill what lessons can we learn from that experience to apply to what's happening in the gulf today? >> well, the first thing you learn is that if you're going to extract and transport oil, there's going to be catastrophic spills, and that's because people are in charge of the extraction and transportation of oil. the second thing is where the oil goes, nobody knows. in the case of the valdez, everybody thought the oil would go southeast, and it goes northwest. and it went a treme

it means that goldman sachs can influence elections. no limit, no boundaries. that's what willappen if we don't ss the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and a half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is relatively simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting forth ads for or against candidates as the campaigns go on. we do that as elected officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certai am

i'd like to ask your guest his thoughts on goldman sachs and b.p.'s c.e.o. selling stock days before the oil accident happened. guest: i help heard that one. i think for all of the -- i hadn't heard that one. i think for all of the incompetence and errors and inability to deal with this, it's the last thing that i think they would want to have happen. so it's hard for me to believe that they would sort of be aware that it was going to happen or a conspiracy theory on those lines. i don't think i buy that. host: los angeles, california, republican line. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the call. i have a few quick questions that seem really obvious to me that have not been asked. what is b.p. going to do with the oil that they recovered, still? and what do we do with waste management with the snoil once you ccpture it, skim it? that's my question today. thanks for c-span. guest: good question. i'm now speaking from media reports that i've heard that there's discussions of using the recovered oil, that is the oil that's being captured

it means that goldman sachs can influence elections. no limit, no boundaries. that's what will happen if we don't pass the disclose act. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. brady: mr. chairman, again, may i inquire how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has six minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 45 seconds. and the gentleman from california has 11 minutes. mr. brady: mr. chairman, at this time i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman froo delaware a minute and a half, mr. castle. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized. mr. castle: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do rise in support of the disclose act. i'd like to thank mr. van hollen, his office, for their work on this as well. i believe that this is relatively simple. i think that all of us in this country have a right to know who is putting forth ads for or against candidates as the campaigns go on. we do that as elected officials. the political parties do that. we also file all those who contribute money to us above certa

well, the end result is that goldman sachs supports the bill and the chamber of commerce opposes the bill. goldman's c.e.o. testified, and i quote, i'm generally supportive. the biggest beneficiary of reform is wall street itself, end quote. meanwhile the u.s. chamber, which represents main street, american businesses, opposes the bill. wall street supports this bill. while main street suffers. where's the logic in that? main street didn't engage in shady accounting gimmicks. main street didn't make risky derivatives trades. main street didn't issue subprime loans. and yet what we have here is a bill that makes main street pay the price. and what is that price? increased taxes on community banks, manufacturers, small businesses, consumers, and american families. that will increase the cost of credit. taxes who decrease the -- small business who is seek financing to create desperately needed jobs. how will new taxes rein in wall street? this bill expands the size of government increasing our national debt, making taxpayer backed bailouts permanent, and distorts our free market by allow

let us remember that we bailed out aig for $180,000,000,000.11 $0.9 billion of that went to goldman sachs-- we bailed out aig for $180 billion. the all came together. they did not know exactly what was going to work to save wall street. why can we do the same thing now to save main street? -- why can we not do the same thing now to save main street darks --? we need to do this in one jump. it was one job. it was not enough. we are seeing the results of that every rare. again and again we are being told that jobs is next. how many times have you heard that? after we do health care, financial reform, jobs is next. after the energy bill, jobs is next. this has become a nightmare like i am stuck in a forest and i cannot find my way out. another warning sign that we are on our way to becoming a third world nation is the trillions of dollars we continue to spend building an ever more powerful while our people here at home do without. [applause] they say civilizations' die from suicide, not from murder. our future is dependent on the choices you make in the things we value. we hear and less talk

the financial crisis, hiring of secretary geithner's secretary geithner's chief of staff from goldman sachse question goes to the hiring of the secretary geithner's chief of staff. we have tough rules. we have lived up to those rules and in every instance. i thnk that the hiring in that case, there were a series of recusals ere put in place that have been stctly observed. so i think that we have, we have lived up to our standards in that regard. and, indeed, i thnk in all of our, in all ofourhires, it makes for a lot more work for us when you these tough rules. but we have abidedby those, ided by those rules. and certainly that case is no exception. >> time for one more question. [inaudible] >> what do you think of te adequacy of the obama administration dinitn of high value data sets? one definition basically which is what the obama administration, should we subdivide that so th accountability, fo example for third parties regulated like people who build baby carriages release thr data. but stinguished that clinton highdata data sets were high level officials in the ageny are made more acc

the financial crisis, hiring of secretary geithner's secretary geithner's chief of staff from goldman sachse question goes to the hiring of the secretary geithner's chief of staff. we have tough rules. we have lived up to those rules and in every instance. i think that the hiing in that case, there were a series of recusals were put in place that have been strictly observed. so i think that we have, we have lived up to our standards in that regard. and, indeed, i think in all of our, in all of our hires, it makes for a lot more work for us when you these tough rules. but we have abided by those, abided by those rules. and certainly that case is no exception. time for one more question. [inaudible] >> what do you thinkof the adequacy of the obama administration definition of high value data sets? one definition basically which is what the obama administration, or should we subdivide that so the accountability, for example, for third parties regulated like people who build baby carriages, release their data. but distinguished that clinton high data data sets were high level officials in the a

o their goldman sachs did the same. so, that danger, the reputation the big banks need rescue their hedge funds, not really fixed so compromise. e host: so, the volcker rule, was this contentious and opposed by the big banks? the guest: yes, it was, because bgest bank -- j.p. morgan, sachs, bank of america, them have huge operations of hedge funds. j.p. morgan is actually -- it operates the largest hedge fund somee world, according to rankings. so, they would really be forced their hed fund operations, separate them from businesses, sell them off. also have major investments in those funds and the private equity, especially equity. vate they invest heavily, along with their clients. they still have to scale those but it not going to be as they steer it was going to be. host: 202 is the area code if talk about theto regulations deal that was reached at 540 -- 5:40 a.m. by the conference committee of the house and senate. the democrats voted for it at all republicans voted against it. yalman another contentious issue was

bp, goldman sachs, bank of america, i have taken to: d. bp disaster wall street under water because it is an example of the corrosion of our democracy. i stood up here last year and spoke to you and said there is a false dichotomy in the age of obama between the insiders and outsiders. our responsibility was not to beat the door down, but take the door off the hinges and smash the windows out. so there was no more inside and outside. i'm here to tell you that i was wrong last year. i was wrong. there is an inside and outside. it is our job now to actually call what is inside inside and that is democracy ruled by a corporate elite. those of us who cannot afford lobbyists, who are paying the price for what decades of corporate influence in our government have done, we are on the outside. we will continue to be on the outside until we demand every single politician that is elected in washington d.c. choose whether they are going to be on the inside or the outside. we ran an ad last week that said president obama, you did not create this probl