. >> let me let you finish your point. >> caller: if they don't come in prepared to teach our kids and do their best job that they can do for our children, our future, then they don't deserve to be there. i'm sure there is someone else with a teaching degree who's more than willing to step in for a little less pay than what these teachers get because their pay is outrageous. and someone else can step in and do the job. >> some would say what do you mean teachers' pay is outrageous? a lot of the teachers we're talking about did make a lot more than what most teachers make. >> caller: our teachers are some of the highest paid in the country anywhere from 40 to $90,000 a year. >> let me ask you something, a point that you made. i understand with jobs needing to be results oriented. that's fair. but you did list a lot of things there that some would say shouldn't be part of a teacher's

there didn't seem to be any area of agreement. >> boy, andrea, first let me correct that. you gave me a promotion. i'm director of communications for health reform. i don't want to take dan piper's job. >> i'm always glad to promote you. we need more women in big job. >> we do, indeed. areas of agreement, actually, andrea, i would disagree with that. health insurance system. they believe in small businesses being able to pool together to spread the risk and lower the costs for small businesses that are going to be purchasing health insurance. they agree that there have got to be strong provisions to crack down on waste and fraud. the president's own proposal includes a number of specific republican proposals. they agreed on all of that. one thing they seem not to agree on was whether there should be a minimum standard of benefits for americans buying health insurance so that there are common sense rules that consumers can rely on so you know what you're getting from the insurance companies so that the insurance company doesn't decide how long a woman getting a c-section sta

let me -- let me -- before you ask your actual question, let me just make this point. we're not actually eliminating medicare advantage. what medicare advantage is, is basically the previous administration had this idea, instead of traditional medicare, let's contract out to insurance companies to manage the medicare program. and the insurance companies can then kind of package and pool providers of dental care or eye wear or what have you, and it's a one-stop shop for seniors. now, in theory that sounds like a pretty good idea, except as you might imagine if the insurance companies are involved that means they've got to make a profit. and what happened was they didn't bid out competitively this medicare advantage program. so these insurance companies were just getting a sweet deal. all we've been saying is let's make sure that there's a competitive bidding process and that we are getting the absolute best bargain. [applause.] but i appreciate your larger concern, which is let's make sure that everybody has access to health care. and traditional medicare, by the way, i

>> let me be clear. i'm sorry to get technical, but there's no budget authority provided by the recovery act in 2010 in the discretionary budget. our frees is off to 2010 discretionary levels in terms of budget authority and therefore my statement holds. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mrs. saunders. >> thank you mr. chairman. in thank you dr. orszag. i think we agree president obama inherited a very challenging situation and doug elmendorf at the cbo last week testified without the extraordinary impact of the recovery package. and we could imply that a different place without the very bold effort to stop the draft law. but we also know that unemployment or employment is a lagging indicator and i happen to represent some communities that have been very, very hard hit. one community has 18% unemployment and another one hovers around 12% kind of goes up or down a little bit but basically remained unchanged. so i applaud the effort that the president has purposing side of union address an

let me put a quote on the screen. let me be precise here. this is from 10/23/09. >> bill: come on, joe. >> did i hurt your feelings,. >> bill: bill. no. >> i have worked with an awful lot of fox journalists, the ones who actually bring you the news like carl cameron and major garrett. >> bill: those people are good guys, right? >> those are good guys. i think you are a good guy. we come from the same neck of the woods. but, i think that your pal glenn beck is pedalling a lot of hateful crap. i mean, you know,. >> bill: but he is funny. he is doing it in a funny way. >> is he doing in -- i thought the part where he described the president as intentionally steering the airplane of -- into the ground was hilarious. and the stuff about obama not being an america? >> bill: he has a blackboard and phone to the white house. he is every man sitting on a bar stool. why shouldn't every man have a show. >> is he father coughlin trying to delewd. >> bill: that's the left wing line that this guy is a threat to the union. >> i don't think is he a threat t

that, taken ownership of that centrality of our presence in the making of this colonial period. >> let meng both of you the same question, ebony, give me a sense what have you think the responsibility is of the community to make sure that history is told and told correctly? >> i think that the responsibility of the community is to prevent a full and comprehensive review as possible. i think that right now, we're doing a lot of good in looking at history, reviewing history, being inspired by history, but it's the action that our history should inspire, and the action that's going to bring forth the history of tomorrow, that we're lacking in. >> i think our responsibility as parents and our responsibility as intellectuals is to provide both some context, and some connections, and in order to understand the huge wealth disparities in this country, to inner generational transfers of wealth which takes you right back to the history that's very different for most african-americans than it is for whites in order to understand the educational problems in this country, you got to understand someth

first of all, let me get the facts straight. the -- only a few days after my arrival to@@@@@@@ @ @ >> addressed to me. >> i did not know that until today. >> okay. the point is that, you know, i was in the middle of orientation tour. i didn't make it very clear. my name is on it. it is presented to me not me made it. that's all i want -- >> but you were aware of this. again, this is information you had and your company prepared. if in the future any company prepared a document like this and presented it to anyone in the company, to me, it would be -- to me, it would be one of the moest interesting thing you can do to anybody' reputation. i know it says on the side confidential and all of that. but do you realize the people that have been let down? me? the people in my district who go to work every day in those toyota operations? the sales? and already the reputation has been severely damaged by what's been done here. >> i, honestly, with my honesty, i do not recall the meeting in any depth. but at the same time, now i see that. i

let me take the readiness issues.ome respects, we have never been more ready than we are today. we have that, this combat-tested and hardened force. we have been at war for so long and that has impacted families and military members. we are losing some good may degrade nco's and officers in the army and that will hurt us going forward. having said that, recruiting retention, morale is generally very good. currently, we have the equipment. the issue is what is the will of the people? when you look at iran, it is a complex problem. it looks like now, maybe for the first time in decades, that there is an onus on the people of iran to say enough of the ayatollahs. how far that will go, we don't know. we know they are brutal and a suppressed as much as they can. we will see where that goes. military intervention will be required. it is military, my guess is that it would be those forces that are not currently engaged in iraq and afghanistan. it would be unable and air which means we have some capability there. it would be

let me say that again. as 13 squalor is, quote, our conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that it is almost certainly false. the scholars commission for the most expert, most notable, independent jefferson scholars, who lent their expert opinions to this jury and agreed that the accusation of an affair? not only credibility, but would be unutterably outside the moral character of thomas jefferson. the preeminent historian force who serves on the panel and who i interviewed personally quote, thomas jefferson was simply not guilty of the charge. mcdonald and other panel members pointed to the real suspect, jefferson's brother, randolph. in fact, the scholars commission concluded the most logical and credible evidence points to randolph, who was unmarried, in his early 50's, and known for socializing with the monticello slaves. randolph, unlike his accomplished brother, was easily influenced by others. in fact, i found an old militia list reveals connections between randolp

let me begin by asking you to respond. twice in the last week, the president meeting with house republicans and senate democrats. the senator said we do not want it on camera. >> we want to have a dialogue with members of both parties. i think there was something valuable about the exchange the president had, both with the house republicans and with the democratic senate caucuses this week. i think it was invaluable for the public to see the changes were open and honest, but if senate republicans do not want to do that, the president is not not going to talk to them because they do not want to do it in public. >> is this a photo op, or is this serious? >> i think there were very positive. >> we had some kind words from senator ryan who said he wanted to work with him. immediately after, house democrats attacked what he talked about. what does that do for the attempt at bipartisanship? >> there is going to be back- and-forth about ideas. we should not be afraid to advance ideas. we should discuss them. one thing the preside

let me ask you this. let me ask you this.sidered to be an interim report, correct? so they're still conducting tests. >> correct. >> is that right? okay. will you provide the committee with the final test results when they are obtained? >> yes, we're going to make that public. >> whether do you expect that to happen? >> i don't know. >> now it's my understanding that toyota's counsel who is sitting right behind you told committee staff today that toyota had, in fact, replicated dr. gilbert's tests. and that toyota was able to produce the same conditions without triggering an error. is that correct? >> yes. >> when did exponent do that test? >> the wee hours of the night last night. >> so this is new information for us? >> yes. >> i'm assuming toyota will be willing to shart results of that testing also with this committee, correct? >> yes, we will. >> now, in your opening statement, you said that toyota had done extensive testing of electronics and found no issues. do you wish to change or clarify this remark in light of the

let me put it another way.why with their banks have an incentive and not become our banks not the same incentive? >> the route of the mortgage market basically all of these mortgages are getting packages packaged and sold to fannie mae or freddie mac. they have some in mortgages left, residential mortgages left on american banks. i think that whole thing deserved some kind of review. the american mortgage market today is broken. there is no doubt about it and you've got to rebuild a strong mortgage market and i think looking -- >> you don't think the consumer protection agency -- if we had a financial consumer protection agency it wouldn't have allowed a lot of the practices we saw that frankly can initially not from banks but from mortgage brokers. >> i am just personally not familiar with it. >> so you are neutral on that issue. what about the securitization? 27% to 80 in mortgages are securitized compared with 67% of u.s. mortgages. you think -- >> what percentage? >> 27 in canada and 67 in the u.s.. >> that

let me show you what 202 is looking like. wet roads. that's going to meet road spray. make sure you have your windshield wipers ready to go and windshield wiper fluid in there and it's working, it's going to be a messy drive for you definitely. so wet and slushy and all that good stuff. but we don't have a lot of accumulation on the main road ways. that's what's important. you should see fine commute this morning. no major issues coming in. and just take your time and give yourself plenty of space. we've got lots of crews still out there working, still putting down the salt. still coming and shoveling some of this stuff out of the way for you. let me also point this out, if you hit chunks of snow like this one here, know it's soft. it's not ice and not something that's going to make it difficult for you to get through. just a wet, sticky, slushy snow, one of many we've had this winter. we'll have more coming our way fairly soon. enjoy it. but take your time and be careful. i'm tracee wilkins live in largo, back to you in the

jeff, let me ask you to wrap up. we need to get to the question in. >> that is a hazard of inviting me to a conference and one other area this is context of social media. as consumers become more involved in the electric grid, consumers can also be some of the early warning system about patterns of outages and if that is aggregated when also helps the utility get better awareness. thank you. >> thank you. chris, let me go to the visual that i have, the next slide. yeah. we have heard a common theme throughout today's panel discussions and that is the notion that innovative, putting up fire walls, others have been phrased it the same way, those of us who come from the community of vulnerabilities, love to find those things and if one targets your system they look at what you put in place as a challenge, so, understand that adversaries think outside the box. i'd like to move into the questions and answers session, we have a microphone up front, those of you who have questions, please come up to the front, self-identify

let's look at the obama budget possible stock market impact. seems to meoo many tax hikes to call it pro growth. let's see what the ranking house budget member says. mr. paul ryan from the state of wisconsin. before i get to you on the question of pro growth i want you to comment. there's a very heated exchange between new hampshire senator jim greg and peter orszag. >> one of the problems in financial market is access to credit for small businesses -- >> no, no, no. you can't make that type of statement with any legitimacy. >> okay. >> you cannot make that statement. this is the law. >> they're not suffering -- >> let me tell you what the law says. you don't appear to understand the law. the law is very clear. the money's recouped from the t.a.r.p. shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt. it's not for a piggybank because you want a political event in new hampshire. >> whoa. who is right, mr. ryan? >> do you really want me to answer that? judd greg. i worked with him on the language which says all t.a.r.p. m

>> hold on, let me just -- let me finish the question.e to make tough decisions, but in order to get this passed we're going to need both parties to work together. if you think one party can do it all, you know, i think there are examples not just from the past year but over the past many years that altogether that's not going to work. jake, just because you're not in the majority doesn't mean you don't have an obligation to help solve the problems of this country. that's the message that the president had on friday to the house republicans. that's the message that the president ran on. even though the president runs as a democrat, that doesn't mean that we're not going to work with republicans on trying to solve problems. if that were the case, chuck, we'd have elections, and then one party would just go about solving everything; the other party wouldn't even have to show up to work until it was time to have the next election. it may sound like a great idea, but -- >> you're making an argument for legislating -- i mean, you're making the

let me explain what it means. here is a guy in russia.comes to him and says, "what is better, communism or capitalism?" you're stalin, what do you think you'll say? kondratiev says let me think about it. so he studies capitalism. communism. he comes up with a wave theory. okay? he says to stalin, you know what? i've been thinking about it and i think it's every 40 to 60 years you have this cycle. let me explain hit the way. let's start here. this is winter. economic winter. it's really what we're at the beginning of right now. this is when everything is just cold and nasty. okay? there is nothing going on. people start to lose hope. they're like well, what is it? this is the great depression. okay? then there is springtime. this is -- i'd say this started in probably 1947 with us. springtime. it just starts coming up and everything is exciting. this is where the phrase -- remember, you've heard this -- "green shoots." green shoots because it's spring here economically. then you get into a season of summer. where it doesn't seem like anyth

let me go about what was going on here. a comment out of the white house press secretary robert gibbs that made people less optimistic about the jobs report. he said jobs revisions could be greater than expected here. we're back above 10,000 on the dow. that got a lot of comments from traders. there will be revisions, probably 2007 and 2008 that will be for tomorrow. the other big issue was the subprime issue, greece being described as the new subprime. why would they do this? subprime was an issue poo pooed initially and became greater because of the contagion risk. they i ear saying that's a similar analogy of how greece could be doing. they won't make the same mistake with subprime. that's for sure. gold the big issue. big commodities names were to the downside. about 5% decline in oil, 4% decline in gold, copper down just about 4% here. how about gold overall? what was the issue? three major points that traders made to me this afternoon. first, you think it will be a safe haven and it wasn't today. dollar strength and t

and, let me just say, i'm looking forward to working closely with you. >> closely? >> okay. s talk economy. with this new spending freeze, job creation is going to be harder than ever. >> nancy, you're the speaker of the house. k knz. >> larry: can he make a big effect, james? one senator have a big effect? >> i think the election had an effect. it kind of woke people up and i think the president actually had his best week in a long time. but, i never denied the fact this election was significant and i think there was a message in there. and it seems like maybe the white house had a pretty good week this week. once he gets to washington, how much affect can one senator in the minority party have, i don't know. >> larry: put down the tea party angle today, andrea. did that surprise you? >> no, not really. i disagree with james. i think that one senator, especially when the numbers are so close in the senate, can make a difference. larry, in particularly, scott brown, where he can really benefit the gop, is if the gop uses him and mcdonald like they smartly did to give the rebu

let me say to you, let us not let that happen again.have been given a reprieve by the continuous development of what is called in the media, peapd the organization. the american conservative union is the big brother of the tea party. we have an obligation as the big brother to guide little brothers. it is said that they have no leaders. that is dangerous. sheep without a shepherd are in trouble. they are already gearing up a campaign to destroy them. we can preserve them, because america needs them. [applause] we do not need to dominate them. we do not need to order them, but we can give them our experience. we have been at this for a long time. we have developed some skills. we are able to influence the republican party and push it in a certain direction. let us teach those skills to our young brothers in the tea party movements. [applause] Ñiin particular, help them to understand the history of third- party experiences in america. the republican party in 18 vicky six that did not win the election -- in 1856 that did not win the electi

let me summarize my answers here.s addressed five separate issues that we have identified with certain toyota vehicles. in total, some 5.3 million vehicles across 14 models are affected by one or more of these recalls in the united states. the biggest recalls are for solutions our engineers have developed with regard to two specific mechanical causes of unintended acceleration. one involves inappropriate accessory floormats that when loose or improperly fitted can then trap the accelerator pedal. the other concerns, accelerator pedals that can, over time, grow sticky in rare instances. the solutions we have come up with for both these instances are effective and durable. with respect to possible accelerator entrapment by the floormat, toyota recently designed a vehicle-based change that directly addresses the problem and announced a solution to the public in november 2009 as parted of the safety campaign. announced on september 29th, 2009. owners of affected vehicles can, in the meantime, drive safely by ensuring that

so let me just go step further. am going to say that that is a fact unless somebody tells me. >> i think obviously, the causes of distress in these very big firms are multifactorial but i think there were plenty of bank holding companies that suffered losses in hedge funds that they owned or sponsored or in their proprietary trading activities that were part of the capital-- >> i'm talking about material. >> the material that were part of why taxpayer money was committed, and so you know to pinpoint a single reason why this or that firm, but i would say this is clearly one of the reasons. >> let me move on. my point stands and we can talk about that. i take your point. let me also make another point that the capital of a bank, a commercial bank within a bank holding company or financial holding company cannot leave and go to any other part of that affiliate's without reducing the capital of that commercial bank, which reduces their ability to make loans into that sort of thing. you all of knowledge that. >> there ar

okay, let me think. i could have everybody get health care coverage that's high-quality, and it's free, which i'll bet's really popular. but i'm not going to do that. i'm going to go through the pain of really working through this hard process in congress getting yelled at and called a socialist, because i just -- that's how i roll. i'm a glutton for punishment. no. look, if this were easy and simple, first of all, somebody would have done it before. seven presidents have failed at this. seven congresses have failed at this. if this was simple, it would have already been done. >> that president, barack obama, has got such unbelievable potential when it comes to communicating the message. he's a middle class guy. he doesn't come from privilege. that's the message. he's like us, in the middle class, and i think that is the best road around all these deficit hawks that are showing up saying, oh, you're just butchering the budget. wait a minute! this guy is trying to do something for the middle class. no apo

let me see it.e no from in doing something that's more expensive and harder to accomplish if somebody else has an easier way to do it. so i'm going to be starting from scratch in the sense that i will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. what i will not do, what i don't think makes sense and i don't think the american people want to see would be another year of partisan rangling around these issues, another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the house and the senate in which there's a lot of postering. let's get the relevant parties together, let's put the best ideas on the table. my hope is we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if i don't get every single thing that i want. but here's the point that i made to john boehner and mitch mcconnell. bipartisan can't be -- bipartisanship can't be that i agree to all of the things that they believe in or want, and they agree to none of the t

let me summarize my answers here.lls address five separate issues that we have vehicles. in total, some 5.3 million vehicles across 14 countries are affected by one or more of -- 14 models are affected by one or more of these recalls. our recalls is developing with regard to two specific mechanical causes of intermittent acceleration. one involves all-weather or inappropriate accessory floor mats, that when loose or improperly fitted can entrap the accelerator pedal. the other concerns, accelerating pedals that over time can grow sticky in rare instances. the solutions for both of these issues are effective and durable. we are spect to possible accelerator pedal entrapment by the floor map, toyota recently designed a vehicle-based change that directly addressed, addresses the problem and announces the solution to the public in november 2009 as part of the safety campaign. announced on september 29th, 2009. owners of affected vehicles can in the meantime drive safely by ensuring that they use only properly secured appr

let me give you a summation if i were a trial lawyer defending mr. jefferson in court, let me give you my summation, my final argument to you as a jury and as to a jury in the public arena. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today the reputations of america's founding father seemed to be in disrepair. 21st century americans seem skeptical of preakness. just as oliver wendell holmes of serve, quote, badly in arguments always have a force through their own but you and i believe that high mindedness is not possible and meant. but this proves one of two things, thomas jefferson is either the most prolific hypocritical lawyer in american history, or he is the effect of the most profane, scurrilous defamation of character allegation and legal analysts. there is no middle ground, there is no compromise. the evidence since the inception of the sally net 200 years ago many americans want passionately to believe thomas jefferson fathered some or all of sally's the five children whether or not the evidence supports this charge or not. the legend jefferson took s

let me turn to national security for a moment.in the new issue of new yorker jane has a story about the decision to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in new york. and some unhappiness she reports within the white house especially, chief of staff rahm emanuel by the attorney general to do that. was that a mistake? >> no. the attorney general was responding under the protocol that was developed between the department of justice and the department of defense for the prosecution of terrorists. and he made the decision on that basis. rahm has the perspective that's different. he's the chief of staff. he looks at things from a legislative perspective. he looks at other perspectives that the attorney general was ruling on his view of what the law commanded in that point. but we have, believe me, we have disagreements all the time within the white house, within the administration. that's as it should be. people have various perspectives and various points of view. >> let me ask you also on the same subject of detainees. part of senator scott b

let me say what i would like to do. i would give a minute to the to on this side and the to on this side and that's it. we have to move forward. we have a scheduled hearing that this year -- >> with the gentleman yield? >> looking for certain information to get information we need to talk to the president secretary, the past and of course we have others -- >> i join with you and that unanimous consent for two additional minutes per side equally divided. >> reserving the right to object mr. chairman i just want to say that any member of this committee has ability to submit questions in writing. mr. geithner in response to an earlier question said in the interest of time he would be willing to answer questions in writing. is that not true? >> absolutely. >> anybody that wouldn't get a chance to ask a question can still put it in writing. i withdraw any objection. >> let me say that we will go to minutes on this side, two minutes on that side but remember -- >> reserving the right to object >> i don't know what you're obje

let me -- let me -- before you ask your actual question, let me just make this point.e is, is basically the previous administration had this idea, instead of traditional medicare, let's contract out to insurance companies to manage the medicare program. and the insurance companies can then kind of package and pool providers of dental care or eye wear or what have you, and it's a one-stop shop for seniors. now, in theory that sounds like a pretty good idea, except as you might imagine if the insurance companies are involved that means they've got to make a profit. and what happened was they didn't bid out competitively this medicare advantage program. so these insurance companies were just getting a sweet deal. all we've been saying is let's make sure that there's a competitive bidding process and that we are getting the absolute best bargain. [applause.] but i appreciate your larger concern, which is let's make sure that everybody has access to health care. and traditional medicare, by the way, is a great deal. everybody who is in it is pretty happy with it. but go ahe

let me respond.ook, the truth of the matter is if you look at the health care process, just over the course of the year, overwhelmingly the majority of it was actually on c-span, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? callus hearings took place. now, i kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including yorkie leadership. what is true, there is no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the capitol try to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. i take responsibility for not having structured it in a way where it was all taken place in one place that could be filled. how to do that logistically would not have been as easy as it sounds, you're shelling back and forth between the house, the senate, different offices and so one, different legislators. i think

>> let me respond to the two specific questions, but i want to push back of little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84%. most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated, but instead were built in as the consequences of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. so the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before i was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. whoever reads was in there, paul, and i don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time, people were hurting and needed help. and a lot of these things happened automatically. now the reason that i am not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year -- we prepared a budget for 2010, it is now on going forward -- is, again, i am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. and what they will say is

let me think.could have everybody get health care coverage that is high quality and it's free, which i'll bet is really popular but i'm not going to do that. i'm going to go through painor really working through this hard process of congress getting yelled at and called a socialist because that's how i roll. i'm a glutton for punishment. no. look. if there were easy and simple, first of all, somebody would have done it before. seven presidents have failed at this. seven congresses have failed at this. if this was simple, it would have already been done. it is not. this is 1/6 of our economy. it is extremely complex. the health care proposal we put forward is basically the same shape it is a proposal we would put forward by tom daschle, former senate dreament majority leader. bob dole and howard baker. two republican senate leaders. so it can't be that radical. it's a very straightforward principle that says we're going to set up an exchange, a pool where people who don't have health insurance in sm

let me repeat that. the budget embodies not counting the winding down of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. more deficit reductions in embodies in any administration budget in over a decade. how do we do that? a variety of steps. a new financial services fee, raising $90 billion imposed on financial services firms with more than $50 billion in assets, which will not only discouraged leverage, but also meet the statutory requirement of repaying taxpayers in full for the cost of the tough legislation. second, we allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for those families with more than $250,000 in income to expire as scheduled in 2011. i reduces the deficit by about $700 billion over the next decade. third, in order to help spur the clean energy economy of the future, a direction in which we must move, we eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. reducing the deficit by $40 billion over the next decade. and finally, we have a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending, which reduces the

let me carry on. middle, i guess, of 2011, prior to the law requirement, we will make this reader commercially available in this market. so there are steps that we had to take maybe because of that reason, but also for us it is very important to know the reasons of any accident and, you know, getting into more technical details of that. of course, we have been always opening our information to the authorities' requests. >> but the other manufacturers don't make these entities hurdle to get this. it's just -- it's not proprietary. you're still making it difficult, even if you add more readers. as you say, information is so important. as we talked about before, one of our big concerns here is we don't know exactly what's happening. yesterday it was said mr. lints isn't certain a recall would solve the safety problem. again, we are flying blind and with respect, i don't see that what you're talking about is a dramatic leap forward to improve how much information we're getting with these incidents as they

but let me ask you this.s there anything you have to do to change the way the disciplinary works once you have gay soldiers in the same barracks, close quarters? is there anything you have to do differently than you have to do now? >> absolutely not. in fact, the easiest thing to do here is to tell the military, let gays serve openly. the hardest thing to to is let congress repeal the law. what our command structure says, goes. so our troops are going to listen to the commanders. we have the strictest guidelines in what we call heterosexual relationships. an officer cannot be involved with a noncommissioned officer. these strict guidelines -- >> so they would apply to gay relationships as well? >> absolutely. >> you were in, i wasn't. thank you. please come back again. i'm sure we'll talk about this again. we'll hear the other side, too, as this debate continues. the country overwhelmingly in principle supports open service. i think this issue is getting close to resolution. >>> jon stewart takes on bill o're

>> let me say this would. there are three -- i want to say principles -- but three standards that we are using as we go forward, and i talked to the catholic bishops about this, people on all sides of the choice issue. wall prevents federal funding. the federal law prevents that are funding of abortion. there is no federal funding of abortion in this bill. that we no expansion or diminution of a woman's right to choose, and that does not happen in this bill. and we're determined that we're going to pass healthcare reform. this bill that passed the senate does not have federal funding of abortion. that will be the language. >> at least you and senator reid our export a competent process to get a bill to the presidents desk for reconciliation. you have said in the past that you're not sure the house can pass a senate bill. where does that stand out? do think it is possible along with the changes that your reconciliation and how is that process working? >> well, what you call competent process is called a simple

>> let me finish my answer. i believe that the department had this committee me to have more, not less communication. we are endeavoring to do that both of the democratic side and on the republican side. we have endeavored to provide you every bit of information that you have asked for. we have asked the congress for the ability to get summit ministered of resources which are called bureaucracy, but are in essence the ability to have the infrastructure necessary to run what is now the third-largest department of the government. i would love to talk about that with you. >> we have had a year. i am ionizing correct. the department is incorrect. this committee stands to be helpful to you and it has not been given an opportunity. the second issue. i appreciate the difficulty of your job. anybody who sits in that position has to create a budget that meets all the needs of the nation. this nation's greatest nation in the world during this economic crisis. while at the same time you are working our way out of this defic

let me ask about the details of his social care plans.can he say whether he is ruling out all forms of a composer he levied with a means tested or not, that elderly people would have to pay? is he ruling that are? >> he should read the white paper that we put forward what it sets out all the various options before us. mr. speaker, they can make all the noise they want. they can put up all the posters. they have absolute no policy to do with the problems. there are no substance. they have no judgment. they can hurl insults. they are not the new politics. they are the same old stories. [shouting] >> i've got -- i've got the paper right here. one of the options is a 20,000 pounds levy on every single elderly person in this country, except the very poorest. that is what it says. so let me ask him again. will he rule out any form of compulsory levy on the elderly? yes or no? >> if he reads the white paper, he is not -- [shouting] >> mr. speaker, he has not reported it correctly. and he should read the whole chapters so that he sees what it is.

let me read this quote. because the congressional military capabilities gap between north and south korea has become so overwhelmingly great and prospects for reversal of this gap so remote,. although there were other reasons for the north to pursue its nuclear program, redressing conventional weakness as a major factor and one that can and is likely festers will not easily dismissed. okay, admiral blair's remarks are particularly -- are particularly disturbing and misleading because they say specifically that conventional capabilities gap between north korea and south korea have become so great. please allow me to point out that the military of the south koreans is really, really well equipped to take on the maneuver force dominated north korean army of 1990. of course, now it's 2010. they are not, however, where they should be when it comes to handling the asymmetric forces that i discussed earlier. nor had they been able to adjust to for the large-scale urbanization of the new workforce is that occurred i

there's no growth. >> let me pass it on to rick santelli. you made a point earlier that we were talking about, the rule of countries with no central government. we also have to talk about the e.u., what is the future for the e.u. overall? >> you know, i think ever since they were unable to ratify a constitution, i think there is a possibility and maybe it's a small one, 5% to 15% that the euro future could be in trouble. i mean, if push comes to shove and countries are forced out of that unit, i just think it changed the whole dynamics of yet currency was originally created. what's more -- >> what would be the push that would come to the shove, rick? is this the beginning when we see this economic meltdown in some members of the european union? >> oh, sure, whether it's portugal, spain, greece, less countries are on the euro because there becomes a crossroads where bailouts aren't coming and fiscal responsibility isn't altered, i think that's the path that the market's worried about and if you look at percent of budget deficits to gdp, liste

let me why clarify. a limit on relative size propox night to the overall system. we don't want to have this bind on the current size of firms to say firms do not have to shrink so it's from further growth. in our view it shouldn't apply to organic growth. like the ten percent deposit capital growth where you jump over the size limit through acquisition. at the end of the day it's our view that there is important correlation between size and riskiness of firms. it's not to only thing but at some point firms get to be so big they impose a risk on the system. through new let me follow up on your statement because you said that we need to stop larger financial institutions from getting bigger and then you just have said that we shouldn't try to shrink them. is that correct? >> that's right. >> if these firms are already too big to fail, and the last two years has shown that at least this the adjustment or judgement of the fed and treasury that's case, why should we not force them to get smaller in addition t

>> let me explain.when the financial crisis was at its worst, what happened was gmac had limited liquidity. what it chose to do as a matter of policy was protect its ability to finance dealer inventory. the result of that was we didn't have enough capacity to fund a retail sales. and so our share of retail sales dropped to i believe it was 6%, 6 percent of gm's retail sales,h the good news is we say they didn't. the badges is the weren't a lot of sales being financed. today, we represented been on the month, somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of gm sales at retail. speck let's just talk precrisis for a minute. 2007 what was your person is? >> would've been in the mid '40s. >> you're not quite backs because we're not quite back but we're getting back. >> on rates are you competitive with other in total, of what you charge the? >> were highly competitive. we do our best to be as competitive as possible, given our cost of funding. of course you have raised what you and i talked about. >> but total you wou

let me move to the back of the room. >> thank you. risch yet the comment. just a bit of background -- >> forgive me to get can you say to you are? >> mark silverman -- >> and you are with? >> a law firm in town. >> that's fine. there's no need to be embarrassed. [laughter] >> at ravee one jakarta and happy to give it to you. [laughter] talk about tax reform as you know, president reagan and bradley gephardt got together in 1986 and reduced the deduction's etc. and you see where we are right now, that has changed rather dramatically and always will. as a result we have discussed through the government agency's switching systems from an income tax to consumption tax. that, we determined you couldn't do that cold turkey. too much disruption. professor michael crafts at columbia has written a book about doing if you will and incremental income tax rate as the rates come down. i'm curious as to your view of doing vat consumption tight system as a way to raise more revenue and integrate slowly to bring down the tax. >> thanks. >> first i believe from the intellect

as for back-room deals, let me say something about that. because i've always thought this argument was kind of funny. the fact is that the whole process was messy because it was transparent. it's the opposite of back room deals. you want to talk about back room deals, talk about the deals they made when they passed the drug benefit for senior citizens. they completely adjusted hospitals for south dakota. when dow it in the back room, in fact, no one knows about it. all of these deals have been totally transparent. >> rose: then why do you think support for the bill has been declining? >> well, because there's been this drumbeat of two comprehensive, too scary. and you do that and then you point to the fact that its-- that the people are confused about the bill. but that's not unusual in big bills. >> rose: but the president has the biggest pulpit in the country. >> he does. but even on these large bills, there's a classic idea in american political science called the negative coalition. it's so easy to beat a comprehensive bill because ever

let me repeat what i've said many times.cause they ran out of money. general motors was in trouble because they make cars no one wanted to buy. and that's why they ran out of money. so giving them money doesn't solve the problem. ask the cash for clunkers. 8 to% of the cars that were bought under the cash for clunkers were foreign cars. so even giving money to general motors didn't work. let it fame. let's talk about giving more money from federal government to bail out corporations and start talking about how to unleash the intellectual power and talent of our best and brightest. the geniuses and the risk takers who employ in the private sector jobs for the work force, and wealth for america. but we too are engaged this morning in a great battle in 2010 for the heart and soul of our nation and the outcome of this battle will determine whether or not we will advance the cause of freedom in america, or whether we will see our opponents further erode what our forefathers pledged, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred ho

so let me be very clear. will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs. the budget and reviews are also shaped by a bracing dose of realism. realism with regard to risk, realism with regard to resources. we have in a sober and clear-eyed way assessed risk, set priorities, made trade-offs, and identified requirements based on plausible real world threats, scenarios, and potential adversaries. just one example. for years u.s. defense planning and requirements were based on preparing to fight two major conventional wars at the same time. a construct that persisted long after taking over events. the department's leadership now recognizes we must prepare for a much broader range for security challenges on the horizon. they range from the use of sophisticated new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space, and cyber space to the threat posed by non-state groups delivering more cunning and destruct

but let me ask you this., are you with the other republicans who are putting out the word negotiations with the white house, that the president of the united states should not to have a lectern tomorrow? he should sit at the table at the same level as you guys. is that important to you? >> i think quite frangly this whole discussion should have been at this table at the same level. i think in part the reason the president is doing this is because he left the writing of this bill to the congress. i think he may have thought it was going to be a bipartisan process but down at this end of pennsylvania avenue it was not a bipartisan process. we were not allowed, republicans were not allowed in the room in the commerce committee to write any of this bill when it went through markup in the committee, the democrats accepted a number of amendments, and then mrs. pelosi ripped those amendments out of the bill before it went to the rules committee. if this is going to be a discussion, it would be better if he sat at th

but let me ask you this, the u.s. national security adviser, jim jones, has said that the increased pressure on iran is likely to lead to an attack on israel. do you agree with that -- not necessarily by iran. >> i understand the idea. i don't think that we are yet there. yeah, he probably intended probably hezbollah or someone else will attack us. in fact, ahmadinejad, this guy, he was two days ago in damascus, probably negotiating what should follow. he talked about a new middle east with no zionist and no -- israel and new israel. and this guy, you know, happened to develop not a new avatar-like long bows, but a nuclear weapon. so we have to take this situation seriously. i'm not sure whether we are going to face a preemptive attack by the hezbollah, but anyhow, we are not interested in conflict in the north or in the east. but if it is imposed upon us, we know how to respond. >> well, you say that, but then, of course, there's the gallstone effect. in other words, would you do what you did to hezbollah in 2006? al