mr. forbes.you may have heard that the defense argue that the fed needs to be there to be lender of last resord to provide liquidity. >> it's done right, yes. the bank of england showed that if you had a credit crisis you could go to the bank in above-market interest rates and you're out of it. that can be done out of it in weeks. you could have, not in the u.s. but in other countries you had banks coming together and pulling money and making emergency loans. so you didn't have an effective lender of last resort. the banking systems are quite capable of doing it, if they know the rules of the game. you save and let the bad go and preserve the good. >> very good. >> no further questions, your honor. >> your witness professor kuttner. you want to stand over here. great. >> mr. forbes, are you on the forbes 400 list? >> no, that's why i read forbes. i'm trying to get on that list. [laughter] >> i wish you every success. i was intrigued that you said that the fed was somehow responsible for the colla

mr. forbes stated they'll receive interest taxed on page 18 of our report we report that those specific infrastructure finance will be provided to the board of supervisors estimated on november 9, 2015, and, of course, that will be subject to our approval the board of supervisors approval prior to creating and issuing any bonds for the infrastructure it will a detail the arrangement for the city's general fund and the economic benefits for the project at pier 70 we recommend this is consistent with the board of supervisors previous policy we recommend you approve the proposed resolution. >> okay. thank you very much mr. rose. >> seeing no questions we'll open up for public comment four and five to public comment seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor tang. >> thank you to the port for a really good thorough presentation and so again, this is thorough very much in line with what the board approval i make a recommendation to send four and five with a positive recommendation. >> we'll take that without objection. madam clerk item 6 please. mr. chair item 6 was called. >> chair farrell ms. forec

mr. forbes, for five minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today as i stand on this great floor, a place that we call the people's house, i look across and there is a full plaque of moses, the great lawgiver. while he may not be staring me in the eye, he stairs every speaker who stands where you stand today directly in the eye. and right above you there is our national motto, that's even above the flag of the united states, that says, in god we trust. and i come here this morning because in the state of washington in a school district he they take a different interpretation of that motto. you see, they believe there that you can trust in god as long as you don't trust too much. that you can be grateful to that god, as long as you are not too grateful. because last week they put on administrative leave a young football coach, coach joe kennedy, not because he molested a child, not because he he wasn't a winning football coach, not even because he didn't have good service, because everyone agreed he had had exemplary service for the la

mr. forbes, i don't know about myself, but you would be comfortable anywhere.but the idea is that the numbers -- and sometimes the numbers don't connect directly to what the ant anecdotal evidence sells. the jobs numbers are getting a little bit better, the economic numbers seem to say -- you still think we're not at the point where we're able to do it. >> where people feel, hey, the future's good, i'm going to splurge now, that's why our low gas prices haven't hiked if we're paying down credit card debt, just unsure that this is for real. connell: we're going to talk about it later, oil price, gas price, seem to paying nothing for gas and that would really have led to more than it has; right? >> this is a real contrast to the 1980s where you had a collapse in oil prices and the booming economy. but back then we had massive tax cuts, deregulating, the economy was booming, but people -- gas price went down and, yes, this is going to have to shop. people are r still so shell-shocked today, not from what happened and this recovery they're saying better be a little

mr. forbes. first of all, to make sure the record is clear, what i have on my desk to me is a message of the importance of restraint and oversight within government. and so it's a wiretap order that relates to martin luther king. it's not about law enforcement police miss con duct. one of the things prominent in my office is a picture of high gra my grandfather escorting a dangerous villain to jail. so i care an awful lot about making sure law enforcement has the -- whenever a police officer is kill in the line of duty, i call the chief or sheriff of that slain officer to offer the con dolences of the fbi. i make far too many phone calls. so we care about both, making sure law enforcement acts well and that we investigate people who would farm law enforcement, whether it's group, sophisticated groups or individual actors. it's a feature of all the work that we do. >> and i would just ask that at some point in time you could submit for the record the data you have on these outside groups coming in

mr. kasparov? >> guest: yeah. let's start with russia. you can list at the "forbes" list today and to see how many billionaires, many dozens of billionaires, from russia are on this list, and almost all of them are directly or indirectly connected to putin. so russia is now in the second place of the united states on this list. and for your information, you can go back and check that in year 2000 when yeltsin left office, there was no single russian billionaire on the list. i'm not here to discuss the details of economy in yeltsin's russia. i can recommend you can read my book because i'm not, you know, telling you about the strong, you know, flourishing democracy or economy under yeltsin. i'm highly critical of yet sip's rule. but -- yeltsin's rule. but under yeltsin we built a feeble foundation for future change. vladimir putin changed the situation, but for much worse. corruption under yeltsin was a big problem, corruption under putin is total. you can hear the debates, nixon/kennedy, the first televised debates where jfk was far more hawkish and, of course, the

mr. mull brooks, of alabama. >> is forbes in syria good or bad or counter-productive. >> congressman brooks, i think we've been pretty clear here that we do not believe russia's military intervention is leading to a settlement of the syrian conflict, that instead, it is giving assad confidence that he can stay in power. >> using words such as immoral to describe how bad russia's conduct in syria is, is that fair? >> assistant secretary patterson confirm thad word and i don't have a problem with it either. >> what thought has been given to using a diversion strategy where we force the russian military to be engaged in different parts of the globe there by weakening their abilities to prosecute their military aggression in syria, more specifically, how would a more aggressive military action in the ukraine impact russia's ability to expand its military operations in the middle east. i'm talking about trying to protect the territory that they have either unlawfully invaded themselves or assisted their proxies in unlawfully invading. >> congressman, i think you know that we've had a cease-fire

forbes. the volume and tone of criticism directed at mr.ush from the right i think is surprising and something to consider. some of those complaints might be dismissed as not being representative, as being narrow, or idiosyncratic. some could say look, these are conservatives, rats fleeing the sinking ship, or trying to prevent the good name of conservative from going down with the bush titanic. on balance, i don't think you can dismiss them out of hand. i think they constitute another red flag towards the facile labeling of bush as a doctrine conservative. is there some way of making sense of all this, of coming up with an account that would explain the specipieces that fi dominant conservative labeling and i think there might be. i end up endorsing some form of what is well known in my field an account articulated first on the eve of the clinton presidency in which he describes these four recurring contexts of presidential leadership. you can profitably study presidents across the ages that end up in remarkably situations. he suggests tha

person in the world according forbes, vladimir putin, maria it is third year in a row, that he topped this list, and especially with what's going on with russian plane crash mrn several levels today. maria: cheryl doesn't surprise me, the truth is john bussey when you have a vacuum somebody will fill that i have to look at the list whether they are basing on, we are by far largest economy biggest military i am not sure how that how that -- >> you think barack obama most power person in the world is that what you are saying. >> yeah u.s. most power country in the world simply no question. maria: this is -- >> this is -- >> but you the puce tin willing to exercise power places we don't want him true. >> i completely agree most powerful man in the world went into crimea took with zero recourse, would anybody do. >> nobody did it. >> single thing, he is aligning with iranian royal guard going now. >> supporting. >> coalition had zero recourse for actions. >> i know what you are saying. >> most power person in the world it does make him a p. >> united states has heft all records. >> we know isis, we believe, that isis put a bomb on that russian plane. and that we

forbes." professor christopher hickman spoke about in this earlier in a great paper that i would recommend, but the volume and tone directed at mr bush from the right i think is surprising and something to consider. some of those complaints might be dismissed as not being representative, as being narrow or idiosyncratic. i think in the later parts of mr. bush's second term some could say, look, these are conservative rats fleeing the sinking ship or trying to prevent the good name of conservativism from going down on the bush titanic. so there's something to that, but still on balance i don't think you can dismiss them out of hand. i think they constitute another red flag towards the facile labeling of bush as a doctrinaire conservative. so is there some way of making sense of all of this? of coming up with an account that would explain the pieces that seem to fit the dominant conservative labeling, some of the pieces that don't fit, some of the conservative creatism, and i think there -- criticism, and i think there might be. i end up endorsing the account of -- articulated first on the eve of the clinton presidency and the pol