oner at the >> this job is a lot harder. rather than being independent, i was a member of a board, deciding policy, but now i run this agency. we do over $13 billion in loans and grants, for all kinds of infrastructure. it is a big job with a lot of responsibility, both managerial and operational. the policy questions are large, but the management questions loom even larger in terms of my time. we need to have the right resources. i make operational decisions about how to process things, who is going to do what and how to get it done. it is very different from managing a large organization. it is different to be part of the executive branch. i have excellent secretary of agriculture that i work for in thomas vilsack. he is really engaged and involved and the committed to getting broadband out to the rural parts of the country. it is an exciting opportunity to work as part of a team. i enjoy the independence of the fcc, but i like this, too. we have excellent leadership. we were regularly with them to ensure that they know wh

it's going to be very onerous to almost everyone except to the federal bureaucrats who are going to be hired to put obamacare in place and who are going to be enforcing it and in fact, we're going to have to hire 16,500 new i.r.s. agents to enforce it. that's right, madam speaker. 16,500 new i.r.s. agents just to enforce obamacare on small businessmen and women around this country. the more the american people discover about obamacare, the less they like it. we just heard, i think it was last week where the congressional budget office says, oops, we made a mistake. we were $115 billion too little on our estimate, which puts it way over $1 trillion. our democratic colleagues, their leadership -- actually it's not all the democrats because there are many who are reasonable on that side. but the leadership of the democratic caucus wanted to get obamacare and the president wanted to get obamacare passed and force the c.b.o. through the parameters that they gave them to try to get the numbers below $1 trillion. and frankly, if you look at medicare when c.b.o. projected the cost of medicare,

. >> the bankers still seem to think they can strip out some of the most onerous conventions to them in the conference. >> i woepuldn't basically take lot of investment advice from those banks if they are not better at that than politics. >> what did the president tell you? >> he congratulated senator dodd because he just got the bill through and getting things through in the senate is a little more differ but there is one point. in someone situation he had a advantage over me. i want to address a cynical view of american politics which you quoted correctly which is the big banks do it. last year when the house debated the bill healthcare was taking up most of the attention. so, the bill was almost an inside game. healthcare having been done, this year the senate conducted its bill in full public light and you saw that. the big banks didn't win anything that they should not have won. they were not able to block anything they should not. anything looking for a tkphapbgs that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. look at the contrast. there were a coup

he said in 2008 that he wants a cap-and-trade bill that is so onerous that carbon-based industries likeoal industry, if they try to do anything new, they'll go bankrupt. the president is very anti-carbon energy. i understand that. i get it, i just disagree with it. i think in this case, he saw an opportunity to say, look how bad oil and gas drilling is. look at all this harm it's causing. >> he just came out for offshore oil drilling. >> chris, i'm glad you asked that. he came out and said, look, i'm going to approve oil and gas drilling. and all you guys are going to say, look what a great guy he is, trying to reach out to everybody else. all he did was approved two existing leases on the northeast coast and shut down all the other proposed leases on the west coast and the southeast coast. there was nothing new in what he did. >> don't you know what you're saying to a third party, not somebody like myself or somebody like yourself, listening to you, thinks that you're sounding insane. you're saying that the president of the united states went into slow-mo here, somehow seemed to be wor

and putting a layer of tax increases over them at this time is particularly onerous. this legislation double counts oil spill excise tax revenue. so this is not the fiscally responsible bill some would claim. while it quadruples the excise tax, to fund the oil spill trust fund, counts this twice because while it's intended to reserve for the trust fund, and used to mitigate oil spills, it shouldn't be counted as contributingo general deficit reduction as this legislation does. there's irresponsible health spending. also increases the deficit. if the so-called health care overhall and reform had actually done its job, we wouldn't be here with a major medicare problem. the physician payment formula. because it was so important to make that bill look less expensive, the physician payment formula which was actually the fix was a part of that legislation, was takeon out and therefore we are back again trying to find a way to address that issue. i think that's why so many physicians groups have come forward representing more than 155,000 doctors across america saying this i

plain and simple, onerous regulations are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit of america's small businesses. in 2009 alone there were close to 70,000 pages in the "federal register" and the annual cost of federal regulations now totals more than $1.1 trillion. furthermore, according to the research by the small business administration's office of advocacy, small firms -- and this is no price -- bear disproportionate burden, paying approximately 45% more per employee in annual regulation compliance than larger firms. so the amendment that we're offering here today would ensure small business fairness and regulatory transparency by first drgt the consumer financial protection bureau as a covered agency under the regulatory flexibility act. so that small business review panel provisions would apply to the burse rule making. these -- to the bureau's rule making. these small business panels currently apply to e.p.a. and osha and have been extremely helpful to shape more workable regulations at these agencies for small businesses across america. since 1996, when these small business panel provisi

a public model heavy on onerous regulations, higher taxes, and political obligations in this town. in turn, weekend return back to that land oopportunity and freedom that most people in america can say that their ancestors came here for. that is what we should be about. host: linda. minneapolis. caller: i hope you can answer my question without any talking points. i have two questions. does your wife worked for bank of america? guest: no, she does not caller: did you vote for the -- against financial reform when it came through the house? guest: yes, i did. caller: my final question is, ron paul, he was the republican candidate in kentucky. he is against the civil rights act, he is against education. guest: i am not familiar with his position on those issues. host: he said last night that he supports many aspects of the civil-rights act when it comes to the government, but has concerns about business is being able to set their own rules and standards. guest: not being familiar with his position, i cannot comment. host: ok, we are moving on. ralph. chicago, illinois. caller: i belie

. >> hi will spare you the onerous burden -- i will spare you the onerous burden. i am delighted to be here, and very, very delighted that we have two excellent representatives to deal with this problem. steven groves is a fellow at the heritage foundation where he focuses on international law. before that, he was senior counsel on investigations and he played a lead role in the oil- for-food scandal. i am in -- i am delighted he is here today and not engaged in that job because i have some history on that issue neither steven nor his staff found the time to interview me. a very short conversation. john norton moore is very known to you as well. he represented the national security council committee on the subject. he has maintained a very strong interest on the law of the sea treaty, and has been one of the primary progenitors of early ratification. your success is not measured in timeliness, but in persistence, if i can say it that way. we will hear from each of them for all little over 20 minutes. then, they will respond for a little over eight minutes. i will k

johnson was one for 16 with oners -- runners in scoring position. makes the error and a similar pitch that saunders doubled down the line. on thats with a fastball inside of the plate, and there's your fifth run. >> gary: all charged to the starter david hernandez. 5 runs, 5 2/3 inning. now ichiro up. ichiro an intentional pass the last time bounced back to the pitcher. he shows bunt. tejada was back. he saw it and tried to lay it down. that will move tejada in. >> that's how you do ito-0. miguel will have to play in and he will play in any way because of all the infield hit capability of ichiro. i said does he bunt much. he said only when he doesn't think he's swinging well. >> gary: good time to do it. >> jim: whens that. >> gary: july 20, 1910. >> jim: not too often. >> gary: 0-1 count. there goes the runner there's the throw and he's out. matt wieters throws out his 8th in 19 chances. that will do it but not before 3 have crossed and it's a 5-0 mariners lead. >> gary: celebrating in the rain that comes and goes. 5-6-1 f the ms the orioles lookin

what is it that is subject to the most onerous and punitive taxation? it is income that has been saved and invested. they will go out along with the value added tax. heaven forbid you do not maintain that distribution of tax. you continue down the slippery slope. that terrifies me. that is why we are fighting against it. thank you very much. [applause] >> as you can see, a number of our policies that are quite passionate about the policy areas they were again and what they do. barnett speaker does so in a slightly different way. chris preble happens to work on my floor which i used to dominate with my booming voice. i was completely superseded by chris. whenever he sees an editorial, he will be off to the races for a good 20 minutes that is because chris cares about what he does. he is a very productive member of the cato team. it was published by cornell and university president. interposes a new grand strategy to national security. he is the author of "editing existing iraq." he has published over 100 articles and major publications including all the

a public model heavy on onerous regulations, higher taxes, and political obligations in this town. in turn, weekend return back to that land of opportunity and freedom that most people in america can say that their ancestors came here for. that is what we should be about. host: linda. minneapolis. caller: i hope you can answer my question without any talking points. i have two questions. does your wife worked for bank of america? guest: no, she does not. caller: did you vote for the -- against financial reform when it came through the house? guest: yes, i did. caller: my final question is, ron paul, he was the republican candidate in kentucky. he is against the civil rights act, he is against education. guest: i am not familiar with his position on those issues. host: he said last night that he supports many aspects of the civil-rights act when it comes to the government, but has concerns about business is being able to set their own rules and standards. guest: not being familiar with his position, i cannot comment. host: ok, we are moving on. ralph. chicago, illinois. caller: i be

clear i did not mean to suggest age discrimination is not a problem were victims should have the onerous burden to prove their case. but as somebody intended to apply and a 12 make the record clear. >> i never inferred that on many of your statements. i am just trying to figure out that there seems to be different approaches on how to do this. we're trying to figure out what is the best approach? talking to those different groups to figure out what is the best approach all i can say is maybe we can make it tougher i don't know. also have to look at the reality of what we can do that it seems to me what was happening before and the fact you were successful whenever the law was before seem to work pretty well. and now, since the gross decision it has created turmoil, a lot of uncertainty and from what i understand it will create a higher burden of proof of what had in the last 20 years. if that is the case, then i don't want to have the higher burden of proof. i think they already have the burden of proof and i think of logic of the law we have had is pretty good it seems to me. but i did

i understand it, that the rules for immigration into mexico from its southern border are far more onerous than our own laws. in fact, ours are much more generous. yet he's cite sit -- criticizing us. that really makes no sense, doesn't add up, it's hypocritical. so i think you're absolutely right, mr. king, because not only should we make sure that the opportunities are there for our own citizens, but we should take away, i think, any incentives for people not to work when in fact they're fully able bodied to do so. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i'd just make this point, that would be that when we have people that are being subsidized, their families are being subsidized because they can't make enough wages to sustain their households and for example, working in the packing plant in my neighborhood 20 years ago paid about the same amount that a teacher makes today. it paid about the same as a teacher 20 years ago. but today, a teacher makes about twice as much as the person working in the packing plant. the person in the packing plant has trouble sustaining themselves without some kind of

on the contrary, many states with the highest tax rate and the most onerous regulatory regimes have experienced the worst budget crisis taxpayers and businesses are leaving their estates while they extraordinary state expenditures on these issues are staying. they target investments in infrastructure projects and create growth friendly environments and communities to the successful states. they work hard to attract science and technology-based companies that will generate the jobs of tomorrow. they help companies large and small to export. they will come foreign direct investments. they don't shun it. they cultivate people through work force development and strong schools. and those are just a few of the highlights from the study. the folks who did the study will be here today to go through all the details. we appreciate your participation. let me add a personal note before i conclude. there are two points that i just made in the last couple of comments. one is about trade. the more we export and the president even took it from our report last year if we would double down on exports in this cou

that you have to have saving and investment what is it in our tax system that is subject to the most onerous, it discriminates, and in judea's taxation? saving and investing. those of the taxes that go along with the value-added tax, because heaven forbid we do not maintain that existing distribution of tax by income class. it is going to cause america to continue down the slippery slope to welfare stateism. that terrifies me and that is why we're fighting against it. like you very much. >> thank you, dan. as you can say, a number our policy staff are quite passionate about the policy area they were can and what they do. an aide said it's his passion and a certain way. hours next speaker does so at a slightly different way. chris preble works on my for which i used to dominate with my booming voice and my ransom 19. i been completely superseded by chris whenever he sees an editorial or reference, he will be off to the races for a good 20 minutes and i have to put close my door. chris care is a good deal about what he does and he is a very productive member of the team. his most recent book w

how do we know that you might forbear from all these other more onerous regulations that somebody else doesn't come along? is there an opportunity? maybe there's a legal theory that really locks it down? is there an opportunity to work together with congress openly to help lock down or is there another path? you for the concern. how do we address that question? >> well, a few thoughts. first thing is a couple of somewhat technical answers in the 17 years that forbearance has been in place where both the government has forewarned for many, many things. there's never been an on for baron, it just hasn't happened and there's a reason for that embedded in the way for baron toppings. the second thing is the approach that we put out for discussion, third way approach is modeled on an approach that has worked for a number of years, mobile voice which has been regulated, which has had this treatment is very similar treatment for a long time with forbearance, same provisions applying and there's been a great innovation and confidence there. but the third thing i'd say is this to me, you describ

junk is actually of some value if we go back and look not at the ability of the mortgage -- the home oner to pay but rather the fico score. they did and they rated it as an a, then sold it to unsuspecting investors and the result was, at the end of the day, junk is junk and the thing collapsed. so we had the great collapse of 2008. what do we do about it now? how do we go about dealing with this? you mentioned the community reinvestment act. i was insurance commissioner in california for eight years. i watched the banks use the community reinvestment act to bring bank offices and branch into the underserved community, it ended red lining, it's a good law if only the insurance industry had the a similar law to provide insurance in those communities. but it doesn't. the community reinvestment act isn't to blame here. greed and unbridled greed is the problem. to our republican friends that ranted for the previous hour about government regulation, we need it. serious government regulation in wall street. let's talk about where we go from here. mr. driehaus: i think it's a good point, congress

for modifying some of these things, perhaps there will be a way to -- to remove some of the more onerous things facing us in this bill or perhaps even remove the bill itself and get back to fixing those things that needed to be fixed in the first place. but you also had members of the business community, large employers, telling members of congress,ing members of congress and the leadership on my committee, that, look, be careful because we are going to encourage -- incur some significant costs from what you're doing in this bill and it may be necessary, it may affect our bottom line. so you did have companies restate projected earnings -- earnings shortly after the bill was passed and the chairman of my committee was upset by this and said, these companies are just doing this to embarrass the president at the time of the bill signing and so sent out the word that all of these c.e.o.'s from these companies that had restated their earnings would get the opportunity to come to our committee and tell us all about why they thought it was necessary to restate earnings on what should have been

. >> some people think they can take out the more onerous parts of the bill in the conference. >> i would not take a lot of investment advice from those banks if they are not better at that than they are at politics. i would like to congratulate senator dodd. getting things through the senate is a little difficult. there is one. want to make. in one sense, he had an advantage over me. i want to address the cynical view of american politics, which quoted correctly. big money does it in the big banks do it. last year, health care was taking up most of the attention. the bill was almost an inside game. health care has not been done. the senate conducted its bill in public light. you saw the big banks did not win anything they said they wanted. there were not able to block anything. anybody looking for a demonstration that when the public is engaged democracy works well gets it from this bill. just look at the contrast. there were votes on the floor of the house last year where derivatives were on the losing side. i believe there would be on the winning side today. the old assumption that big

i see my friends oner side friends on the other side of the aisle smiling.i'm looking forthe it income. they'll haveir income, will to see that pay the loa my sen realsterscome to today, my f any because they want to mako to on co if soow i'm offering for help with this. mr. president, i yield t . durbin: sena ders. and printed in the record.tion?. president mr. president, on behalf of senator bingaman i ask unanimous the privilege of the floor be granted to kevin eyler, a fellow on the committee of natural presourcessources for the pendency of s. 3217 and any votes thereupon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today -- and the republican leader has already add

nothing to do with the wall street meltdown and should not be faced with owner us new and -- with onerous new and duplicative regulations because of problems they did not cause. further as the most recent small business trend surveys shows, small businesses continue to struggle with lost sales and such regulations could make these problems worse, stifling any potential small business recovery." close quote. and that, mr. president, is why i join with senators mcconnell, gregg, shelby and others on an amendment to fix the problem. instead of creating a brand-new superbureaucracy with unlimited authority and reach, our amendment would empower the fdic to look out for consumers. it makes sense. the fdic is the one that has a strong record of providing consumer protections. it has a record of being able to deal with financial institutions. it is dealing with the financial institutions that get into problems. with the banks, anybody that is regulated by the fdic, they are in there looking over their shoulder. our amendment would create a division of consumer financial protection in the fdic so

ey do need to spend somevernmenn government money oner infrastructure bank. the infrastructure bank can. hae tools that will help without spending one federal dollar.dla. credit enhanced loan guarantees. those things are important.se te they will work without thethe expenditure of a single federal dollar, in most cases. not in all cases but in 95, 96, 97, 98% of the cases. i do believe as congresswoman dorset, where to capital as the bank. bak. her figure is about right. i would double that. i would to 50.50 ll the bank has up its own bonny capacity. and why do we need a bank?nque? we need it because there reallyn is no vehicle in the current transportation system for funding multistate projects arel projects of national significance. we have in the short termwe have because of arra with tiger grants that the tiger grants took into consideration funding proe projects that were multistate your pennsylvania was in on two projects that were fu funded for rail freight. they had 68 in five states involved in each of the respective projects. but if we're going to d

what is it that is subject to the most onerous and punitive taxation? it is income that has been saved and invested. they will go out along with the value added tax. heaven forbid you do not maintain that distribution of tax. you continue down the slippery slope. that terrifies me. that is why we are fighting against it. thank you very much. [applause] >> as you can see, a number of our policies that are quite passionate about the policy areas they were again and what they do. barnett speaker does so in a slightly different way. chris preble happens to work on my floor which i used to dominate with my booming voice. i was completely superseded by chris. whenever he sees an editorial, he will be off to the races for a good 20 minutes that is because chris cares about what he does. he is a very productive member of the cato team. it was published by cornell and university president. interposes a new grand strategy to national security. he is the author of "editing iraq -- existing iraq." he has published over 100 articles and major publications including

on the contrary, many states with the highest tax rate and the most onerous regulatory regimes have experienced the worst budget crisis taxpayers and businesses are leaving their estates while they extraordinary state expenditures on these issues are staying. they target investments in infrastructure projects and create growth friendly environments and communities to the successful states. they work hard to attract science and technology-based companies that will generate the jobs of tomorrow. they help companies large and small to export. they will come foreign direct investments. they don't shun it. they cultivate people through work force development and strong schools. and those are just a few of the highlights from the study. the folks who did the study will be here today to go through all the details. we appreciate your participation. let me add a personal note before i conclude. there are two points that i just made in the last couple of comments. one is about trade. the more we export and the president even took it from our report last year if we would double down on exports in this cou