why it former federal reserve chairman paul volcker in an interview state that the resolution authority provided in the proposed financial package is a "workable proposition for anything short of the biggest banks." does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implling that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it haddwhitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budgettaxpayel lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willinnness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i th

have tough regulation derivatives, and i would prefer thhs, and we have the tougher rules from paul volcker. i think that the difference is less than you think that this is. >> and what is the tough version of the volcker rule? >> you will have this come up with the general elections -- this is the final version that you will see. there will be some direction. >> we have the underlying part of the bill that we can actually have, given time. >> we will not give you the conference report. >> i asked sen. lincoln about this and she said that there were some concerns. >> this did not go very far. if people do not like what is in the bill, i am supportive of this. that is part of having a conference here. >> there are some people object to this. >> i think that we should be strengthening in this. we did that this time with the federal attention. but the republicans went too far, not just with frank lucas. people are hearing from some of the industrial interviews. >> what did you think about what they had said, that you should all go with the house version of the bill and that this one is too tou

why it former federal reserve chairman paul volcker in an interview state that the resolution authority provided in the proposed financial package is a "workable proposition for anything short of the biggest banks." does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budgetwill%% lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i thin

why it former federal reserve chairman paul volcker in an interview state that the resolution authority provided in the proposed financial package is a "workable proposition for anything short of the biggest banks." does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replacedd all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budget that tl lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i t

guest: the volcker rule is a rule proposed by the former fed chairman, now white house adviser, paul volcker, the taliban banks from using their own money -- basically doing proprietary trading to buy and sell securities on the market purely for their own profit, not on behalf of their clients. it has not yet been formalized, but there is a discussion about exempting firms like insurance companies and mutual funds that could secure the support of senator staff browbrown, one ofe republican senators to support the bill on the floor. it is something we will see later in the week, not today. host: you said senate negotiators have a little more power here. will it play out this week? guest: yes, i think so. the $150 billion resolution fund being proposed by the house -- to be used to -- to be paid for by large banks, to wind down collapsing financial institutions. the senate had to drop it because the bill would not pass the senate if you include it. the house is still trying to push and include it in the final bill. chris dodd, the senate banking chairman, has already said this bill would not h

paul volcker says that sweeping financial reform legislation before congress would make the u.s. a model for tte world. "the u.s. would go from laggard to the parade if we get this legislation passed." i am glad thereeis a chance of getting international acceptance for the basic principles. he expects this to produceeof coherent legislation of package3 be helpful and i would say to my friends from tennessee -- i do not know why he said there was nothing in heee about mortgages. some tough regulation to ban the kind of irresponsible subprime mortgages we tried to get banned before but >> this is the largest rewrite of the bill since the great depression. work on the bill resumes tuesday morning, including votes on amendments on derivatives and the consumer protection agency. expect livv coverage on c- span3 and c-span.org. at the white house today, president obama met with members of congress, republicans and democrats. here is what the president had to say. for engaging in a substantive conversation and i am going to be relatively brief in summarizing it. at the top of the list w

why it former federal reserve chairman paul volcker in an interview state that the resolution authority provided in the proposed financial package is a "workable proposition for anything short of the biggest banks." does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budget office suggests that taxpayers will lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and

guest: named after paul volcker, we used to be the fed chairman in the 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that whole had several goals. one of them was to scale down a risky trading activities of banks. and the other one was to sort of stop them from running and investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of compromise because that was a very contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength of the role has been weakened. it is still there. the restrictions on trading with their own money that the banks could do in the past remain, and the regulators won't have as much say on what those limits might be. so it is written into law, which is the good part. the negative part that was sort of that they can compromise the a little bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge funds. it was aimed to not let them do any of that activity. now they can continue to operate hedge funds in private equity firms, and they can invest up to 3% of their capital, which is small, not too much, but i

guest: named after paul volcker, we used to be the fed chairman in the 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that whole had several goals. one of them was to scale down a risky trading activities of banks. and the other one was to sort of stop them from running and investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of compromise because that was a very contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength of the role has been weakened. it is still there. the restrictions on trading with their own money that the banks could do in the past remain, and the regulators won't have as much say on what those limits might be. so it is written into law, which is the good part. the negative part that was sort of that they can compromise the a little bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge funds. it was aimed to not let them do any of that activity. now they can continue to operate hedge funds in private equity firms, and they can invest up to 3% of their capital, which is small, not too much, but i

the conference committee this proposal by american economist and former value reserve chairman paul volcker would have restricted banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments if they are not on behalf of their customers. volcker argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial cry soifs 2007 to 2010 and he's absolutely right but the conference report that will come before us allows them to keep their hedge funds and private equity arm up and running and they can still do some proprietary trading. do we really want home to do that? haven't we gone through enough? right now, wall street is choking the life out of our local credit systems and the communities they serve. let me just give you one example of why it's so difficult for local banks. when the big banks, i call them the big six, made all these mistakes, inside the banking system local institutions be they banks or credit unions, pay into insurance funds. well even if they didn't do anything wrong, they're part of the banking system and their fees went up. they had to pay more into the insurance fu

finally, i want to introduce into the record an articl in "the new york times" in which paul volcker says of that "sweeping fancial reform before congress woul make the united stas a model for the world. the united states will go from less to the headf the le if this lislation is passed. i am glad that there could be international acceptance to the basic principle. i have the impression that it is on a very good side pat. -- syed path --side path? -- side path."my time has expir. >> can i ask the gentlemen -- >> know. my time has expired and there are a lot of members here. it is now the gentleman from illinois five minutes. >> the senate does have just started. do not be insulted if weewalked out on you. [laughter] >> senator, never apologized for leaving. [laughter] that goes to any member. i have never been offended by anody's absence. [laughter] the gentlen from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this first meeting of the congress. it ian honor to be here. i want to thank the republican leadership for asking me to participate in these deliberations. the n

guest: named after paul volcker, be the fed chairman 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that several goals. one of them was to scale down a actities ofg banks. of the other one was to sort running andom funds andin hedge equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of that was abecause contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength been weakened. it is still there. withestrictions on trading their own money that the banks , andn theast remain the regulators won't have as limitst those might be. written into law, which is the good part. negative part that was sort thaa they can compromise the bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge fds. it was aimed to not let them do activity. now they can continue to in privatege funds equity firms, and they can to 3% of their , which is small, not too much, but it really opens up the risk that when, during the crisis, for example, bear stearns hedge fund, when they aid. o their goldman sachs did the same. so, that danger, the reputation the big banks need rescue their

>> paul volcker was in my office last week. we were talking about regulatory reform not the budget deficit per se, but he and i and some months ago discussed the issue of debt level, debt load that a country could carry without danger. and his observation was he wasn't sure where that number was, but he was sure we were getting pretty close to it and therefore needed to exercise the discipline that i discussed. so that while we didn't get into your specific question, i don't think there's any doubt that with many, many economists. let me make it very clear, i think i said this in the speech but i don't want anybody confused by this. in the short term we cannot stimulate and depress at the same time. that is not only counter intuitive but i think will not work. and therefore in the short term i still think we need, as i said in my speech, to ensure the growth of our economy. as mark standy said the other day,,and i'm -- zandy said the other day and i'm sure many will agree will you not solve the deficit problem if you onnt have