paulson said we wouldn't do the warrant. i was faced with a situation that maybe all of us have been faced with at some point, where those who are superior or in authority over us, whether our parents, a boss, the secretary of the treasury, the chairman of the federal reserve said you have to act. we did act. i don't know what would have happened if we hadn't, but i imagine most economists say it needed to be done. i think most of those same economists say now if you continue to do this, you're going to create hazard by tte bucket load. the government needs to step back from this. this bill just institutionalized it. brad sherman said it's tarp on steroids. now he has somehow come around to it. i've seen that happen to people in my party, including myself, when you swim against the mainstream of your party. >> the counter argument to that is the bill actually says if wee have to step in again, the company isn't going to survive and the management will be fired. >> well, the creditor may or may not suffer. there's too much di

when the democrats took office -- and you can read that in secretary paulson's book -- we cooperated with the paulson administration, we told them to put it in conservatorship and we await the next steps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'm glad that the gentleman tried to kill the bill that pasd the house when the senate died, the g.s.e. reform bill, the gentleman say he voted against it and did he. i would also remind the gentleman today is today and where's the budget? where's the budget for the house to vote on? where's the budget? deafening silence. we should be doing the budget. the budget that people of the united states find out what the glide path and direction should be for this country for all this spending. deafening silence, madam speaker. where's the leadership there? now, we were talking abo a small f.h.a. bill. how about for the united states ? once again, pin the tail on the donkey. madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from n

and as the secretary paulson did. they are correct. i did not claim that democrats thouggt this up. the differences we must stop it. bankruptcy has established practice. and has a body of law behind it. there is predictability. there is a list for senior debt goes first. some people were told to forget it. other people were given 90 cents on the $1. other people were paid off in+ full. aig is the most outrageous of all. for two years i have said that it absolutely is, to me, it offends my sense of fair play that day the foreign banks, goldman and morgan, 100 cents on the $1. two banks in my district still have not been paid. they are not systemically important. as a government, you say one standard is for these zero large companies. pe're going to give them some benefits. we will say we will pay the creditors off, but you do not d+ that for a small bank. it is a societal problem. people are already saying, wait a minute, when i lost my house, you can say, well wait a minute. when i was in trouble i had to pay off those debtt. no one came in and paid off my creditors. >> republicans

secretary said, secretary paulson said, madam speaker, tomorrow morning will be too late. tomorrow morning will be too late. why, mr. secretary, have you not notified congress? why have you not called us sooner? why would it take a call from me to ask you to report to us, to tell us that tomorrow morning will be too late? without going into his response, which i'm happy to do, but in the interest of time i won't now, i then call the secretary, i mean the chairman of the fed, chairman bernanke, and asked him to join the secretary of the treasury at my office later that day. the meeting turns into a meeting that was half in senate, democrats and republicans, gathered together to hear from the secretary of the treasury the condition of the markets. the secretary who had told us that we couldn't even wait until the next morning described a very, very grim situation. the chairman of the fed who is an expert on the great depression told us that the situation was so grim that if we did not act immediately there would be no economy by monday. this is thursday night. there would be

in the end, i do not know who except for maybe john paulson would have been coming up with different kinds of ratings? it was the greatest bubblehead ever seen. -- bubble that i have ever seen. the enre american public was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically. eddie mac believed it. fannie mae to the debt. congress believe that. the media believe that. i believe that. very few people could appreciate the bubble. that is the nature of bubbles. the bece massive dilution. i am much more inclined to come down hard on the ceo's of institutions that cost the united states government to come in and necessarily bolster them. >> l me prove that a little. i just want to sit for the record, i do think around the country there were peopl who thought the bubble was unsustainable. there were a number of experts. robert schiller, the real rub been a, a dean baker. -- nouriel roubini. this was something we had never seen hhstorically. moving beyond that for a minute, the rating agencies did play a fundamental role in accelerating the securitization and therefore me w

only person on the american side, who has been to all of them because they were founded by secretary paulsonin the previous administration. it continued with modifications into the current administration. it is a meeting of essentially the entire cabinet of the united states plus the fed chairman and others with their counterparts in china. what i felt was the genius of this meeting is that it recognizes the wide range of issues in which the u.s. and china have common interests and concerns. when we go, we don't just talk about exchange rates and some things that have been a troubling part of our relationship, we talk about ways where we can cooperate on energy the says, and many other -- on visas and many other issues. the fact is, we need us -- a fact is, they need us and we need them. these are the largest developed economies in the world and we have a great deal to gain in working with each other. one of the benefits of these meetings besides the concrete achievements which are sometimes establishing a working relationship. having a working relationship with people so you can call and ta

of couse it di't work out very well and the bubble did collapse and john paulson made a lot of money and the people who ha insured against the defense had been bailed out by the government. so, how do you,again, going back to theway to design these in donner dustin dampers, how do you avoid that problem? becae yocould have hada number of the things that have en suggested here in place and it's still difficult to avoid the ingenuity of the financial sector in designing other instruments. i like congressman foster's desi which is a very simple one r the using market, which says less leverage as the price goes up. that seems to me to be very sensible. here again, the political problem as you know better than i come is the people like to dream about the value of te housing tripling in three years even fter they have been inconvenienced by its collapse and so the way you answer those criticisms, the way you build these endogens dampers is you say we re buildinghese things and you eed to do it for most asset prices. we will have these things that will make it more difficult to push the pri

paulson. i do not think president bush would have presided over such on fairness. when it was initiated, it was from september 2008 until january. they were in power and then the obama administration took over. i think he has characterized them unfairly, but in any case, it is irrelevant because we are doing away with that. that was under a power. that we abolish in the bill. that the senate abolishes in the bill. there will be no more individual intervention of that sort, so this things cannot happen. we're talking about a systematic and orderly process in which we are trying to reduce the loss, so there was no unfettered discretion. there is no ability to favor people politically. what there are are conditions that say you may in doing this maximize the value of the assets of the company, initiate and continue operations. what they have done with the bank deposits is what they are doing with this as well here, to initiate and continue operations equal to implementation of the receivership. the institution is now in receivership. it is dying. to maximize the value

when the fed, hank paulson went to the government and started talking about how they needed to bail outthe big banks no one was talking from the right about that situation. we had eight years of george bush. he spent more money than any president in the united states. now it is capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. guest: there are a lot of people on the political right to were pretty upset with treasury secretary hank paulson about the bailouts. the policy did not seem well coordinated. paul idea was under george w. bush. should they have been louder? yes. if you look back what we were doing at a.e.i., we were just as critical of the bush administration as under the obama administration. socialism for the rich and capitalism for the port -- i do not know. our problem in the country is we have tried to socialize losses and privatized gains. you cannot do that. history tells us that when you try to do that you wind up socializing but the gains and losses. host: what are your thoughts on spending, and how you get congress to not spend as much, whether democrat or republican?

in the end, i do not know who except for maybe john paulson would have been coming up with differentinds of ratings? it was the greatest bubblehead ever seen. -- bubble that i have ever seen. the entire american public was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically. freddie mac believed it. fannie mae to the debt. congress believe that. the media believe that. i believe that. very few people could appreciate the bubble. that is the nature of bubbles. the become massive dilution. i am much more inclined to come down hard on the ceo's of institutions that cost the united states government to come in and necessarily bolster them. >> let me prove that a little. i just want to sit for the record, i do think around the country there were people who thought the bubble was unsustainable. there were a number of experts. robert schiller, the real rub been a, a dean baker. -- nouriel roubini. this was something we had never seen hhstorically. moving beyond that for a minute, the rating agencies did play a fundamental role in accelerating the securitization and therefo

paulson for today and june 24. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be able to address the house for five minutes, ms. woolsey, mr. defazio, mrs. maloney, new york. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i ask to take her time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. defazio: the president has today been given a unique opportunity with the firing of general mcchrystal. general mcchrystal was the principal author and advocate of the surge of u.s. forces in afghanistan. his theory was that it would be a clear hold and transfer, that is transfer to the afghan police who do

unddr that authority, secretary paulson put fannie mae and freddie mac into talking about ignoring them. they have been in conservative -- conservatorship since 2008. they are very different entities. the gentleman said congress forced freddie mae and fannie -- freddie mac and fannie mae. in 2004, president bush ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to go above 50% in the mortgages they bought that work for people below the median income. i criticized that publicly and said it was not good for those institutions, nor for the people who were getting into that housing situation and joined mr. oxley to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. mr. oxley put a bill through the house. i voted in committee against it because of unrelated reasons but the gentleman from california notes he'd carried the amendment. he forgot to say he got one- third of the republicans to vote for. the amendment was defeated on the floor of the house. no -- if no democrat had voted, they would have lost heavily. many members voted against the gentleman from california and with mr. oxley. senate democrats offered in 2006

became chairman we passed the bill he couldn't get passed in 2005 because we worked with secretary paulson. in 2003 i was not concerned. by 2005 i was. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: we are sitting here arguing on the floor about how gets credit for what. i think we ought to give credit, we ought to give credit to the democrats for taxing, spending, record unemployment, higher debt, and what we are talking about today, this bill, financial services sector of this country, will not be healthy if we do not turn around our economy. and that, too, madam speaker, is pin the tail on the donkey. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from roanoke, virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose the rule on this legislation coming forward, but before we get to the vote on the rule we're going to

paulson. the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. fox. the gentleman from florida, mr. mack. the gentleman from arizona, mr. fraaks. under the speaker's annouuced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for six minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank you, and i thank my leadership on the republican side, leader boehner and our leadership team to give me the opportunity this evening before this packed house chamber. of course, mr. speaker, with the exception of those few names that you just read off. but on this occasion of the three-month anniversary, if you will, the three-month anniversary of the signage into law of the health care reform bill better known as patient protection and affordaale care act of 2010, sometimes referred to with no disrespect as obama care. not unlike hilary care of 1993, which never became law. mr. speaker, indeed when i say obama care, i do not mean any disrespect, although i consistently, along with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, voted against the passag

i think it has been a clear impediment but paulson that the treasury, and geithner continues the bailout. i find it quite distasteful that one of the immediate things that we say needs to be cut are entitlements, when clearly wall street could use some austerity if we're going to have a surplus, there has to be an economic recovery, which means systemic regulations in the system. and i think we need to return to things like glass-steagall, one3 to get through. >> let me say that we're pursuing vigorously regulatory reform. i expect that to be on the floor prior to us leaving before the july 4 break. i'm very hopeful that we will have very significant regulatory reform packages sent to the president. it is clear -- my iew is that that to date -- the two major phases of the bush administration with fiscal+ irresponsibility and regulatory neglect. we saw that in the financial community. we are now seeing and what the oil spill. -- seeing it with the oil spill, which is in part due to extraordinary negllgence of bp and as well the netherlands -- the negligent -- the negligence of regulators

this meeting was created by secretary paulson and the previous administration and has just continuedto the current administration with some modifications. essentially, the entire cabinet of the united states, plus the fed chairman and others in china is that this media recognizes the wide differences when we talk about comments and concerns. we do not just talk about the troubling part of our relationship, but about the ways that we can cooperate on energy, investment, trade, visas and other issues both on the economic and strategic side. the fact is that they need us and we need them. the chinese are the largest developing and largest developed economies in the world. we enjoyed working with each other. one of the benefits of these -- of this working together is having a relationship with people so that you can call and talk to them to get a frank answer. my answer is that we are talking to china and we need to keep talking to china because it is not just the same goal one or two issues, but a range of issues in which the two countries after work together. >> but is china listening

john paulson's and fund made $33 billion on the decline of housing and he is estimated to have made $3.7illion as a result of that. given that he is just one company, what is the total body of the caribbean that would accumulate to the federal government? what would happen with all of the other hedge funds, real- estate companies, and so on, that the government could receive if that was counted as real income? guest: that is a good question, but i cannot answer it. what i can tell you it is the joint committee on taxation believes the carey, 10 years forward, will generate about $17 billion for the government. it will not apply -- the higher tax rates will not apply to john paul said because it is a prospective provision. it does not reach back to get the carried in previous years. that is a pretty good chunk of change and give you a good idea of the kind of profits we are talking about here. host: michael on the republican line. caller: i wanted to address that person talking about ethanol and all of that. that product does not work. it burns through lawn mower engines if you do not and

under that authority, secretary paulson put fannie mae and freddie mac under conservatorship. we're not talking about ignoring them. they have been in conservatorship since 2008. then the gentleman said that congress forced fannie mae and freddie mac. i did not see any need to do much regulation could in 2004, president bush ordered fannie mae and reddie mac to go above 50% in the mortgage is that they bought that were for people below the median income. i criticize that publicly at the time. and then the chairman of the financial services committee tried to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. he put a bill through the house. i voted for the bill on committee and against it on the floor. the gentleman from california correctly notes that he carried the amended. he forgot to say that he got one-third of the republicans to vote for it. the amendment was defeated on the floor of the house. many of the members here voted3 california. the senate democrats offered in 2006 the version of the bill that has passed the house under the republican sponsorship and there was an internal re

they came in during the last few months and secretary paulson said, if we do not do this right now, we will go off a cliff. they did not use the money for what they told us they would use the money for. i am not happy about that. the stimulus package was $780 billion. that was money spent out into communities that was supposed to provide 3 million jobs. we have lost jobs since then. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. host: let's not spend money on the war in afghanistan and iraq. guest: the important thing is to understand why we are there. it has gotten mixed up -- some people think we're fighting for afghan freedom. we are fighting for a national security. it would be better to fight there than in the streets of new york. people have to look get that and say, is that real or not? then you move forward with it. but you have to understand the price of success and you have to measure against the price of failure. host: walter in atlanta. caller: thank you. there are a few examples of how you have failed to service me.

. -- it might beat me and hank paulson. would agree that we would have seen something very like the great depression with unemployment at stratospheric levels and may be double the loss of wealth that was being estimated earlier. had we not on the financial rescue to protect the financial system. not to bail out any particular firm but to shore up the capital you and i agree on that. host: you brought up something earlier that most of these long- term unemployed will never find a job making as much money as they were with the cutbacks in benefits and so forth? guest: that is true. that is always the case with dislocated workers. when they find a job, it is usually the case where 3/4 find a job, but most of them it takes them 10 years to return to the levels of earnings and benefits they had originally. host: why give up the benefits for less money if you're going to get a job that means less than what you are going to get unemployment? guest: the view of the unemployed is wrong. they are desperate to find jobs. there are pe

in the investment banks, not in the local community banks which were doing ok until chicken little paulson started running around screaming, the financial sky was falling. and the next month we went from selling more homes in any time in five years to selling no homes. we went from people buying cars to people not buying any cars. and it put us in a terrible funk and it was all because this so-called financial genius that was head of the chairman and his protege is now running treasury now, wasn't smart enough or educated enough in the ways of the world that when you go out and say, we're going to have a depression, banks are going to fail one after another, when you create panic yourself, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. and that's why when they went out and he talked, bless his heart, talked president bush into going out, joining ranks with him and getting on the chicken little brigade, that the financial sky was falling and scared america, when you go out and have the president and secretary of treasury saying that, if they don't pass this particular bill, whatever bill, it wouldn't ma

had been to all of them because there were founded -- this basic meeting was created by secretary paulsonn the previous administration, and it continues with modifications into the current administration. this is a meeting of essentially the entire cabinet of the united states, plus the fed chairman and others come up with their counterparts in china. felt was the genius of that, of this meeting is that it recognizes the wide range of issues in which the united states has common issues and concerns with china. we do not just talk about exchange rates and some of the things that have been such a troubling part of our relationship. we talk about ways in which we can cooperate on energy and investment and trade, on pieces -- visas, many issues on the economic and strategic side. they need us and we need them, and the chinese and the americans are the largest developing and largest developed economies in the world and we have a great deal to gain from working with each other. and one of the benefits of these meetings besides the achievements which are sometimes bigger and smaller, it that we

incentives are an important aspect in behavior in the end, i do not know who except for maybe john paulson would have been coming up with different kinds of ratings? it was the greatest bubblehead ever seen. -- bubble that i have ever seen. the entire american public was caught up in a belief that housing prices could not fall dramatically. freddie mac believed it. fannie mae to the debt. congress believe that. the media believe that. i believe at. very few people could appreciate the bubble. that is the naturef bubbles. the become massive dilution. i am much more inclined to come down hard on the ceo's of institutions that cost the united states government to come in and necessarily bolster them. >> let me prove that a little. i just want to sit for the record, i do think around the country there were people who thought the bubble was unsustainable. there were a number of experts. robert schiller, the real rub been a, a dean baker. -- nouriel roubini. this was something we had never seen hhstorically. moving beyond that for a minute, the rating agenciesid play a fundamental role accelerat

it was indeed paulson, our secretary of treasury, that came to our financial services committee with two pieces of paper. and said here's what you need to fix it. throw all this money at wall street. let's give the truth in this matter. it was under democratic leadership that we said, no. yes, we have a credit problem. a credit freeze of the credit markets up on wall street -- will i not. you had your chance. i only have two minutes. and here we were. i know sometimes the truth hurts. and i feel their pain over there. but i am sick and tired of our republican friends assuming that they had no responsibility for this, mr. speaker. and we've got to set the record straight. it is in the charge of democrats under our leadership that we indeed are saddled with the responsibility of bringing confidence of the american people back to our private enterprise system and to keep it free. it is because of what the democrats are doing that we are saving our free economic system. under their policies it was heading to straight ruin, causing the worst economic collapse second only to the depression

initiated by secretary paulson in 2008 is still going on. don't think obviously you can't do that retro actively for obligations were occurred at the time. >> would the chairman yield? >> yes. >> again, it's simply a study that is trying to study a -- it can't mandate. >> the gentleman's being argumentative unnecessarily. i'm asking the questions because -- let me take back my time to say this. we accepted an amendment from one of the members on the minority side to strike the exclion of fannie e and freddie mac from the list of entities to be resolved. we have since heard a great deal of distress from our major financial institutions who feel that this might put them on the hook for this. i don't believe that was the intent. but i can't be sure it's not the impact. and i know the senate's going to have to be considerate of that. but we have said no taxyer bailout, and we have said we have to assess the large financial institutions. they with some justification think this may have been an implication. i want to make very clear that's not goi

under that authority, secretary paulson put fni mae and freddie mac under nservatorship. them. have been in conservatorship since 2008. then the gentleman said that congress forced fannie mae and freddie mac. did not see any need to do much regulation could in 2004, president bush ordered fannie mae and reddie maco go above 50% in the mortgage is that they bought tt we for people below the median income. i criticize that publicly the time. and then t chairman of the financial services committee tried to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. he put aill through the house. i voted for the bill on committee and against it on the floor. the gentleman from california correctly notes that he carried the amended. he forgot to say that he got one-third of the republicans to vote for it. the amendment was defeated on the floor of the house. many o the members here voted3 california. the senate democrats offered in 2006 the version of the bill that has passed the house under the republican sponsorship and there was an internal republican dispute. that is what led to their not being any bi

as a child growing up in the 1950 paulson 1960's, we were not privy to many goods, but new things are being introduced, and as a result it was an era filled with hope. in the 20 years since the bubble economy burst, however, the economy has slumped and over 30,000 people continued to commit suicide every year. the general malaise of society --seems to be growing deeper, as if we have entered a time of oppressive fight. i aim to eshaae the nation from its foundation, transformiig it into a more dynamic country to enable our youth to take wing and soared to new heights in japan and in the world. one step towards this will be to fundamentally rebuild the japanese economy, its finances, and its social security system. in short,, we need to create a system that incorporates strong economy with the robust financial foundation and social security system. we are now in the process of finalizing a national growth strategy. but i cannot say that japan, despite having major opportunities to speaa, has not been able to fully respond and for example, the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 25% that

i think that has been clearly evidenced since paulson was at the treasury.ithner is continuing the bailout. i find it distasteful that one of the immediate things that we say needs to be cut are entitlements, when clearly i think wall street could use more austerity. frankly, i think if we're going to have a budget surplus there has to be a real economic recovery, which means systemic regulations in the system. i think we need to return to things like glass stiegel -- like glass-steagal, which is one of the things fdr was able to get through. >> we are pursuing pretty vigorously regulatory reform. and i expect that to be on the floor prior to us leaving for the july 4 break. so i am very hopeful that we will have very significant regulatory reform sent to the president. my view is that the major failures of the bush administration were fiscal responsibility and regulatory neglect. we saw it in the financial community. we were seeing it with the oil spill. that is in part due to extraordinarily -- extraordinary negligence on the part of bp as well as the negl

i think that's just been clearly evident since paulson was at the treasury and now geithner is pretty much continuing the + bailout. i find it quite distastefuu that one of the immediate things that we say needs to be cut are entitlements when clearly i think wall street could use some austerity. and quite frankly i think if we are going to have a budget surpluu there has to be a real economic recovery which means some systemic regulations in the system and i think we need to 3 glass-steagall which is one of the things f.d.r. was able to get through. thank you. >> let me say as all of you know we are pursuing pretty vigorously regulatory reform and -pi expect that to be on the flr prior to us leaving on the -- before the july 4 break. i'm very hopeful we'll have very significant regulatory reform package adopted y the congress and sent to the president. it is clear from my -- don't know if it's clear. my view is that the two major failures of the bush administration were fiscal irresponsibility and regulatory negligent -- neglect. we saw that in the financial community. we are now see