right now the congress this year this next week i want to repeal the frank bill go to repeal the sarbanes actually bill to start creating jobs right now because for those fourteen million americans this is a depression now now no i mean what's your reaction to that because it seems to me that what we're saying here is the regulation is responsible for the current dire financial situation and yet wasn't it the lack of regulation that led to this whole mess. yeah absolutely that that's such a twisting of what happened it was it was the lack of regulation it was the repeal initially of the glass steagall act in one thousand nine hundred nine which allow banks to basically play on all sides of the table to take in invest to take in individual deposits to provide loans at egregious conditions to homeowners and to borrowers to basically package up those loans that they've been given out into another part of the back in trade against them and and have hedge funds and private equity funds and other banks throughout the world leverage the assets they created on the back of these loans from individ

the very first week we should repeal the sarbanes oxley bill which kills small business, kills venture-capital. we should repeal the dodd-frank bill which is killing small business. [applause] let me just say that if you are a conservative and i mentioned the phrase dodd-frank build [laughter] and you can't figure out automatically it is probably worth repeating on principle -- [laughter] we should replace the environmental protection agency with a brand new environmental solutions agency that is fundamentally different. [applause] we should modernize the food and drug administration said that it has the job of being in the laboratory cooperating in order to get new science all the way to the patient as rapidly as possible, not as slow as possible. [applause] a 21st century food and drug administration means better health, lower costs, longer lives, greater independence living, and more american jobs. it is a big deal. we should audit the federal reserve and find out who got our money? [applause] we should reform the federal reserve to take away the power to give money to banks and return it t

the first round that leads to sarbanes oxley was not great.it was extremely expensive to administer and it's not clear to me that it added to the safety or accounting practices of companies, but it's been modified and it is now much better than it was. i still don't think it's great but it's better than it was, so i think we do have to rely on this interest process and hope that it gets us eventually we find out where the problems are in the legislation and then we make changes. >> and slightly more optimistic. i think in spite of my criticism it really has its heart in the right place and has a lot of important ingredients we need to make the system sound and safe and it is structured in a way that is open to interpretation and improvement and i think it is a remarkable accomplishment. it took the crisis of that magnitude and it really was a severe crisis to get this done. so let's hope that every positive piece of legislation doesn't require such enormous cost to drive us forward. >> we have about 20 minutes i guess for questions from the au

. >> the congress this year, this next week, ought to repeal the dodd/frank bill, the sarbanes-oxley bill, start creating jobs right now. >> reporter: for former pizza ceo herman cain this debate was something of a national debut. >> i am not ale potition. i am a problem solver. this economy is stalled. it's like a train on the track with no engines. >> reporter: for rick santorum, an opportunity to underscore his dedication to social conservative issues. >> not only have i been consistently pro life, but i've taken the -- i've not just taken the pledge, i've taken the bullets to lead on those issues. >> reporter: all the candidates plan to stand against abortion rights, same-sex marriage and reinstate the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military, but the main focus of the night. >> we're going to win. just make no mistake about it. i want to announce tonight. president obama is a one-term president. >> reporter: this is the spin room where operatives from each campaign tell us why they think their candidate won. why was this such a tame debate? the big reason, it's still ear

the first round that leads to sarbanes oxley was not great.it was extremely expensive to administer and it's not clear to me that it added to the safety or accounting practices of companies, but it's been modified and it is now much better than it was. i still don't think it's great but it's better than it was, so i think we do have to rely on this interest process and hope that it gets us eventually we find out where the problems are in the legislation and then we make changes. >> and slightly more optimistic. i think in spite of my criticism it really has its heart in the right place and has a lot of important ingredients we need to make the system sound and safe and it is structured in a way that is open to interpretation and improvement and i think it is a remarkable accomplishment. it took the crisis of that magnitude and it really was a severe crisis to get this done. so let's hope that every positive piece of legislation doesn't require such enormous cost to drive us forward. >> we have about 20 minutes i guess for questions from the au

sarbanes oxley was a reaction to and run. they are big regulators overseas and at home. they wanted the bailouts. that cannot go. this last decade, republicans ran up a lot of debt. that is why that status quo attitude involves both republicans and democrats. it has to change if we really want to preserve our liberties and our prosperity again. >> if michelle bachman are mitt romney becomes the republican nominee, would you support them? would you run as a third party? >> i could not support mccain last time because i thought the foreign policy was so bad. of course, he still has the same foreign policy. if a candidate endorses a foreign policy like that, i could not support them. >> would you run as a third party? >> i am not even thinking about that. >> conversely, if you become the republican nominee, how do you win the general election? what is your message against the president? >> the general election might be easier than the primary. the republican primary voters tend to be more likely to endorse war, and i am against the wars. but that does not mean we are not ma

sarbanes oxley was a reaction to enron.s, regulators here at home, they all wanted the bailout. this last decade, the republicans ran up a lot of that. -- a lot of debt. that is why the status quo attitude has to change if we really want to preserve our liberties and have prosperity once again. >> based on your comments, if michele bachmann, jon huntsman, or mitt romney becomes the nominee, would you support them? >> i think it depends. i could not support mccain last time because i thought the foreign policy was so bad. he still has the same foreign- policy. if the candidate endorses a foreign-policy like that, i could not support them. >> would you run as a third party? >> i am not even thinking about that. >> if you do become the republican nominee, how do you when a general election? what is your message against the president, barack obama? >> the general election may be easier than the primary. the republican primary voters tend to be more likely to endorse war. that does not mean we are making progress. sometimes pers

the congress this year, this next week ought to repeal the dodd/frank bill, the sarbanes/oxley bill. 13 million americans, this is a depression now. >> go ahead and respond to the former speaker. >> well, mr. gingrich would forget under his leadership we deregulated all sorts of financial activity. we had the worst economic crisis since the great depression rivalling it if we hadn't taken steps. here's what he's talking about. do not have an independent consumer bureau, let the federal reserve be in charge of consumer protection. do not do speculation, the position we put legislation on the books last year to be used this year to say that speculators cannot go up and buy oil futures, hold it off the market until the price goes up, and then sell it. we want to put an end to the speculative impact on oil prices, which many believe is at least $20 a barrel. he wants to undo this. he wants to go back to exactly what happened to cause the terrible crisis. so the notion by trying to restrain derivatives, trying to restrain mortgages that shouldn't have been granted, part of this bill says

the first round of sarbanes-oxley was not great. i mean, it was extremely expensive to administer and it wasn't clear -- it's not clear to me that it has added to the safety or accounting practices of companies, but it's been modified and it's now much better than it was. i still don't think it's great but it's better than it was. so i think we do have to rely on this process and hope it gives us eventually we find out where the problems are and legislation, and then we make changes. >> well, i'm slightly more optimistic. i think inspite of my criticisms of the dodd-frank act i think it really had its heart in the right place and it's got a lot of the important ingredients that we need to make the system sounder and safer. and i think it's structured in a way that it's open to interpretation and improvement. and i think it's a remarkable accomplishment. i mean, it took a crisis of that magnitude, and it really was a severe crisis, to get this done. so let's hope that every positive piece of legislation does require such enormous cos

the congress this year, this next week ought to repeal the dodd-frank bill and the sarbanes oxley bill and create jobs right now. for 14 million americans this is a depression now. >> the speaker just said, congresswoman, repeal dodd-frank. maybe the american says i don't like all of the details, but after what happened in 2007 and 2008, i don't want wall street to not have somebody looking at them watching what they're doing. >> i'm looking forward to answering that question, because i introduced the repeal bill to repeal it it because it's an over the top bill that leads to more job loss rather than job creation, but before i fully answer that, i just want to make an announcement here for you, john, on cnn tonight. i filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the united states today, and i'll very soon be making my formal announcement. i wanted you to be the first to know. >> if you don't get the distinction coming into the night, she has not taken at that last stay. i'm sure they welcome you into the fray. i want to come to congressman paul. you're all here say

the congress this year, next week, ought to repeal the dodd/frank bill and the sarbanes-oxley bill and create jobs now for those 14 million americans, this is a depression now. >> so the speaker just said congresswoman repeal dodd/frank. answer the american who said i don't like the details but after what happened in 2007 and 2008, i don't want wall street to not have somebody looking at them and watching what they're doing. >> i introduced the repeal bill to repeal dodd/frank because it's an over the top bill that will lead to more job loss rather than job creation. before i fully answer that i want to make an announcement for you john on cnn tonight. i filed today, my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the united states today. and i'll very soon be making minor malannouncement so i wanted you to be the first to know. >> appreciate that. >> if you're out there and don't get the distinction coming into the night, congressman bachmann had explored i'm sure they welcome you. let's continue the conversation. i want to come to congressman paul. you're all here saying preside

the first week we should repeal the sarbanes-oxley bill. we should repeal the dodd-frank bill. by the way, let me say if anybody is in doubt. if you are a conservative and i mention the phrase dodd-frank bill, you cannot figure out is automatically worth appealing just on principle -- we should replace the epa with a brand new environmental solutions agency that is fundamentally different. we should modernize the food and drug administration so it has the job of being in the laboratory cooperating in order to get new science all the way to the patient as rapidly as possible, not as slow as possible. [applause] 8 21st century food and drug administration means better health, lower-cost, longer lives, greater independence living, and better american jobs. it is a big deal. we should audit the federal gotrve movand figure out who our money. [applause] we should reform the federal reserve to take away the power to give money to banks and return it to the treasury where it could be expected and looked at in public, because no single person should have that level of power in a free s

the congress this year, this next week, ought to repeal the dodd-frank bill and repeal sarbanes oxley and create jobs right now because for those 14 million americans this is a depression now. >> the speaker just said, congresswoman, repeal dodd-frank. answer the american out there that i don't like all of the details but after what happened in 2007 and 2008, i don't want wall street to not have somebody looking at them watching what they're doing. >> well, i'm looking for an answer to that question because i sbuchede the repeal bill to -- introduced the repeal bill to repeal dodd frank because an over the top bill that will lead to more job loss rather than job creation. but before i fully answer that, i just want to make an announcement here for you, john, on cnn. i filed today, my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the united states today. and i'll very soon be making my formal announcement. so i wanted you to be the first to know. >> i appreciate that. [applause] if you're out there and congresswoman bachmann had not taken that other step and other candidates had ta

in terms of not diverting people from internal compliance programs that were so important under sarbaneshe osh oxley for corporations to build and to implement in a forthright way. at the same time, we did not feel like we could save whistle- blower's must go to the company first because there are companies that will not treat these complaints seriously, and i see that are instances of that. we hope we struck a balance correctly. we will be watching this closely as i expect you will. we have to fine-tuning and that is something we are amenable to doing. more importantly, we have got to get the balance right. we want companies to list in the united states. we think that is an important thing. we want to make sure that u.s. investors have access to the information they need to make the right kinds of investing decisions, and if people leave u.s. capital markets because disclosure obligations are too great, that is unfortunate, and that does not mean we should be looking at our world to make sure we have the disclosure obligations right. at the end of the day, we need to make sure investors

in terms of not diverting people from internal compliance programs that were so important under sarbanes-oxley for corporations to build and to implement in forthright way. at the same time, we didn't feel like we could say whistle blowers must go to the company first because there are companies that are not going to treat whistle blower complaints seriously and i see that from the enforcement cases that we bring. that there are instances of that. so we hope we struck the balance quickly. we're obviously going to be monitoring it closely and watching. as i suspect all of you will. if we have to do fine-tuning, that's something we're amenable to doing. i would say more broadly, that we've got to get this balance right. we want companies, foreign companies, foreign private issuers to list in the united states. we think that's an important thing. bewe also want to make sure that u.s. investors have access to the information that they need to make the right kinds of investing decisions. and if people leave u.s. capital markets because the disclosure requirements are too great, you know, that's --