officer stearns and sgt. kane could have done nothing. officer came and started o'malley also could have decided not to. each of these officers showed restraint in not firing their weapons where a suspect provocative action would normally end in shooting. these officers were awarded the gold medal of valor. [applause] >> a sgt. paine, who could not be here tonight, was also awarded the gold medal of valor. >> it is with great pride that we honor these individuals for their valor. every day, officers put their lives at risk and do very good police work and we do not do enough to thank them for that. i am brought to be part of a ceremony where we can point to these heroes and thank them publicly, the way that we should do so every day publicly. so thank you again. [applause] the police commission and the park would would also like to think the diversity of california's san francisco for its generous support in co- sponsored tonight's event. we would like to single out the community relations office and the conference center office for putti

the treasury made the decision in march 2008 to save their stearns and debate that decision all along i think probably now that was a mistake even though i can understand why the decision was made at the time. so basically what came out of this crisis -- >> host: and was jpmorgan that stepped forward. >> guest: yes, bernanke and paulson and geithner dandridge jpmorgan chase to buy rear at a rock-bottom price. that fell apart until the fed stepped in to buy $30 billion of the assets jpmorgan chase didn't want. so there is no question the fed facilitated that. they had their good reasons for that and i suppose that there was something they thought they needed to do to put their finger in the dike of what was about to be a tsunami, and that worked for a little while until we got to september of 2008 when basically the water crashed over the walls and it was clear september of 2008, six months later that the whole structure of wall street securities firms that financed themselves in the short term markets and then lend long. borrow short and lend long that whole model was bankrupt. that w

the same day that bear stearns was allowed to fail. so the fed was making very important decisions along the way who to save and who not to save. but, you know, jpmorgan chase was a totally different -- than goldman sachs and morgan stanley. now they fund themselveses in a similar way. although not only does jpmorgan chase have access to the fed window, but it's depositors, you know, money that it uses and basically gets for free because we all know what the interest rate is on the savings accounts or checking accounts, virtually nothing. they get the money for free and lend that out, you know, for higher interest rates. they are playing an arbitrage game. yes, jpmorgan chase was probably the institute that was strong enough to have wattered wattere- weathered the crisis. they had a lot of risk in the balance sheet. they had a different funding model. they weren't nearly as susceptible to the whims of the overnight financing market as goldman sachs, morgan stanley. now it's all the same. so, you know, i think that you also have to look

the same day that bear stearns was allowed to fail.o the fed was making very important decisions along the way who to save and who not to save. but, you know, jpmorgan chase was a totally different, funded itself in a totally different way than goldman sachs and morgan stanley. now they fund themselves in a similar way, although not only does jpmorgan chase have access to the fed window, but it also has its depositors, you know, money that it uses that, basically, it gets for free because we all know what the interest rate is on our savings accounts or checking accounts, virtually nothing. so they get that money for free, and they can lend that out, you know, for higher interest rates. so they're just playing an arbitrage game. so, yes, jpmorgan chase was probably the only institution strong enough to have weathered this crisis. they had done a few things right. they, basically, got out of the business of underwriting mortgage-backed securities sooner than others. they had a lot of risk in their balance sheet, but they had a very diffe

the treasury made the decision in march of 2008 to save bear stearns.e can debate that decision all along. i think probably now that was a mistake even though i can understand why the decision was made at the time. so, basically, what came out of this crisis, though -- >> host: and it was jpmorgan that stepped forward and --ing with -- >> guest: well, yeah, bernanke and geithner encouraged jpmorgan chase to buy bear stearns at a rock bottom price. that deal fell apart until the fed stepped in to buy the assets that jpmorgan didn't want. there's no question the fed facilitated that. they had good reasons for that. i suppose that was something they felt they needed to do to try to put their finger in the dike of what was about to be a tsunami. and that worked, you know, for a little while until we got to september of 2008 when, basically, you know, the water crashed over the walls. and it was clear at september of 2008, six months later, that the whole structure of wheat, wall street -- securities firms that financed themselves in the short-term markets a

the suspect drove north on broadway and fired one shot at officer eleiff. , -- stearns, and kane. those shots can be heard of the recording of the night. the suspect headed north and again leaned out the window to fire at the pursuing officers. the suspect then turned eastbound on to turkey into oncoming one way traffic. officers paine and o'malley saw the vehicle traveling up a high rate of speed on to oncoming traffic. officer pain is a specialist. they are more heavily trained in these types of situations. knowing the information, he attempted to halt the suspect by firing at the suspect. the round, but officers hearing the shot at the suspect had fired at them. officers o'malley and paine, knowing that officer eleiff was a single unit, decided to pursue the suspect. the suspect continued into oncoming traffic until he turned north on webster and the east oneddy, sot on buchanan. during this pursuit, officer you lift prop broadcast the suspects route while driving, holding the microphone in one hand. once in large rally, the suspect drove along the block calling for residents o

timothy paine, sergeant james o'malley, sgt gregory kane, officer william eleiff, and officer steven stearns. [applause] >> on may 5, 2004, a round in o'clock p.m., there was an attempted kidnapping of strangers of a woman and her son. the suspect proceeded in a chevy trailblazer and used a large caliber gun and fled westbound on any street. the suspect's description was broadcast five minutes later at 8:05. two minutes after that, officer eleiff saw the suspect vehicle and paged and began following it. as he broadcast, holding a court microphone, his location, the vehicle sped off at a high rate of speed. opposite the live activated his lights and sirens and pursue the vehicle. the suspect drove west on haight and then northwest on the visitor. the suspect drove northbound in the southbound lanes of the visitor. of azeri live broadcast a license plate as the suspect turned west

angeles speak with nomi prins now me is a former senior executive at both goldman sachs and bear stearns she's the author of it takes a pillage and only welcome back to the kaiser report thanks max. now me i want to touch on this. article for rolling stone the people versus goldman sachs of course you worked goldman sachs as a managing director and i also want to bring into this little discussion some comments made by a wall street bucket shop that goes by the name of stone street advisors. in the in the story about me that stoned street advisors is takes exception to one of the things they bring up right away is lloyd blankfein c.e.o. of goldman sachs of course is being accused by carl levin a lying before congress and lying to its clients your thoughts on carl levin's accusation the lloyd blankfein was lying to his clients and was he lying to congress with respect to his clients and those are some points that were brought up by levin and also in in math article there was an issue around certain deals one for example was hudson where goldman in order to get clients to buy those deals in

that we don't need one hundred thousand people on the ground in afghanistan they're republican cliff stearns from florida simply said now that bin laden has been executed we must go home owner's thoughts the white house and pentagon so that they're sticking to the withdrawal timeline that they've laid out the past and then an immediate end to the war is not on the table however according to that timeline the first drawdown of troops in afghanistan is scheduled for july. so now the bin ladin is dead is it possible that president obama will use that first drawdown date to remove a considerable number of troops from afghanistan effectively ending our full scale military operation after all what exactly is our mission now especially given that the initial invasion of afghanistan could have been avoided and millions not died and bush decided to take up on his offer to arrest him. here to offer his take on this is your effort best to get a journalist historian specializing in u.s. national security policy welcome. great to have you with us. did the taliban offer to turn the loddon over to the bush

the concern in the global finance markets right now is that greece and portugal are the bear stearns and leemen brothers of this year and if they go down they could bring the rest of the global financial system with them. the markets are watching this very, very carefully. dominique strauss-khan was viewed as a guy who could go into these conversations and really bang heads and get a deal done in a very difficult situation. now this thing explodes out of nowhere and removes one of the central figures at the table, they had to have these negotiations in brullses this week without him and the i.m.f. spent most of the week this week insisting that it was fully capable of operating without dominique strauss-khan. but i've got to tell you, this is a very shocking story and as a reporter who has been in washington for a long time, as you guys all have as well, week of covered sex scandals before but this is a sex and violence scandal. the alleges here are of a difficult magnitude than we've seen before. >> what if anything account u.s. do in terms of where the i.m.f. goes from here? it's b

street as managing director of goldman sachs and running the international analytics group at bear stearns in london know me welcome hi thank you great to have you with us just for our listeners who may not be familiar with the institution what is the i.m.f. what do do they. well for the most part the i.m.f. is a sort of organization of one hundred eighty seven countries that basically it's a fund its an organized fund and there was a mission is to sort of equalize the development of economies throughout the world and how they go about doing that the devil in those details really is what has brought us the types of bailouts that they're. being discussed now that are coming from those funds how they support the general financial system as it stands today as it's run by the major international banks and so forth so that has one hundred eighty seven countries that are sort of participants in the fund and have access to various assistance from the fund the reality is it's run by the more powerful countries for the more powerful countries and by the philosophies of those more powerful countries

there has been a good bipartisan effort, cliff stearns from florida has been a leader in bobby rush has been a leader. we want to continue to build on the work that they have done. it is always better not to reinvent the wheel but sort of take advantage of other people's work and move the ball forward. again it is a matter finding the fine lines to protect the consumer but also enable and enhance e-commerce. there has been a very good corps that has been struck between roadsides in the energy and commerce committee so piggyback on that to make sure that we are doing our best to protect consumers yet not given the way of e-commerce. >> host: could you foresee federal requirements for e-commerce companies such as sony? >> guest: well, i think the question is federal requirements in lieu of all of this patchwork of state requirements and many i believe most would argue that will simplify things to have the one regime to one set of rules played by rather a patchwork at least 40 some odd states who are currently doing it. so the federal role here would be probably no greater and some would s

whatever strength and runs presence or direction could give to it and republican congressman cliff stearns from florida simply said now that bin laden has been executed we must go home consider so. when the president obama didn't have to invade pakistan with one hundred thousand troops to get bin laden on sunday isn't that prove that full scale war is unnecessary this is insane i mean the idea that the idea look you might want to leave afghanistan or you might want to stay but the idea that eliminating bin ladin proves that gives us one way or the other whether we should leave or stay doesn't make any sense that wasn't we weren't there security to get osama bin ladin that wasn't the sole goal it was to disrupt and dismantle and defeat the al qaeda network and. about two thousand to three thousand crazies because we take we're going to take out an entire town try it's known as argentina's tomato and they're not as nice as i was five thousand maximum and they were being by the bush administration. and they were tough and they were tied to the taliban government was giving them safe haven to

stearns. >> thank you, mr. vladeck, when i did the bill on the 109th congress, there were less than 30 states that had passed data security legislation. now there's 46 i'm told. what i'm curious, it would seem to me with almost the entire united states adopting each state adopting legislation, wouldn't that be incentive enough for companies like sony and epsilon worrying about the representation and the civil liability, i mean why would this occur based on 45 -- 46 states already have legislation? >> i think there are two reasons. one is the state laws do not do what you proposed. which is to require good underlying security. to me one the key insights of your legislation was to we need to do that on national basis. congress needs to step in and say to people holding on to companies, and holding on to sensitive consumer information, look, you need to take reasonable security measures. second, the statistics today have sort of driven home, there are an awful lot of data breaches that have been made public. i'm n

stearns of florida. the chair: mr. stearns of florida. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. stearns: mr. chairman, two points that i have heard on the other side. one, they are talking about states' rights. it's really almost pathetic to think they are arguing on states' rights because really the health care bill that they are advocating and the administration is advocating forces state government to pay for existing established exchanges. that's part of what the secretary of health and human service also do and she'll use this money which is unlimited to her to force states to pay for existing established exchanges. now, the other point they are saying why aren't we talking about jobs and focusing on this particular bill is not really getting us jobs, but this is focusing on spending. it's limiting spending. with the national debt of the united states just increased by $262 billion at the start of this year, we need to handle our debt here in this country and control spending

bear stearns kamala lehman brothers, wachovia, they were taken out with accusatory language about reckless behavior. if the u.s. to read was a bank, the fdic would close and down friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting is when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership will have talked to, they are saying we need a 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years to fix this. we cannot cut it as fast. the private sector does not get that luxury. nothing, no family gets that luxury. . you either cut spending now, laypeople off, or go bankrupt. they turn around and say i am being extreme. i'm the one who is extreme. i am saying you are out of control. it is fascinating to me. you don't get the luxury of time in the private sector. this is a bipartisan problem. this was created in a bipartisan manner. i have known paul ryan for a very long time. i met him when he was 19 years old and he was in turn to jack kemp. i love the guy. for the most part, he is an incredibly smart and free market and cabalistic person. however, he voted for tarp, the bush s

it has a short saving a ton of money of putting bear stearns out of business and ag at of business they would have gone out any way but they exacerbated the decline of the competitors so if you can imagine in this time period making billions of dollars at the same time it put the counterparties out of business i am sure they did not start out doing that but that was the fact. brilliant on one hand but ruthless and devastating on another that cost us taxpayers trillions of dollars to rectify the. >> never of people have raised problems of the proprietary trading if you look back and wonder if they wouldn't have been better off letting that die a or collapse in the financial crisis? have we resolved this issue as a nation? >> it has not. the volcker rule has supposedly made proprietary trading or some parts unlawful but goldman makes the argument that was only a small part of the business but in truth the guys you came up with the idea was three year for guys in the mortgage desk it. >> john paulson was the client and at one point* they were executing trades for him as an intermediary bee

was about people's confidence, the market's confidence in the system, and because we had saved bear stearns, because we had gone and saved freddie and fannie, and it was at that moment when that didn't happen that lehman wasn't saved, that people really almost, you know, just couldn't understand what could happen next. that is when the abyss became possible. >> there was a desperation in the air. you look at the sequence of events. you could see that people were really panicking and trying to work out how they saved because we're now such a global economy. not just america's economy, but everybody's economy. >> here's one of the really scary parts of that. when you look back through history, you know, and you look, for example, at world war i, it's always some singular event that precipitates something that, of course, was coming, but all of the allegiances and treaties and so on that we had at that time, it was impossible for the world not to implode or explode into war. when arch dude ferdinand, it was that singular event precipitated things that now in retrospect we realize were inevitab

what's amazing here, the guests from bear stearns, they lost loved ones, they were so positive.duced myself as mohamed. some went so far as we apologize -- the guests, they give me positive reaction. i just continued with that. next day we had another event and i came down with mohamed he said you're going to be terminated for it. >> hilton hotels wouldn't comment on this case however the waldorf has more than 1,600 employees representing six continents around the world and operates a nondiscrimination hiring policy. so, joseph, that's the statement about a nondiscrimination hiring policy. what policy do they have for discrimination in the workplace when you're employed by them? >> well, we're not arguing that their hiring policy is discriminatory. what we're saying is since he's been here since 9/11, this is a loyal employee with over two decades of service, he's gone through the appropriate channels, he's made the prit complaints, that his complaints have falling on deaf ears. that no action was ever done. that essentially he was a man on an island alone. they thought in their

not to say the federal reserve didn't lend against the assets like the stearns bailout. i will do the international question which is just -- i think there's a lot of complaint when it was announced but if you look at the data since then the capitol flow to the countries declined after. even in the principle it could have been a problem. i think the countries have their own monetary policies and their own ability to set the conditions in their own countries to suit themselves so if the need to fight inflation they are going to do it. i think one of the challenge to the two channels however for the commitee defeasing to work would cause the dollar to decrease. if you look at the data the spending money hand over fist to push the dollar up and they've been doing this the past ten years to the unprecedented extent of a trillion dollars a year. this is the currency, the victim of the currency war for ten years now. i think it is a time we should think about stopping that because this overly strong dollar is choking off exports and a big part of our problem. we need export-le

bear stearns kamala lehman brothers, wachovia, they were taken out with accusatory language about reckless behavior. if the u.s. to read was a bank, the fdic would close and down friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting is when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership will have talked to, they are saying we need a 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years to fix this. we cannot cut it as fast. the private sector does not get that luxury. nothing, no family gets that luxury. . there cut spending now, when people off, or " big rep. and so the bottom line is and what is fascinating to me is they turn around and say, i am being extreme. i am the one who is extreme. because i am saying you are -- you are out of control. we need 15 years to fix things. you do not get that luxury in the private sector. this is a bipartisan problem. this was created in a bipartisan manner. paul ryan, i met him when he was 19 when he was an intern to jack kemp. he is a smart and free market and capitalistic person. he voted for t.a.r.p., medicare part b and no ch

they were the regulators for merrill lynch, bear stearns, lehman brothers, and all of those companiest manage to a huge amount of trouble. the only two that survived in the independent former morgan stanley and goldman sachs, but both of them changed their legal status so that they moved out of the sec and became banks under the federal reserve. the sec proxy oversight has been greatly criticized -- the sec's oversight has been greatly criticized for letting them use an enormous amount of leverage in their trading. a lot of questions have been raised about cox and the sec because they have lost a lot of power in the ways that investment banks changed into banks or were acquired by banks. host: louise story joining us from new york and has been reporting on post-financial meltdown prosecutions. you can read her work along with her co-writer on newyorktimes.com if you do not pick it up in hard copy.

i am from the private sector, bear stearns and lehman brothers, they were taken out by the government with reckless behavior and speculation. if the u.s. government was a bank, the fdic would close them down this friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting about this, when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership that i have talked to in recent days. they are saying we need a glide path or 10-25 years to fix this. because we can't cut it this fast. and my point back to them, the private sector doesn't get that luxury. no family gets that luxury. you either cut spending now, lay people off or go bankrupt. so the bottom line is -- and what is fascinating to me as a private sector economist. they turn around and saying i am extreme. i am the one that is extreme. because i am saying you are out of control. it's fascinating to me. we need 15 years to fix things. well, you don't get that luxury in the private sector. and my final point about this, this is a bipartisan problem. i don't mean it was washington but it was created

stearns: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at noon tomorrow and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourns to meet at noon on tuesday, may 10, 2011, for morning hour debate and 2:00 tm for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 276-h and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment to the following member of the house to the mexico-united states interparliamentary group. the chair: mr. castor of arizona -- the clerk: mr. pastor of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: mr. speaker, as we have appropriately celebrated the successful mission to take out osama bin laden, there has been one discordant note sounded in the halls of congress, and that is with the testimony of the attorney general of the united states, there still is a reluct

stearns for five minutes. >> thank you. ms. genachowski, a question for you. how many applications are currently pending before the commission? >> that's a number i don't have in my head. >> can you guess, just a approximate range? >> when we do financial disclosure, we have a range. there's many small ones -- the number is in the thousands, not in the tens. >> do you have staff behind you that might know? that's what they are paid for. they're texts somebody now. >> we'll have an answer within five minutes. [laughter] >> the other question is how many of these are more than six months old? >> that's another question i can't answer off the top of my head. >> how many are more than two years old? five years old? are any over two years old? >> i think it's possible. >> any over five years you think? is that possible? >> i don't know that it's possible. >> okay. we've heard that parties with a transaction before the fcc sometimes feel pressure to curtail add advocacy in unrelated proceedings. fundamentally do you agree that every constituency should be free to ad

bear stearns, lehman brothers, wachovia, wamu they were taken out summarily by the government with accusatoryanguage of reckless behavior and speculation. i mean, if the u.s. government was a bank, the fdic would close them down this friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. and what's interesting about this is that when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership who i have talked to in repeat days, they're basically saying, well, we need a glide path, a t10 or 5 or even 25 years to fix this because we can't cut it this fast. and my point back to them is the private sector doesn't get that luxury. nothing -- no family gets that luxury. you either cut spending now, lay people off or go bankrupt. and so the bottom line is -- and what's fascinating to me as a private economist is that then they turn around and say i'm being extreme. i'm the one who's extreme because i'm saying you're out of control. it's fascinating to me. we need 15 years to fix things. well, you don't get that luxury in the private sector. and my final point about this is that this