what is the congressional oversight panel? are the smallest of the oversight unit here, particularly compared with the special inspector general. what we try to do is a fact based analysis of the end -- of the operations under the toxic acid relief program andy -- the toxic asset relief program. ob;we return to the same things that we started with are very first report about transparency, accountability, and clarity throughout the system. and they appear again in the report that we issued today. i thought we would start with a brief overview of that report and then very quickly, a little dance through our earlier reports to remind you what they have been about and to be here for one ever questioned by be useful. you may remember that back in early february, treasury and the federal reserve announced s-cap, yet another acronym, this time to assess that ability of the 19th largest bank holding companies to remain well- capitalized, even under adverse circumstances. the results were reported just recently and so, for our june over

i also question how effective the panel has been. over the past sick months of your existence, how many hearings have you heled with the treasury department as a witness? i understand it is only one? >> we have been able to get secretary geithner in to testify once. we asked secretary paulson repeat lid. we have asked secretary geithner repeatedly. i remind you, congress did not give us subpoena power. we only have the power to invite. >> so you asked secretary paulson in the first month of existence? >> well, i believe we asked him repeatedly. we asked him in our first month, second month, and third plo. >> so you had one hearing with someone from treasury who is running and implementing treasury, the t.a.r.p., my understand sg one, and then how many hearings have you had with the relationship yents of the t.a.r.p. -- recipients of the t.a.r.p. funds? >> well, we have had various field hearings. >> just a normal congressional hearing trying to determine how they used the t.a.r.p. funds? >> right, i believe that would be our milwaukee

we're about ready to begin the panel. we have this morning a wonderful panel under the leadership of professor a.u. dick howard, professor of law and public affairs at the university of virginia. professor howard has done this now for several years and we have come to admire the manner in which he prepares the panel, prepares the cases and presents this, each supreme court term. i understand that he's not going to cover monday's cases, although i'm not so sure. he may have some insight on, that but i will call on professor howard to come forward and ask him if he would present the panel his full resume is in your little blue book in the back, and as are the resumes of the other panel members. professor howard. [applause] >> good morning to all of you. some of you are veterans of previous sessions like this. we always try to make it worth your saturday morning. i don't want you to wish you had signed up for the spa or the tennis court or the golf links instead of coming here. if you feel that way at 11:30, just don't tell

what i thought i would to before i turn to the panel is to give you a glimpse, some of these will be familiar and some may not be, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, not to talk of the cases of doctrine but in many ways what a profoundly different chord it is recorded was in 1969. in terms of who is on the course and how they do their business. the first place has been a complete turnover, there are no warren court justices left. indeed, i think there is known on the present four to behaves like the warren court justice. i think there are no thurgood marshall and william brennan on the present court. secondly is a the justices background i was intrigued by chief justice roberts answer to that question put from the audience a few minutes ago about the phenomena that all nine of the present justices came to the supreme court from the federal courts of appeal, that is unprecedented. i think the chief justice was nuanced and suggesting that that actually masks the fact that the professional background of the nine were fairly disparate before they came to the a

we are ready to begin the panel. we have, this morning, and wonderful panel under the leadership of professor dick howard, d miller professor of law and public affairs at the university of virginia. prof. howard has done this now for several years, and we have come to admire the manner in which he prepares the panel and prepares the cases and presents this -- each supreme court term. i understand he is going to not cover many's cases, so you might have some interest in that. but i will call on professor herridge -- howard to come forward. his full resume is in your blue packet, as are the resumes of other panel members. prof. howard. [applause] >> good morning to all of you. i think some of you are veterans of previous sessions like this. we always try to make it worth your saturday morning. if you feel like getting out at 11:30, just to do not tell me, if you do not mind. we will review some of the significant decision spot for the supreme court's 2008-2009 term, which is almost complete. typically, when we do this

i guess we will have to wait for the case of the new haven fire fighters. we have a terrific panel. jan crawford greenberg is a chicago law graduate and the abc news legal correspondent. you know linda greenhouse from her byline covering the supreme court from the "new york times." she is now a scholar in residence at the yale law school. we have john, a professor of law at the northwestern law school, for who knows the justice department from the inside. and we also have a well-known washington attorney who has argued 52 cases before the supreme court. it is not a record but it puts him in the big-league of protectionist -- practitioners. i want to thank chief judge williams, a judge niedermayer, the other judges of the circuit for their hospitality and extraordinary staff. i cannot think these people too much for having helped us with the arrangements. so if the panel does not suit your expectations, but it is not because the circuit and staff did not do their best. we are in the fourth year of the so-called roberts court. there is the convention of calling the supreme court by the

because they do not comply with the standard the panel -- >> we take the position that they should have been. >> if the panel is right on the law as to what should and should not be counted, then they should not have been counted. so we have statutory violations on election night. how does that become a due process problem or an equal protection problem? >> it becomes an equal protection problem when you realized based on the evidence we have shown and is in this offer of proof and testimony that if people from around the state had all cast their ballots in minneapolis, there would be half as many rejected ballots. that is what the numbers show. >> as i understand, due process case law, the issue is whether there has been intentional and purposeful discrimination. assuming that voters across the state have been treated differently, where is the intentional and purposeful discrimination? >> i do and not -- i believe in relation to the equal protection, there is that law. i do not believe it applies to voting issues. let in the due process area, you rely on the case from alabama. what the

the panel focused on oversight is appropriate but i think mrs. an important part of the front in the process, making sure there are the resources available to execute the work correctly in the first instance. i support oversight and i think it is an important element of the overall system but a we don't have the right people doing the right things to the beginning of the process, we can be assured that the oversight function will find errors and mistakes, so we have been strong proponents for increasing the number of officers and representatives come increasing the amount of program management, bringing the work in iraq and afghanistan closer to the theater of operations rather than from alexandria or rock island illinois and with more resources on the ground at the front and we will address those issues, some of the issues the commission identified as the lawyers and management and deficiencies. >> are there cases where fraud is alleged among contractors but never proven and that is the case, what damage is done to the contractor? >> there many a

we will take a five minute break before the second panel starts. [inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee will receive testimony from the second panel. mr. allen chvotkin servers on the council for professional service where he is responsible for the association's federal acquisition legislative regulatory policy. prior to this mr. chvotkin was vice president of at&t services and held a number of staff positions in the united states senate including counsel to staff director of the senate small business committee as well last council on armed service. he holds a j.d. from american university school it is the policy of the committee to swear you in before you testified. would you please do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? we would like to 45 minutes to make your opening remarks before questioning, and please do so at this time. >> mr. chairman, congressman flake, members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to appear before the subcommittee today the professional services council is -

as i said, the filings per panel vary from 256 in the d.c. circuit to over 1,000 in the 11th. so there is enormous variation, and that variation should be taken into acounty in the number of judgeships, biit isn't as a practical matter. what is happening, as i understand it, is there was a judgeship introduced in 2008, and there is supposed to be another one introduced shortly, although it hasn't been. the judicial conference, which is composed of the center judges of all of the circuits decides how many judges to ask for. i can only tell you that the ninth circuit's request has varied from 10 to four, and i guess five now even though our case load has continued to go up. why exactly that is, i don't know. but the last bill requested four new permanent and one new temporary judge for the ninth cirque and a total of -- circuit and a total of about 12 new circuit court judges. so to my mind, this is sort of a crisis and something the congress ought to be dealing with. obviously there are enormous political headwinds. the bills, when they are introduced, tend to provide for the c

thank, members of the panel. i -- if i interrupt please forgive me. i don't mean to be rude, crude, and unrefined but i trying to make a point. let me start by asking about the executives in the u.k.. do they make more than executives in the united states? >> nope. >> executives in germany, today in the main make more than executives in the united states? >> nope. >> and executives and france, today in the name mike morgan executives in the united states? >> no. >> the question becomes to those who contend if we do anything to encroach upon the current system people will flee to other places and make inordinate amounts of money and other places leaving us with a brain drain. the question becomes where do they go? >> they go to private equity and hedge funds. >> in the united states. >> within the united states. >> hold on just a minute. >> the percentage of private equity and hedge funds cannot accommodate the number of executives we are talking about. so, some may go but the truth be told the argument is that we are going to lose them to other countri

i just want to set the stage briefly for this panel. change is a word we have heard over and over again during the past few months. we heard a lot of it during the course of blasters campaign, and i think for a reason. -- the course of last year's campaign. in november, after eight years of conservative leadership -- i wanted to say it failed conservative leadership, but they told me to pull my fangs in. the american people went to the polls prepared to send a clear, decisive message that they were ready for a shakeup in washington. the election and inauguration of president obama reflects a sea change in politics and policy in the federal government. i think it mirrors a fundamental shift and american attitudes. our country has become more progressive on a variety of key political and social issues. research done by the court crescive studies program -- by the progressive studies program shows there is broad support for a number of pressing priorities. 8% of the electorate agree there is a need for more environmentally sustainable life

>> that are five people on the panel, and the issues that they want to take on will depend -- we will talk about these issues. i hope that this is an issue that we can address. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you. >> he is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you once again, you are inspirational. and frankly, i wish that we had given you more power, including the power to issue subpoenas, because you would use this very effectively in light of the circumstances that we are dealing with. the economic circumstances that we are facing were caused by the manipulation of investment practice some years ago, the falsification of information. and now, we have continuing falsification, you talk about one of these specifically, with regard to getting back 66% of the money that has been put in, and the accountability of the $700 billion, that was not issued as a grant to use however people wanted, but a loan. this was used to bail out the banking circumstances. but has this occurred, to pay back the money to the people of this country? what should we do to achieve thes

the five members will be called on to finish his panel and we will then get to the next panel, if one or two republican show up we will do that. we will be gone for not more than 25 minutes. there are only two votes. most of the time it is gone on one of them would be back as soon as we can. i thank the panel for waiting. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to say two things at first because i think from our very as conversation during the first part of the hearing, just to make clear, we are all capitalists here. we believe strong in the capitalistic system. and the reason this committee is moving and exploring this issue is because we care about the capitalistic system. and the capitalistic system is not manifested just with ceos. it's not structured to take care of them first. the capitalistic system is geared with public interest. it's geared with shareholder interest. what we are concerned with here, particularly in the financial sector, is the health of our economy. at the heart of the health of our economy. the heart of it is basically our financial service industr

>> congressman, on the oversight panel request, i'm sure we'll respond to that. i'm not aware of the status of that request. i would just note that the senate -- i think the congress passed a rule recently that would allow the gao to directly audit aig and other individual bank or other interventions, and we are perfectly comfortable with that. we provided extensive information to the congress on aig and those other rescues, including monthly reports required by congress on all 133 lending. so we have been quite open about it. if there are specific issues -- >> how about specific issues on the specifics, who gets the money, what are the terms, what are the -- >> on what program? on what program? >> on any programs under your emergency powers, where you rely on emergency powers. certainly on the -- on the approximately trillion dollars that you say you'll be doing on mortgage-backed securities. >> well, mortgage-backed securities, so if you look at our balance sheet, the bulk of it is in two things -- short-term lending to financial institutions, which was up to a

. >> i don't want to hold up the panel either. mr. mcraith, and i saw mr. skinner -- i shouldn't make comments, maybe disagree with you. my wife always says that. with regard to the aig situation and you were running down the scenario with regard to who's looking at it and raised theish issue, portions of the units were overseas and london specifically. i believe i've heard that before, that part of the issue mere is that it was not -- not state regulator necessarily, federal regulators or lack there of, as well as the european arm of it, looking at it, maybe missing it as well. want to chime in on that? >> i think the important point is that regulators need to have formalized structure for information sharing, for communication, not because of the risk because frankly, there are large companies who will present risk. it's to avoid the disruption so that the structure of the stability -- >> i guess what i heard, mr. skinner, you can comment, was there failure, not only on the federal reserve part or federal regulators, was there also a failure from the europ

that is eminently correctable. >> that is assuming that the panel got it right on the law. don't we have a problem with not so much disenfranchisement, but allowing votes or ballots which should not have been counted on a election night? >> you have a horrible problem. >> we have a dilution problem. >> dilution indicates proportionate reduction, what you have is the inability to say you have the most legally cast ballots if the count is full under the court's definition. >> that is -- >> are you speaking in a bell sense? >> it seems to me that we don't have an issue before us as to the ballots that were counted on a election night being improperly included. they should be excluded. >> we are certainly not trying to get them excluded. >> but that is my point. >> we are trying to get them to be used as a control for what the proper evaluation of a ballot is. that is only fair. >> but

. >> thanks to the entire panel. it is interesting testimony. i look forward to my own questions and those of the committee. mr. mccray, i'll put you on the spot for just a minute. in pennsylvania we had a company in 2001, the reliance of pennsylvania. i imagine you're familiar with it. mr. saul steinberg who took the insurance proceeds of that and then that allowed him to play the role of the multiyear speculator benefactor of the wharton school and art patron, is that correct? do you recall that transaction? >> i'm certainly familiar with the company. i wasn't familiar with the wharton school. >> did subsequently that company defaulted on bonds and bank debt and it had chosen the federal regulator to be of its own choice because it was a holding company. what -- how would you say the effect of what happened there with that particular company, was that a failure of the state regulation, state to state? that would have occurred if we'd had a federal regulator in mace or do you see any difference? t >> the unfortunate reality in any capitalist eco

now we'll have the panel. panel is made up of eight members. that's why we infracted some of our presentation by members. each of the panelists will be a lotted five minutes. without objection, their written statements will be made part of the record. first on the panel we have the honorable peter skinner, a member of the european parliament from the united kingdom and most recently re-elected -- congratulations, mr. skinner, look forward to your tenure. mr. skinner. >> thank you very much, chairman, congressmen and honorable members of the subcommittee inviting me here today. this is a special occasion for me if nothing else for the fact i have just been re-elected, but also to come here to know that i'm usually sitting your side of this table rather than here. it's a great honor to be here and i appreciate that. i'm peter skinner. i've been a member of the european parliament since 1994. this month i was elected for my fourth term. i'm a member of the economic and monetary affairs committee and directly involved in what's known as the transatl

>> i want to thank the panel. it has been very informative. my immediate family and their spouses have eight positions. i am the only black sheep, the only one that is not a position. i am interested in all the testimony about the existence of the disparity and i would be glad to yield to hhs and its addressing of some aspects of that. our special jurisdiction is somewhat limited. that is to focus in on the causes and the extent to which there is explicit racial discrimination. in particular, the last three that tried to get at that, as i understand, this is a terrible general -- a terrible overgeneralization. there are socio-economic reasons that have a big part to play before there is interaction. this may be related to the other factors. then there are those that impact the health care system. we have heard that there is at least a concern with some research that has to do with the clinical experience and by s and some has to do with the and even this in the quality of care. i wonder, i think the doctor began to put some of this into words.

how are we to say the panel here abused its discretion in making that conclusion? >> we did not say most did that. i do not think we said most. if you add up an amount of the election judges from around the state, you will find an overall substantial compliance situation. then the court said it what you want to show us about what was done -- done on election night was irrelevant. >> i am quoting from your brief on page 39. the overwhelming majority of minnesota county assume various presumptions meaning they do not strictly comply with the statute. they apply these various presumptions. i am troubled by that very broad statement that the overwhelming majority of minnesota -- where in the record is their evidentiary support for the year -- for your assumption? >> you can read the complete testimony from the biggest political subdivision. he says no application, our fault, we let it in. >> i had a stand that, but where is the evidence from the overwhelming majority of the counties and cities? >> every order to recall as i recall made exceptions. i think we only called

i would say it is not the right way. >> in the previous panel, mr. sperling testified 2 of the corporate communities setting best practices in regard to executive compensation. is that the way to go? >> we have seen some great best practices promulgated by the council of institutional investors, and best practice by the u.s. chamber of commerce. when the government does it, i would not call it best practice. the government has used its moral authority and the threat of regulation. >> how effectively do you think the executive compensation laws have been? >> the disclosures? it is too early to tell because we have only had two years of history. one issue is there's not enough working history to work from. in refining the disclosures, i would support those. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognize. >> you made an interesting point about their not being enough history to make a decision. i think that might even apply to your analysis with regard to banks who paid back their tarp funds and similar compensation systems. part hasn't been around that lon

and which create an appearance of complete idiocy on the part of the original panel, which is usually not merited or often not merited. but it's just the style that's developed and that, i think, is unfortunate. >> unless someone -- >> there's the dilemma for the panel whether to write a response from the dissent of the denial -- >> so we're generating paper around this and i had for a long time taken a principled position against doing dissents from denial on en banc but it's

i think the panel has failed to bring transparency and clarity. the result is and is exemplified by, there is no public confidence as to how the bailout of dollars are being used. there is no congressional support, which is why i think they are going through a extraordinary lengths to not ask for any more dollars, because there is no public support or congressional support for this. i frankly believe at this point, given the course we have seen, i think the panel needs to be abolished, and it needs to be reconstituted and formed to actually create real insight and analysis of a program that has only grown larger now with the repayment of the financial dollars begins to be a revolving fund. that is my feeling on this issue. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his statements and concern about transparency and to welcome him to co-sponsor with me a bill 1242, the tar accountability and disclosure act. this bill would require the secretary of the treasury to create a centralized data base for the existing financial report of tarp recipients enhancing

caller: fy was a single pair on the panel, why won't you talk about it and keep injecting the insurance companies, why do we have a health care system that benefits of the insurance companies? these insurance companies are nothing but gangsters. host: ok. guest: well, the conversations i am involved with, there has been spirited discussions on a whole host of options. i just mentioned -- it was kind of interesting that some people are convinced that the public auction was a sell out to the insurance companies and others are convinced that it is the path to single payer. representatives at a hearing in congress in the house this week that dealt with single payer. the present and that the vast majority of americans just want to get rid of all health insurance and want a single payer system -- first of all, that is not what happens in these countries. you can buy health insurance and other countries that have single payer. but that is not where the majority of the public is. much more nuanced than that. many people act like they're dr. -- they were apprehensive about major change. they are

i apologize to the panel. i'm going to have to leave after my questions. for me this is an important discussion. my father perished in a plane crash. i'm very familiar with the issues and the impact it can have on a family. i appreciate you all here today i have -- from last perspective it is, you know, the small plane capital of the world. small planes are like vehicles. that is how we get around. as we think of safety issues we have to keep that in perspective in rural areas and how we deal with that. so i am very aware of what that could be. i want to follow up on a couple questions. and it was intriguing to me as i was listening to the recommendations. we have had some good conversation in regards to faa and your new role. you have come in with a fire hose. but i want to make sure i understood what he said. then i saw your body language. i'm going to try to connect the two. i can't imagine you would make recommendations that are not necessarily recommendations you are looking to have implemented. i want to make sure i heard you right. that is, if the nt

but unlike the trial judge who rendered a 48-page opinion, judge sotomayor's panel dismissed the firefighters' appeal in just a few sentences. so not only did judge sotomayor's panel dismiss the firefighters' claim, thereby deriving them a trial on the merits, it didn't even explain why they shouldn't have their day in court on their very significant claims. now i don't believe the judge should rule based on empathy, personal preferences or political beliefs. but if any case cried out for empathy -- if any case cried out for empathy -- it would be this one. the plaintiff in that case, frank richie, has dyslexia. as a result, he had to study extra hard for the test, up to 13 hours each day. to do so, he had to give up his second job while at the same time spending tkhr-rts 1,000 to buy -- spending $1,000 to buy textbooks and pay someone to record those textbooks on tape so he could overcome his disability. his hard work paid off. of 77 applicants for 8 slots, he had the 6th best score. but despite his hard work and high peformance, the city deprived him of the promotion he had clearly earned.

. >> why do you think she and the panel [unintelligible] >> i will read you some sentences. on page three, she says the 14th amendment provides certain things. they do not single out suspect classifications and must be upheld to the legitimate state interests. she says this does not interfere with the fundamental rights which we believe, i believe every american under the second amendment of the constitution has a fundamental right to bear arms. >> [unintelligible] >> you are right that this is about incorporation. all of the bill of rights have been incorporated under the 14th amendment of the constitution. she went out of her way to the nine the right to keeping bearing arms as it right. >> we do not think those are necessary to the opinion. it raises some questions that we are still willing to talk about. she can be asked about that. >> the democrats are going to try to take care of health care reform. how much aforetime wilt this nomination take in your opinion? >> i would say that the supreme court nomination is perceived as more important now than several years ago for

and it was only peer review studies they have the panel together but the weekend before the panel was about to meet, overnight mail, at 62 p review studies are right they were peer review into we switch's un psat -- i heard of and put in a journal that is questionable and was paid extra money all showing the original studies were wrong. as a result perhaps in the international agency research on cancer said there was a probable carcinogen but not definite. added is out there is somebody had access to the memos behind those studies that would be interested in seeing them. [laughter] >> first of all, congratulations on the outstanding book. and with the united mine workers and others. you're telling of a popcorn long problem has a predecessor of one who is aiming to alert people of the harsh conditions in the slaughterhouses and the fda said i aim for the heart of america and i hit her in the stomach. it has happened before. but the question i want to raise as about the precautionary principal which is an attempt to change the terms of debate given there will be errors on the side of sa

now, to the matter at hand, our panel -- our title today is at the gates -- a biography of the gates of the 20th century. i have to admit i'm a little bit mystified as the authors you have today don't really have works necessarily that were at the gates of the 20th century but it bridges the 18th and 19th. roberts most recent work is set in the civil war. and richard has written so prolificy that he stands at the 20th century than stands at his gate. a big gate. let me make a few introductions and then we'll open it to the panel and i'm going to try to reserve some time to get some questions. first, to my immediate right, paula giddings. paula is the author of when and where i enter, the impact of black women on race and sex in america and also in search of sisterhood, delta sigma and the black sorority movement. her most recent book, ida a sword among lions. it was called the best book of the year bit "washington post" and the "chicago tribune" and although it notes here that it was a final -- well, it was a finalist for the national book critic award it notes that it was a finalist

the panel has been wonderful. if the second panel would come forward? >> if you would take your seats? thank you very much for joining us. i would like to introduce all of you and you are asked to proceed with your opening remarks. the first witness today, will be george -- the the co-chair of the advisory board for the corporate response officers association and is the former undersecretary for preparedness and emergency response at the department of homeland security. this is a new organization chartered to train and engage crisis response officers in a new corporate position for the public sector. we are looking to the private sector, for partners and we want to look to the private sector for partners but i want to look to them for better technology and efficiency is that we can incorporate into the government response. thank you very much for your response. next we will hear from the vice president of disaster operations at the red cross. he is responsible for coordinating the response to major domestic disasters, managing the logistics' technology

if the second panel would come forward. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you all would take your seats, please. >> thank you very much for joining. i would like to introduce all of you and then in the order i do so you're asked to proceed with a were opening remarks. our first witness today on the second panel will be george forssmann. mr. foresman co-chairs the advisory board for the corporate crisis response officers association. he's also a former undersecretary for preparedness and emergency response at the department of homeland security. the corporate crisis response offices association is a new organization to identify, train and engage crisis response officers and new corporate position as local contact points for the public sector. sali as the chair of this committee and you heard mr. fugate say we look to the private-sector for partners and we want to edna only look to the private sector for partners but i want to look to the private-sector for better technologies, operations and efficienci

when their case reached the second circuit, judge sotomayor sat on the panel that decided it. it was and is a major case. as i mentioned, the supreme court has taken that case and its decision is expected soon. the second circuit recognized it was a major case, too. the court allotted extra time for oral argument, but unlike the trial judge who rendered a 48-page opinion, judge sotomayor's panel dismissed the firefighter's appeal in just a few sentences. so not only did judge sotomayor's panel dismiss the firefighter's claim thereby depriving them of the trial on the merits it didn't even explain why they shouldn't have their day in court on their very significant claims. now, i don't believe a judge should rule based on empathy, personal preferences or political beliefs. but in any case, crying out for empathy, if any case cried out for empathy it would be this one. the plaintiff in that case, frank richie, has dyslexia. as a result, he had to study extra hard for the test, up to 13 hours each day. to do so he had to give up his second job while at the same time spending $1,00

proposed some principles similar to what we have discussed and as i mentioned the board has worked on an international panel with a stability board and so this is a global issue with a global set of solutions that the globe is coming to a consensus on. >> thank you, mr. baucus, max thank you, mr. chairman year earlier remarks i would say that whether we tax this on a bush and sort of pin the tail on the dock you're whether we pivot on the elephant, it is now all our problems and is now, not then. and i just ask that we all work together to get us out of this, these bailouts and government-funded programs that we extricated herself from that end of the deficit spending that we have witnessed. we work together on that i hope. let me say this, gene, you and i have worked on several things and have a deep respect for you. i very much agree with you that one of the contributing factors to the excess risk taking that was central to the crisis was compensation and that was linked to short-term gains without any consideration of a long-term risk. and as you say, across the subprime mortgage business, brokers are co

with the thanks of the committee this panel is dismissed and we will ask the next panel to come up to the table. >>> so thank you all very much and please sit down and if someone can distribute these cards with the names of the witnesses and do so in a way that reflects where they will be sitting on the panel, i will very much appreciate it and then you will sit wherever you want and then we will recognize you in the -- this is -- >> sit wherever you want and i will recognize you in the order that ias going to recognize you. it's like musical chairs. we have enough chairs for each of you and if you can find the open one it will be very helpful to us. >> we thank you all very much for being here and we apologize for the delay. this is obviously a very important issue. we may be writing the transmission rules for the next generation of electricity generation in our country over the next couple of weeks. we'll see if that can be accomplished. perhaps it can, perhaps it can't, but your testimony will be central to accomplishing that goal. we could not do it without your participation. we

let's take a 5 minute break and start the second panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ♪ >> just ahead on c-span2, more on health care as analysts proposed changes for the industry. then washington correspondent george stephanopoulos gives his insight on the political challenges that president obama faces on passing comprehensive health care legislation. later, the senate returns at 1:45 eastern for morning business, gaf will to gavel coverage on c-span2. later today from the national press coverage, remarks on the organization's effort that eliminating polio around the world and the lessons that can be applied to other vaccines. the global health cancel is the host of this event. you can see it live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> a government grant? >> the nation's, advertising for products. >> public money. >> taxes. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money.

judges that night 5 percent of the time, she comes to an agreement with the republican judge on the panelyou must be thinking the same thing about those guys, and that incident made me think that we need to set the record straight about the facts. we need to get the truth about judge sonia sotomayor. we need to look at her record and determine what we are looking for in the united states supreme court. shinnies to get the same treatment the other nominees have been given. this is a classic american story about what is possible with hard work. she grew up in challenging circumstances. she worked hard for every single thing she got. many of you know her story. her dad died when she was 9 years old. her mom supporting her and her brother. her mother was so devoted to her education that she save every penny she could said that she could buy encyclopedia britannica for her children. this meant a lot to me, because i remember growing up seeing that that was an important set to have. demint a lot to our family. . sonia sotomayor graduated from princeton with high marks. . she went on to yale law

like to commend the panel for their very helpful testimony. i would protect the like to address my questions to ms. bailey with gm may. welcome. by to follow-up and thank you for the way in which gm may have then working with the staff to resolve the difficulties which we can find out like to express my particular thanks and the most helpful way in which you have behaved and a remarkable change that has occurred under your leadership so i think you. first of all, am i fare is stating fda has been so underfunded they cannot provide the necessary services to protect the industry or the consumers for a number of years? >> that is right. >> as a result they have been an adequate week to ensure the safety of the nation's food supply? >> yes. you are correct. >> unfortunately our report 88 -- reported a -- reporter. >> i said yes fda has not been able to update good manufacturing practices since 1986 that is just one example of something they have not been able to do. >> that sounds like a serious matter. >> good manufacturing practices serve the bas

that's something we'll get into in the next panel. but, you know, there is this notion that it's a very small segment of the population, and so, you know, to get people covered,. i heard many people who formerly work at insurance companies talk about these secret specific units that are designed to find errors or omissions or whatever you want to call them in people's records so that they can go back and save money. >> i think we actually get some of that testimony from our final witness from georgetown that says it may be a small percentage, but it's perhaps a big percentage of the claims cost. >> i'd just like to say, those are the people you know of. there are many people out there who lose their insurance and then go on medicaid, go on welfare, go without insurance. you're not aware of who those are. those are their numbers. those aren't the consumers' numbers. we don't really know how many people are out there. and you know what, i don't care if there is just the three of us, that's too many. one too many who dies because an insur

i mean, we are reviewing the work of a panel of three trial court judges here. and they took evidence, and where is the evidence even that you called, as you said, you didn't even call witnesses from a majority of minnesota's counties. you're asking us to presume based on the testimony from a sampling of counties that that practice is applied to the majority of the county's. >> your honor, the evidence you're even from the secretary of the state is, for instance, that counties that didn't check to see if the witnesses were registered. that's the evidence in the case. there's only six or seven that did. resulting in thousands of pallets presumptively, and this is a commonsense presumption because you have 180 people kicked out a little carver county because the witnesses isn't registered and you have none in minneapolis and none in saint louis county. you could presume that people in each county are as smart as each other. to all you have to do is extract light, and i hesitate to use this case or anything, but they did that in bush against gore when they compared