it treasury has provided no such benchmark. reasonable people may define a "financial stability" in different ways, but everyone agrees that we can best gauge that stability by rigorously meaauringgthe conditions of our banks. the treasury has refused to call for additional stress tests in our financiaa system. about how to help small businesses gain access to loans, but no one doubts that the -psolution must begin with a clr understanding of the problem. if treasury has gathered only sparse data on the small business credit crunch. so the plant -- so the point is blunt -- without more candid data on bank stability, commercial real estate, small business lending and home mortgage foreclosure efforts, the shape and depth of the risk facing our economy remain hidden. and without more willingness to separate programs that have worked from those that have not, it is not possible to build the best defenses. the problems in commercial real estate, small business spending, and home mortgage foreclosure grow more urgent by the day. in

and then the gentleman went on to say that the treasury would then post a report on their website. now, will that list the names of the borrowers -- will the treasury report on their website list the names of each borrower that borrowed money under this program? mr. green: if the gentleman yields to me. thank you. it will indicate what transactions took place and it will indicate who the banks, the lending institutions, that engaged in the transaction, the borrower's name would not be a part of the information. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman because i was concerned about the privacy of those business owners, you know, letting the world know how much money they're borrowing. i'm not opposed to the gentleman's amendment. i think disclosure is a good thing. i just want to make a point that there have been several discussions up here today, it's not going to cost the taxpayers any money. only washington, d.c., can you go spend $33 billion and say it's not going to cost anything. the problem is if this program is participated up to $33 billion, we don't have $33 billion. and so w

treasury has called for additional stress test. reassnable people might disagree about how to help small businesses gain access to loans, but no one doubts that the solution must begin with a clear understanding of the problem, yet treasury has collected only sparse data on the small business credit crunch. without more handedness -- handedness, the shape and depth of the risks facing our economy remains hidden. without a willingness to separate the programs that have worked from those that have not, it is not possible to build the best defenses. the problems in commercial real estate, where mortgage foreclosure -- home mortgage foreclosure, they grow worse by the day. your office will lose the capacity restructure programs, or deal with the programs. i will be very glad to see tarp end, but i realize that the time is running out to make sure that we have used the money to assure the stability of our financial system. time is also running out to make sure that tarp money is used to help families and small businesses the way it was

this is about treasury. and making sure that politics aren't part of the decisions being made at treasury. if the republicans think politics should be part of the decision, they can vote no. but we took them at their word they didn't think that politics should be part of the treasury function. we have taken it away through the inspector general. the inspector general has an incredible track record. we respect that track record. and if the republicans don't respect it, they can with all due respect vote against this. this is not tarp money. as much as they would like to have us believe this is again another tarp, it is not. i realize that doesn't fit into the political rhetoric that is so often used throughout here, but it is the reality. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i remind the gentleman that the original tarp program was the federal government investing taxpayers' dollars

i realize treasury has sent out some directives on this recently. but i'm very concerned about sending mixed messages to homeowners who are trying to seek modifications and of the same time sending out letters to the bank of their foreclosing on their property. i wonder if we should stop the practice of the foreclosure if we are in the process of loan modification negotiations so that it does not lead to the homeowners backing out because they fear their house is going into foreclosure anyway. >> let me be very clear that foreclosure is the last and least alternative for somebody. when you offer somebodya hamsomp modification, and it if -- and if they fail about, we are for them -- if they failed that, we offer them other solutions. >> what i'm getting at is when you enter the discussion of ln modification, you stop the foreclosure process? or do you allow it to continue until the process is finalized? >> we stop the process. we stop the people better in foreclosure and offer them trowel modification. >> assoon as modification is offered you stop th

we did have a treasury. we did have jao you cannot do so much in one day. >> i am concerned about the clans for the claims. growing number of borrowers are failing to move from the initial stage into a permanent loan modification. more than 100 our -- 100,000 borrowers lost their mortgage in may. more than have received another type of modification from their banks according to the government data. housing counselors have complained that those alternative low modifications are typically not as generous as what the government program offers. i am interested to see how it can be one of the toughest steps in the loan modification efforts. i have held foreclosure prevention's in the district. i can tell you the key is that we have to have efficient programs. it is one thing to talk about them. it is another thing to actually carry them out. hopefully, people can help us get a better insight and how we can keep people in their homes. house is the numbers 1 investment in most instances. we need to be doing more he

we did have treasury and g.a.o.ou can only do that so much in monday. >> thank you for holding the hearing. i am concerned about the claims by the "washington post" that a growing number of borrowers has failed to move and the initial stages of this program to a permanent loan modification. with the 100,000 hours lost mortgages in may. about half of those dropped from the federal program received a number -- another type of loan modification from their banks according to government data. complained that those loan modifications are not as generous as what the government program offers and would often comes with hefty up-front fees. i am interested to see how these options will be communicated with the powers and getting started could be one of the toughest processes in the loan modification efforts. over the last 15 months, and i have had foreclosure prevention workshops in my district. the key is we have to have effective and the essential programs. it is one thing to talk about it. it is another thing to carry it

why isn't treasury here? also, from you, why are you not operating in what we would believe a market standard of capital preservation, because we are continuing to proceed toward foreclosure at rates -- deals and offers would have a higher return than foreclosure does. i'm interested in some of those questions today. >> i now recognize mr. kucinich. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have three minutes. >> i will take 1 minute. we know that the state of ohio received another $172 million so people can be counseling individuals on how to stay in their homes. i'm grateful of the administration for that. servicers have been referring eligible borrowers to foreclosure. treasury had to intervene to try to put a stop to that practice. we know that bank of america has 13% permanent modifications. j.p. morgan chase, 20%. wells fargo, 22%. citimortgage, 23%. this whole program is about keeping people in their homes. we're finding that the servicers apparently are not stepping up in a way that can encourage more and mo

treasury has called for additional stress test. reasonable people might disagree about how to help small businesses gain access to loans, but no one doubts that the solution must begin with a clear understanding of the problem, yet treasury has collected only sparse data on the small business credit crunch. without more handedness -- handedness, the shape and depth of the risks facing our economy remains hidden. without a willingness to separate the programs that have worked from those that have not, it is not possible to build the best defenses. the problems in commercial real estate, where mortgage foreclosure -- home mortgage foreclosure, they grow worse by the day. your office will lose the capacity restructure programs, or deal with the programs. i will be very glad to see tarp end, but i realize that the time is running out to make sure that we have used the money to assure the stability of our financial system. time is also running out to make sure that tarp money is used to help families and small businesses the way it was

we did have a treasury. we did have jao you cannot do so much in one day. >> i am concerned about the clans for the oclaims for their. growing number of borrowers are failing to move from the initial stage into a permanent loan modification. more than 100 our -- 100,000 borrowers lost their mortgage in may. more than have received another type of modification from their banks according to the government data. housing counselors have complained that those alternative low modifications are typically not as generous as what the government program offers. i am interested to see how it can be one of the toughest steps in the loan modification efforts tods. i have held foreclosure prevention's in the district. i can tell you the key is that we have to have efficient programs. it is one thing to talk about them. it is another thing to actually carry them out. hopefully, people can help us get a better insight and how we think hcan keep people in their. house is the numbers 1 investment in most interesinsta. we need

treasury has called for additional stress test. reasonable people might disagree about how to help small businesses gain access to loans, but no one doubts that the solution must begin with a clear understanding of the problem, yet treasury has collected only sparse data on the small business credit crunch. without more handedness -- handedness, the shape and depth of the risks facing our economy remains hidden. without a willingness to separate the programs that have worked from those that have not, it is not possible to build the best defenses. the problems in commercial real estate, where mortgage foreclosure -- home mortgage the day. your office will lose the capacity restructure programs, or deal with the programs. i will be very glad to see tarp end, but i realize that the time is running out to make sure that we have used the money to assure the stability of our financial system. time is also running out to make sure that tarp money is used to help families and small businesses the way it was so street. i would like to offer

the treasury's job is to issue u.s. treasuries to cover our debt. but when nobody will buy them at the rate for which they're being offered, their only alternative is to raise the interest rate and issue them again. so the borrower, the purchaser of those debts gets a higher return and they get it from people who are paying taxes. so more and more of your tax dollars is going to go to pay interest on the national debt. problem is, as the gentleman from florida pointed out, we're not taking in enough money this year to pay what we're going to spend this year. we didn't take in enough money last year to pay what we spent last year. we're not going to take in enough money next year under current projections to pay what we're spending next year and on and on and on. this is a structural deficit, in other words. there's no end in sight to spending more than we're taking in every year. the only way to fill the ap is to borrow more money. and when we can't sell those debts at an interest rate that will attract buyers we have to raise the interest rate to a

the clerk: a bill to create the small business lending fund program to direct the secretary of the treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed one hour with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

, we're in -- according to the treasury, we're in trouble. mrs. lummis: will the gentleman yield? lady mrs. lummis: wt do hear rom your conituents are they ready for the nd of reforms that you believe are necessy --hat do you he froyour constituents? are they rea for the kin reformshat u believe are necessary? mr. latta: they understand right f the bat that something has to be done. they understa that cuts- ey've had akdeep,eep cuts. i think until rectli served on theudget mmittee d as yore still a member an itting through those hearings with the congressial budget ficeirectoorheffice management and budget directr secrety geithner or we heardromr. bernanke, we heard the same thing. growth in this count and speing anit'sot to be stoppe they don't offer tolutions but it's a very simple solutio you don't spend what you don't have. was nbe19 ofnids on my mate granotr's side. the good german rm woman that she was. she had a sple sayingthose who go borwing goes a sorrowing. she de sure all9 of us underd that. you don't end what you don't have. and

i would ask that congresswoman bean and chairman frank work with me, the treasury, and other body to ensure these banks can be included in this program as this legislation goes forward. ms. bean: i thank the congressman for his concerns and had similar concerns in my home state of illinois we also have institution that is would like to participate but would be unable to because of the cap. i agree on this point and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. ms. bean: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. chairman. one of the things that is interesting, this is a program -- program is designed to put more capital into the banking system. and according to the federal reserve's april survey of senior loan officers, three factors that exerted the greatest influence on banks' business lending practices over the past three months were competitive pressures, the economic outlook, and the tolerance for risk in the business loan market. last of capital -- lack of capital wa

this amendment requires the secretary of treasury to provide consideration in the allocation of funds to gulf region states in the areas where businesses and the economy have been adversely affected by the big water horizon oil spill. i thank the gentlelady from texas for her partnership in drafting this amendment and for her consideration for gulf coast communities during our time of crisis. i'd like to thank the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member of the financial services committee, for his ongoing assistance and support. the district that i represent includes louisiana's orleans and jefferson parishes, in my district and all across the gulf coast we were still recovering from the devastating form -- storms of 2005 when we were hit with the latest disaster. the oil spill in the gulf of mexico in april presents us with economic, environmental and health challenges of unprecedented proportions. businesses have gone down because they simply do not have the short-term or long-term resources to operate. industries such as fishing and seafood processing, recreational fishing, rest

i have therefore abolished the treasury's euro preparations unit. does exist, and the official concerned has been redeployed to more productive activities. let me now turn to my other decisions on public spending. the state today accounts for almost half of all national income, which is completely unsustainable. all parties in the house now accept that spending needs to be cut, and we have made a start, but we need to go much further if we are to meet our fiscal mandate and see debt falling by the end of this parliament.+ today we are setting out the overall path of public spending that will achieve that. let me begin with current spending. current expenditure will rise from £637 billion in 2010 to 2011 to £711 billion in 2015 to 2016. although this is an increase, the house should remember that we inherit a rapidly rising bill for debt interest. a bill that will not start falling until the debt itself starts to fall. debt interest payments alone will cost the taxpayer a quarter of a trillion pounds over this period. one of my predecessors used to c

well, according to the bill, it includes the secretary of the treasury, the head of a small group. the senate bill includes the o.c.c. it is -- mr. frank: would the gentleman suspend? mr. frank: that he says it includes aligs beth warren. i don't believe the bill refers to aliz beth -- elizabeth warren. . mr. bachus: 90% of the total consolidated assets. now, mr. chairman, or, mr. speaker, i'd ask the chairman, maybe he can give us this figure or review my figures, but the largest corporation in america, bank of america, which would qualify under this program has total assets of $2,340 ,000,000,000. that means that the fdic could borrow $2 trillion. i would ask this, what do they borrow it from? more importantly, if they borrow $2 trillion to allow bank of america to go into this process, if they're not paid back, who pays it? and the answer is, the taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time s expired. all time h expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the

treasury expects to spend less than the $550 of the $700 billion authorized. regrettably this big does not factor in -- does not factor in the bailouts of fannie mae and

the taxpayers deserves to be protected when treasury makes investments with their money. unfortunately, we have some examples of tarp investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made. one -- when one united bank received tarp funds in 2008, questions came up about whether the bank's political connections helped its tarp's approval. one united bank lost capital and was under scrutiny by regulator for its lending practices. more recently, more members of congress and others have questioned whether political pressure was involved in the decision by large banks to raise capital for the troubled shore bank in chicago. shore bank has applied for tarp funds in addition to $140 million in assistance from other banks to head off the takeover by the fdic. shore bank also has ties to the obama administration. we do not have all the owns -- answers on how the decisions were made for the banks, but we need to make sure these questions are not raised about other baction. treasury must certify that each decision based on solely economic fundame

our secretary of the treasury doesn't have discretion. so i want you to explain to me how you expect to make progress with people who have no respect for the law they say they are abiding by with policies of personal responsibilities, cds, intellectual property, what ever. they make the law and say they have to abide by it but they don't enforce it. now, tell me how we can deal with it. another -- i will give you another for instance. we went to china and we said you know we would like to clean up the atmosphere, and we would like to reduce emissions in the united states as close to zero as possible and they've thumbed their nose at us and said you go right ahead. we are not going to do it. we are not going to put any restrictions on the burning of coal in the republic of china. how can you trust these people? ambassador kirk? >> briefly. >> well, just as said -- >> you get one question. >> you do, you get one. >> welcome thank you, mr. sherman. >> senator, i would argue the underlying proposition of the difficulty of china's transformati

disturbingly enough, and also says the fdic can decide -- the treasury can decide to pay other creditors off and to tell other creditors there are out of luck. that gives them tremendous discretion. we do not feel like the american people get that back. why pay them in the first place if you need to get it back? take the largest six connected companies and that is the no. $8 trillion exposure. the government is alreadd over committed. >> the bailout issue has been a central question about all this. what would be a better alternative beyond just a simple could go with lehman brothers. >> with lehman brotters, we said they were nottallowed to aat immediately. there were not allowed to issue a injunctive relief. we said, okay, we ill -- we will allow nhance bankruptcy. we went to experts and we addressed those by giving the bankruptcyy udge's more power. the primary differences i see to the general public about the differrnce in bankruptcy and this procedure is the democrat procedure. it was a procedure of the bush administration. that is what president bush did. and as the secretary paulso

britain's treasury chief announced the sharpest budget cuts and tax increases in decades. belt tightening measures include a sales tax hike to 20%, a new levy on banks, and higher capital gains taxes on the wealthy. the treasury chief, known as the chancellor of the exchequer, said the austerity measures are necessary to slash the country's $1.3 trillion debt. >> this budget is needed to deal with our country's debt. this budget is needed to give confidence to our economy. this is is the unavoidable budget. i am not going to hide hard choices from the british people or bury them in the small prints of the budget documents. >> sreenivasan: osborne said britain currently has the largest budget deficit of any european economy except ireland. on wall street today, stocks were down on new concerns about the housing and banking sectors. the dow jones industrial average lost nearly 149 points to close at 10,293. the nasdaq fell 27 points to close above 2261. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: the $700 billion financial rescue program known as

the treasury has provided numbers on those. i think they had an overall cost of $110 million. >> reference has been made to the small-business lending find act. without getting into all of the details of the legislation, the believe that we need to take more action to assure the flow of credit to small businesses? >> i think both the fed, the congress, and the administration should be looking at new ways to get credit flowing. in my mind, that is one of the dangers to the recovery. job creation and small-business growth will not be sufficient to sustain the momentum. i would ask you to put this on your priority list. >> thank you. one of the areas where we have had some controversy in the past is the concept of auditing the fed. you have made your views clear on that. the senate narrowed the audit provision that the house overwhelmingly passed. is something the same or similar to the senate measure is adopted, heidi see that audit working? >> the senate measure opens up all of our financial transactions, all of our financial co

it also, disturbingly enough, it says the fdic or the treasury can decide to pay certain creditors off and tell others you're out of luck, which gives tremendous discretion. government get it back? we will get it back from the creditors. why pay it to them in the first place if you're going to get it back? just take the largest six systemically connected companies. that is an over $8 trillion exposure, and the government is already overcommitted. >> on the bailout issue, and that has about a central question in all this, what would be a better alternative beyond just a simple bankruptcy, which we saw how that can go with lehman? >> with lehman, they said ok, they weren't allowed to act immediately. they weren't allowed to issue certain injunk tiff relief. -- we said ok, and we went to bankruptcy experts and corporate governance experts, and we addressed those by giving them the bankruptcy judges, more power. the primary difference to the general public about the difference in bankruptcy and this procedure, the democrats' procedure, and i say that -- it was a procedure of the bush admin

she said that it is for for a will to establish a treasury line of credit. i would only ask that one analyze the strong record of the fdic in protecting the deposit insurance fund over 75 years, the fdic has maintained scrupulously in performance with its statutory mandate to protect insurance depositors. the fdic would be equally scrupulous in protecting the integrity of the resolution but consistent with the terms of the legislation. they cannot do that if you eliminate these four parts because this is the essence of what they do at the federal deposit insurance. let me just say this -- we are really going to have to decide who is going to pay for this because there is a cost at the cbo -- $20 billion. "is hardly surprising that big banks made the house bill pre- funding systematic resolution fund their top priority for removal from the senate bill. medibank have never paid for the two big to fail bailouts and they're not going to start now. if congress lets them shift the cost, it will be a shameful dereliction of duty, and -- dereliction of duty," and th

first, banks must apply to the treasury to receive funds with a detailed plan on how to increase small business lending at their institution. this language was included at my insistence that we need to make sure that small businesses will get the benefit of this legislation. second, this capital, repayment of the government loans will be at a deepening rate starting at 5% per year. this rate will be lowered by 1% for every 2.5% increase in small business lending over 2010 levels. -- 2009 levels. it can go to 1% if the bank increases its business lending by 10% or more, incentivizing banks to do the right thing, to ensure that banks actually use the federal funding they receive, the rate will increase and there are penalties to 7% if the bank fails to increase its small business lending at their institution within two years. to ensure that all federal funds are paid back within five years, the dividend rate will increase to 9% for all banks irrespective of their small business lending after 4 1/2 years. and let me just make it clear what the c.b.o. estimates that they provided to the co

treasury will be able to front money to wind down these failing firms but also treasury can decide if they are at risk for failure. way too much involvement in the -- the taxpayers coming in and doing exactly what the american taxpayers are tired of seeing us doing. the government-sponsored entities, fannie mae and freddie mac, we talked about it and we'll talk more on this floor today and have talked about for months as one of the prime causes of the economic problems we face as far as i can tell are not mentioned and if they are mentioned, mr. speaker, there's no reform. the root cause of the problem we have in the economy today was caused by these entities and they're not addressed and it was said they would not be addressed. more control, mr. speaker, by the federal reserve of more things and more regulation. there's a new agency under the federal reserve that will be in charge of setting new rules for the banking sector of the country in its entirety. credit, mr. speaker, will not be more available. it will be less available. and people who are in the job-creating business are al

that's the profit maker for the treasury. and there's no cost unless the money is actually borrowed. if the money is borrowed and paid back with interest, then the taxpayers actually benefit. so it's one thing to talk about deficits and argue about who is responsible and so forth, but to actually misstate the actual facts about the underlying bill is disingenuous. i would like to make one more comment because we talk about, my friend from north carolina mentioned earlier, you keep blaming the former president. no, we actually keep blaming the former 12 years of republican control of the congress because that's the period of time in which the really disastrous policies for the economy were implemented and were approved. the two tax cuts that mostly went to the wealthiest americans. $7 trillion of debt projected debt because of the unfunded prescription drug plan. and of course the war funding. i know that president bush dealt for two years with a democratic congress. we did control the congress. we sure didn't have a veto-proo

i am chaired by the treasury. don't we have built within that ructure, and i agr we need an oversight by the to bring the regulators, the leading retors together to have th discussionnd debate about whher we have a bubble and if we do have a ubble what to do about it. is a very fundamental problem we continue to face, namely that the feds didn't really ret top early lee in the past and though we have a treasury, whmever that may be, whose political benefit maybe not to recognize the new legali which is the next bubble? >> am i want to let you take that one because that is right on your projec here. >> thas for the question. i couldn'tave asked for a better one. you ve articulated the central problem, for few score pages in this bill that runs to a few thousand, if you sit andead e seion on the office of financial research you will e in fact, i would say a perpignan change and i'm using that word deliberately, because the office of financial research has no regulato authority other than to coel and said data standa

the secretary of the treasury will have to issue this report.i think he'll have to label china a currency manipulator, which they will hate. whether he does or not, the congress is very unhappy. senator schumer and others are ready to pass legislation which would, at a minimum, require the u.s. to take account of this cheap currency in deciding whether to put counter veiling duties and now import barriers on chinese trade. i think the next step might be some disruption in the trade flows between the two countries if china remains as defensive as it is. >> suarez: fred bergsten, good to talk to you. >> good to be here. >> lehrer: and to the analysis of shields and brooks, syndicated columnust mark shields, "new york times" columnist david brooks. on the oil spill , congressman joe barton's apology to b.p. and his apology about the apology, are you as upset about this as so many others? >> no, i am not as upset. politically it was an unbelievably stupid thing, and substantively it was two-thirds of an unbelievably stupid thing. let me go to the on

this is an official in the treasury department who is so knowledgeable on this subject matter and was invaluable in helping us craft in legislation, and i want to especially mention him and thank him for his contribution. this new section takes aim squarely at iran's powerful revolutionary guard corps, the irg crnchts as it is noang -- irgc, as it is known, and attempts to choke it off from an increasingly important source of power in international financial investment. section 104 of the act has two principal parts, madam president. first, t -- the treasury will direct american banks to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent or payable through account of any foreign financial institution working with key iranian entities. for example, foreign banks conducting substantial business with the irgc, its front companies or affiliates, will be cut off from its american accounts. hypothetically then, if an agent or latin american bank were to provide services to an irgc-owned construction company, for instance, building a major gas pipeline, that bank would be shut off from u.

we know from visiting with treasury secretary geithner, that medicare is essentially bankrupt. we know that social security, when we get to the suwannee 30's will be taking in enough money only to pay out three force of the benefits it pays out now. so, to help this committee dispelled the persistent and dangerous myth that our entitlement programs are sustainable as currently structured, can you describe the fiscal and economic consequences of doing nothing on entitlement and simply allowing social security and medicare to run their course, and could you please put figure 1 backup? that was the one on the tidal wave of debt,because i'm concerned about the effect of doing nothing with our entitlement programs on this very tidal wave. >> you are correct that the tidal mud programs are are not self funded. they are unfunded liabilities to a significant extent at this point. they are t biggest single component of spending going forward. now, there are various ways to address this. you can cut other things but at some point you need to address the overall budgetary situation. if yo

to borrow from the treasury? we don't have the resources to keep financial institutions operating from a friday to monday? i don't see is that -- see that as an attractive alternative. by getting this course that we need to to accommodate the budgetary concerns seems to me the wise way to proceed on this. that does not satisfy those who are opposed to the bill. i understand -- i am not one to solve that problem by coming up with an alternative pay for that made me more acceptable to colleagues who have to vote for or against this legislation. that is the reason for it. trying to come up with an answer that makes sense to people. people still want to invest and i'll be glad to entertain those ideas but we do need to move on this as well. senator corporatker. >> i have been relatively mild mannered for this conference and i tried offer amendments for the good of the people. i have to tell you, mr. chairman, the comment you just made is one of the most disingenuous comments i've heard made during this conference. th

later, secretary of the treasury tim geithner will be on capitol hill this morning to testify about the troubled asset relief program known as tarp. live coverage at 10:00 eastern. >> based on what you've read and heard and what your questions and answers are, you don't deserve to be in the senate judiciary committee. >> as senators prepare for elena kagan's confirmation hearing, look back of the supreme court decisions. you can check error cspan video library. >> now the former obama campaign secretary steve hildebrandt about mobilizing young voters in 2010 and includes a former strategist for republican senator scott brown. the center for american progress hosts this event. this is almost one hour. >> the moderator for the panel is erica williams. she is the deputy director of progress 2050 and serves as the senior adviser to campus progress. i will turn it over to erica. >> welcome everyone. we are a very, very large generation. these are people born after 1982. we are predicted to make up nearly 20% of the american electorate. that is pretty big. the project that i worked on now foc

the treasury saw its financial policy division drift into a backwater. the fsa became a narrow regulator, almost entirely focussed on rules based regulation. no-one was controlling levels of debt, and when the crunch came no one knew who was in charge. some lessons have been learnt and some changes made, and i commend those who have led this process. but despite the changes that have been made, i am still not confident that the fundamental problems of culture and regulatory structure have been confronted. how do we ensure less box- ticking and more exercise of judgement? what are the tools of macroprudential regulation and who should exercise them? can the macroprudential regulator do their job if they don't have an intimate knowledge of what is happening in individual firms? our thinking is informed by this insight: only independent central banks have the broad macroeconomic understanding, the authority and the knowledge required to make the kind of macro-prudential judgments that are required now and in the future. and, because central banks are the le

s treasury secretary henry morgenthau, after trying it for eight year, trurning a recession into the great depression, we consider the greatest depression we had, they spent tons of federal money but at least they spent it on concrete, great big dams and roads and building projects. of course the $800 billion we spent wasn't spent on a lot of stuff, it was more government giveaways. we're joined by my good friend congresswoman lewis, bide delighted if you could jump into the conversation here , we're focusing on the economy, what assumptions than done that are wrong and what do we need to get it fixed and straighten things out? ms. lewis: i thank the gentlemafor his courtesy to the previous group -- mrs. lummis: i thank the gentleman r his courtesy to the previous group, allowing them to act nong the importance of our ally there is. one of the issues we have to adss as we address this economic downturn we are in is the role of the federal government in exacerbating the problem. as we all know, federal employment and private sector employment are not the same thing. a private sector j

he was handpicked by the last government to be a treasury minister nd he absolutely put his finger on the button. he said this, " there's nothing progressive about a overnment that spends more than they can rrise and taxation and nothing progressive that leaves generations to come with liabilities incurred by the current generation." those words are absolutely right. >> i would like to thank the prime minister to tell me that the decision will be fast tracked and waiting for this decision is creating huge economic uncertainty for the region. the decision to rebuild the school, will it go ahead as planned? >> i can confirm that the specific grants she raised last week will be going ahead. before everyone jumps to their feet, let me explain what the problem is with some of these grants. before the last election, lauren mendelsohn had a udge to checkbook which he went round opening up over the country and promised to sen billion-pound to produce -- promised t$10 billion pounds all over the place. it behooves the government to check all of those decisions one by one parent. a -- one by on

caller: the problem going on in the united states in terms of financial companies is a raid on the treasury of the corporation by the board members, higher executives where everybody pays each other and the stockholder end up holding the liabilities for the cup -- corporation and the remaining dividends or asset appreciation. i would like to read something from the clean water act regarding the oil spill? host: i am going to stop you there, unfortunately. i want to stick with the topic of financial regulation. we spent the first hour and a half on the oil spill. guest: a new oil was going to be a big topic today. that is a big point in terms of the quantity on the situation. is it to close of a relationship with the region too close -- too close of a relationship with the executives there? is it inappropriate that stockholders be in a position -- they should be able to look at these things. as an investor getting the best return on my investment. today we will look at corporate governance. it is an area that we have not spent a lot of time on in the past host:. -- in the past. host: will ex

we'll count it the same as treasuries. and it disappeared overnight. that was in july, not in september. banks took a hit on that. and democrats said at that time, and the bush administration, and the bush administration, we've got -- and secretary paulson, we've got to give $400 billion to fannie and freddie because in 1999, under the clinton administration, you said let's loan to people with poor credit, loan to people without much of a down payment and republicans and democrats both rush to use this into a source of cheap money and it failed. and republicans said, and still say, and say as this bill is on the floor, wait a minute. you're going to reform these companies before you pour taxpayer dollars in them. and every republican in the house voted no, we will not give them taxpayer money until they're reformed and there's a plan to liquidate them. the chairman says we need to liquidate them. what about fannie and freddie? why aren't we liquidating them? and we're not. the biggest bailout we've had is of fannie and freddie who did we bail out? did

treasu bondbecaus w are going into so mh debt at we tsell treasuries every da this particular purchase was undersubscribed. at means thereasot enoh buyers for the ney that we atempted to sell and the reason is thator the sk that theuyers were takig, they wanted a higher rate oterest, they wanted a better turn when you take morri on he investment youe purchasing, y want high rate of return. as sn we haveo start paying higher interest in order to attact burs t our debt, we are enri that our cren and grandchildren e going to be saddled with higher interest paymen, once aga, crng otherefments in our economy. the -- investments in our econom these are the kinds ofhings atolutely stifle economic growth in oucountry and encouragee business peopl as were mentioned by mr.latta, to mo their businesses elsewhere. weo know tha for example, in the gf of mexico right now with the moratorium on drilling and no d in sight wn it mighbe ftedhat there are drill rigs that are coing moving to that tmendo oil and gas findff the coast of bril one of those enormous rigs is moved off to e coast of il it will b

i thinke's right that lord mirs who hasd-pied by theasovernment to be a treasury minister s absolu puthis finger on the tton whe saidhis. there is nothing progresve about a government who coistentlypend more than ey can raise inaxionnd certainlnothinprogresse that endows liabilities to come. what a pity he dn'y is. >> i thank the prime minister fowriting me to tell me thathe decision on thent will be ft track waiting for this decisionis causing huge onomic uncertain to the northeast onomy. i hope that the pri mister might bebleo me with a similar cause of concern tmy whetr eecision to rebuild the hool will go ahe a planned. >>ell, first of all, as well as the writing t right honorae ly letter, i can go further which is to confirm the grts she raised at that monewill be goinahead. that invesent will be goin in. but before everyone oppose jumps to their feet, let me explain whhe proem is with some of thesgrants. befo theast election, befe the lt econ, lord mandleton had gant checkbook ich opened allround the country spendingens of billions opounds. he promise200 prects, two-thirds of whi

i will leave that up to treasury secretary geithner he makes these decisions. >> how long would you expect people like charles schumer and american manufacturers who have lost jobs so quickly, how would you expect them to wait? >> my expectation is that they're going to be serious about the policy that they themselves have announced. now, what i am going to do is work with people like senator schumer and manufacturers who are affected by these trade imbalances, and i think we all have the same interests, and that is the united states can compete with anybody, as long as we have got an even playing field, and as i indicated in my opening remarks, we are prepared to enter into trade agreements with korea, and one of the things we discussed here is is there a way to reinvigorate the doha round, which has been stuck for a very long time? so i agree with the statement in the communique that trade can be a source of prosperity for everybody, but it has got to be a fair deal. and it is not just currency, by the way. their chinese partners about%- what they're doing with barriers, what are they do

i'm pleased to see this bill responds to a recrept report from the treasury inspector general for tax administration that found almost 1,300 incarcerated prisoners claimed over $9 million in tax credits for homes purchased in prison. the bill would improve information sharing between the i.r.s. and state prison system so the i.r.s. can obtain information on just who is claiming. refundable tax credits attractp fraud and we need to do better to prevent peopll from claiming benefits. i think this legislation includes sensible changes to improve the administration of the home buyer tax credit and i urge an aye vote. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: mr. speaker, it's now my special privilege to yield two minutes to the congresswoman from pennsylvania, kathy dahlkemper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my bill, h.r. 5623, the home buyers assistance and improvement act

can the prime minister tell us how much money the treasury has set aside to pay for that next year? >> actually, what the chancellor did yesterday was more complex than that. he said -- and this is an extremely important point, and honorable members will want to listen. we have a triple lock in place to make sure that the pension upgrade is at the highest level possible. next year, therefore, because of what we expect with rpi, the pension will be upgraded and increased along with it. when she gets to the dispatch box the next time, will she confirm that labour's plans were to uprate benefits by less than the consumer price index? >> harriet harman. >> there was nothing complicated at all about the question, but it was one that the prime minister did not seem to want to answer. the answer is that they have not set aside a single penny for that big promise to pensioners. next year prices are due to go up more than earnings, so bringing forward the earnings link by a year does not give pensioners anything extra. but though pensioners get nothing from that change, we all know they will

welcome the fact that these things are now independently determined, rather than fiddled in the treasury? what the office of budget responsibility shows is that the structural deficit is going to be 12 billion pounds higher, and the growth forecast that the chancellor of the exchequer produced at the time of the budget were a complete fiction. >> harriet harman. >> i can answer his question, although, to be fair, he is supposed to be answering mine. yes, i do -- yes, i do support the o.b.r., but he will not say whether he welcomes the forecast that i set out earlier. it is clear what he is doing. he is talking the economy down, he's talking the public -- [unintelligible] he's talking the public finances down to soften up the public for the cuts that he wants to make. but does he not realize that, in doing so, he is also undermining business confidence? how can that be right? >> what the right honorable lady and members opposite have got to remember -- never mind talking the economy down, they did the economy down. they left this country with a 155 billion pound deficit, the biggest defic

the amendment will require the treasury secretary to vote to approve any rule on capital requirements before self-rule can become affected. as a result, if the capital requirements undermine the stability of our financial system, it will be clear that this administration is the blames and that it will be easier for the voting public to hold accountable those responsible. future administrations will know that they need to take financial regulation seriously because they will be on the hook. this amendment is a common-sense way to strengthen capital requirements. without micromanaging regulators on this very complex subject. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> let me ask -- i don't know anyone in our committee who has been more consistently outspoken about capital requirements that my friend and colleague from alabama. my stewardship as chairman where senator shelby did not raise the importance of capital standards, let me begin by commending him for his consistent support for this issue and is consistent efforts to point out the failure in the past of not requiring