we need to look at the unintended consequences of that legislation. there's a stay in the implementation but i hope you apply the same diligence in south carolina education as you did to that part to the subject. they are so onerous for people it was never intended for. >> if i am confirmed i will work to resolve many of these issues that are coming back to you and other members of this committee. it is my understanding, i have read the guidelines on secondhand stores and asked people house things are going. many of them say we read the guidelines and are now not wlling double -- durable nursery products. cless we know the product of ebt been recalled, the immission has a web site, it requires us to be even more diligent in informing the public about product recalls, so the oecondhand thrift stores are not always in a quandary about whether or not to sell something. rm can work closely with the state consumer product safety commission's and if confirmed by will work with them, the yttorneys general to educate people about what is required to be recall

this is the unintended consequence of a preprinting requirement, the 127 amendments. we have had that discussion. there will not be discussion and debate and votes asked for 127 amendments. so we stand here in good faith and want to engage with the members on your side of the aisle, so i ask the gentleman, what is it, what is the intention tonight to go back to rules? how is it that our members who have already been told their amendment will be accepted now how should they proceed? i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: let me reiterate what the gentleman knows to be the case. he and i have discussed this matter on at least three different occasions. they were i think friendly discussions. the gentleman indicated that he did not believe an agreement was possible. on the time constraints. mr. boehner indicated that to me as well. so that it's not as if we haven't had significant discussions about this. you also in fairness did indicate to me that the preprinting requirement would be something that your side would take umbrage at. mr. obey, i think correctly, said both si

now some common ground and the notion that if we can work providing a host of services to reduce unintended pregnancies we therefore reduce by anybody's count the number of abortions that are performed in this country which is i think a ball will allf us could support. so we have a range of services in the hhs i think can help toward that end and it's everything from comprehensive sex education which has already been discussed, affordable available health care is an important piece of that puzzle. there are adoption incentives, which worked along the way. early childhood education support for women, a range of programs for women and girls that provide an environment where they have options and choices that are so essential to, you know, reducing the situations that produce unintended pregnancy. so i think that -- i was alarmed by the recent cdc study that says we have an increase now in teen pregnancies again having had a decrease the last years that is not good news. we know that 40% of births right now are testing parents -- to single parents. so there's a lot of common ground and work to

which would create an uneven playing field increasingly inject political decisions with sell any unintended consequences into the economy so individual boards from companies have responsibility for establishing compensation packages that not only take into account the long-term best interest of the company and shareholders will also allow them to attract the best available talent. this is a fundamental underpinning of the free-market economy and it shouldn't be put in the hands of government bureaucrats. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida for two minutes. is he here? we will hold off then. let me go to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. >> we have formed taxpayer support in cities and that is what the american people were in price to be shareholders in companies in many cases they wouldn't have invested on their own but unfortunately that marriage was made, and i would guarantee if you think the marriage isn't working very well we until you see the divorce as we try to unravel but it looks like we are moving in the direction of increasing the consequences of this

which would create an even plainfield and increasingly inject political decisions with so many unintended consequences into our economy. so individual boards from companies have a responsibility for establishing compensation packages, that not only take into account the long term best interest of the company and its shareholders, but also allow them to attract the best available talent. this is a fundamental underpinning of our free market economy, and it should not be put in the hands of government bureaucrats. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida for two minutes. let's hold off. let me go to the gentleman from texas for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the things that's happened over the last few months is we have formed a new entity is called tse. that tax supported entities. that were the american people were impressed to these shareholders and companies that in many cases they wouldn't have invested on their own, but unfortunately that marriage was made. and i would guarantee you if you think america isn't working very well wait and to see to divorce a

so that does -- we need to look at the unintended consequence of that legislation. i know there's a stay right now and implementation, but i hope you will apply the same due diligence you did in south carolina to that particular subject and try to get it where the unattended consequences are not so onerous for people for whom it was never intended. >> thank you, senator. if i'm confirmed, i will work to resolve many of these issues that are coming back to you and other members of this committee. it is my understanding, and i've read the guidelines, that the cpsc has put on secondhand stores and has asked people in a secondhand stores how things are going. and many of them said we read the guidelines, and are now not selling herbal nursery products because, unless we know the product has not been recalled. the commission has a website, that it requires us to be even more diligent in informing the public about product recalls so that the secondhand thrift stores aren't always in a quandary about whether or not to sell something. we can work closely with the state cons

children this legislation, they also legislation we pass must shelter poor children from terrible unintended consequences which may be in the final bill. we have to make sure that we shelter those children. if we don't guarantee that shelter for those for children than we haven't been that faithful friend to our kids that we say we are two rich children who are in five gods children. one data point i want to make about medicaid and children's health insurance -- we should be proud we expanded health insurance. so many people work on that long before i got here. in but when we pass children's health insurance and when we have work to make sure that medicaid is there a especially for poor children and those who suffer from a disability we should remember that one-third not just about kids in big cities as sometimes people want to make it. this is about kids in cities and towns in suburban communities but also about a girl children. one-third of all rural children in the country are covered by schip for medicated soap and we talk about cutting and talk about government programs i think we shoul

consequences and i think we at least ought to make sure that the changes we make here don't have unintended consequences as well. i think the chair. >> before turning to senator murray by a welcome your eminence and as you explain them several that i suspect will find some common interest in just as you describe them so i appreciate your offer. and this is exactly how this happens, in a way if you don't have a product and eminence don't get past you don't move the process so i appreciate the frustration is being expressed. i am inviting, i want to make sure that our staffs will start with a quality area, this does not preclude the data every then is to be ongoing in these other areas where ideas are brought up in staff instructed to meet and work on this so we can address many of these questions in a way that will provide a common result. that is my determination. i am committed to get as much support for this idea as we can, but i'm even more committed that we get right. of love to have a unanimous vote at the end of the day in committee, but if the result is to get a unanimous vote at the

i would echo professor murphy's warning about the effect of unintended consequences and be seen them before. lawmakers sought to limit the disparity in pay between executives and the average worker. the result was that-- was quite the opposite. executive compensation increase exponentially by name the gap between executives and the average worker. to offer unintended consequence are the apparent for the current reform effort the restrictions that made it harder for american banks to retain talented executives. immediately following the announcement of the restrictions by the obama administration, deutsche bank posted swell the bank of america's ties performing executives and ubs yes compensation increases as high as 200%. this is a swiss bank, to hire away financial advisers. the greatest risk to the safety and soundness of the nation's banking system is not compensation but short-term thinking. compensation is up companies may motivate executives to look short term but the real question is why do companies pursue short-term goals in the first instance? the wide except the convention

finance says in terms of how it is my duty that and pay for play alone, but that is some of the unintended consequences i think we need to take a long look at before we leap off on the financial and onto simple a solution for what is a very difficult problem. now i end my remarks by this -- we don't have -- i can see everybody because the bill is not in front of me. i don't know where you put them but i read the preamble and i agree with every word of the preamble. we do want to reduce costs, we do want to improve quality, we do want to improve accessibility, we want to improve things with the lives of the american people and as committed to that as anybody in this room but i am not going to stand myself for a simple solution to a very difficult problem. when this country cannot afford to get this wrong because if we do we won't have another big issue to debate because we won't have a country. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator and i mentioned with the exception of the newest members of the senate committee, virtually every member i enjoyed working with john isaacs and on tax pro

so i want to be careful we don't have unintended consequences because you might have this initiative to prevent elder falls might be actually happening both in the elder fall category but could also be happening at national service. see what i mean? >> that's a problem. >> so that's why -- >> the job -- look, this is difficult. i mean, look. we have a rather large federal government that's not highly efficient. >> yeah, i know. look at defense. >> i made the point while you were out of the room. you didn't get to hear my snotty comment. the point being is if we're not going to try to eliminate silos if we're not going to try to eliminate turf, if we're not going to try to eliminate duplication, i can't think of one area that you can truly justify other than back up in terms of national security where we ought to have two different agencies doing exactly the same thing. >> take a look. i just want us to be careful when we use the term duplication. >> i'll be very careful. i know better. >> i thank the senator very much. senator enzi has an amendment or two and then -- are there other

straight abolishment is hard to achieve and can bring many unintended consequences such as illicit trade and we all know that. since abolishment is not an elective solution, the question remains: how do we

there should be training to keep incidents from happening like the shootings in unintended consequences i think that would be a good thing to do. the commission could even do something on achieving diversity and balance in our society. there could be consensus on how to do that. there is also immigration reform. go after the hot-button issues. immigration, lbgt writes, don't ask, don't tell. all of these issues are right for some kind of commission been reached. i think the commission could do that. host: we have michael on the independents' line. go ahead. caller: i m a retiree -- i am a retiree. i feel it is more important to include all races. it does not matter whether you are black, white, hispanic, asian, or whatever. don't all people have the same rights? to push for one race over another -- to include certain people over other people, it is not right. it is about everybody. it is about everyone's rights. look at the native americans that have suffered. they were put on reservations. host: michael, we are running short. we will get an answer for you. guest: i think you're right.

so we have to be careful about the unintended consequences. secondly, on medicaid, you know, i am a product of the georgia state legislature and i know the distinguished president of the senate said, presiding officer, is a product of the new york assembly. and we all dealt with medicaid. medicaid is a program where the federal government pays about two-thirds of t the states pay about a third of it and the states run it. well, when we got into this business of expanding medicaid under this legislation to 150% of poverty, which is a 50% increase in eligibility, i thought back to my days in the legislature about how much money that really was that my state then was going to have to come up with under the one-third match. madam president, in georgia in 1968, the first year that we had medicaid, the state's share of medicaid for the year was $7.791 million. in 2008, the state's share was $2.468 billion. which would go up by peds 1 billion if we raise the -- which would go up by $1 billion if we raise the eligibility by 50%. that's only putting of

because of this book we have the unintended consequence which is the development of the network of sistersrowing because we are continuing to receive,"tters and we hope to have the online "go, tell michelle" book soon propose of those letters that were not able to be placed in the book because there are certainly and other kinds of publications or activities that we need to go along with this book. we talk about the educational program that you took that we saw this as an educational tool -- tool but we think high-school students could use it as a discussion guide to talk about the various issues of african-american women who wrote in this book have been identified but in a sense for those who get to in the book gas well. we have more to do and we know the network that we have established, we gave you some uralsk for various facebook and blogs that we have but we encourage you to go tell michelle committee there our facebook or blog and tell us stories and add your comments about the fox we love to get your feedback that is very important to us. we have gotten feedback about how people hav

in today's technical -- technological environment it cannot disconnect somebody for the unintended services that that network provided or it because there are all kinds of redundant networks or ways that people continue to do business. even though you have to it -- a disconnected one thing, you have not disconnected another. what would actually happen if you did that? there might be alternative measures to protection and emergency efforts that might be needed. >> i am going to give you a chance on this. i wanted to get a perspective from dod on this. also doing private-sector and infrastructure from other systems. how does this play out? >> i am an old guy. i have ancient history stuff that might be helpful as we go through this. when at&t broke up, they said that are common infrastructure is no longer owned by one company. the country actually said that it is a national security priority to work with an industry. we have to work across the whole industry that handles telecommunications. there was an outfit formed over the bay of pigs. there was a telecom emergency thing, the national commu

macaoski, as well as senator bingham, that we hand language we didn't have unintended disenfranchisingonsequences to other services. we have several things like administrative simplification and comparative effectiveness. if the other side could look at their own amendments or talk with us. i'm willing to do every amendment so i don't mean to be misunderstood. in the interest of comity, and also if we could finish, quality tomorrow, that would be great. if not, i'm fine, i'm here friday, whatever you want to do. if we could just really get to the meat of the matter on some of these amendments. and i like taking a break at repossessions working group and provide advice who is facing court proceedings. >> allen whitehead. >> question number one, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, before listing my engagements this is your last prime ministers question. and the whole house will have a chance to knowledge your great contribution to public life in a few minutes time. this morning i have meetings with mine tearial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further su

if you impose too much regulation on markets there are bound to be unintended consequences. after the great depression it was believed to banks were competing too much to get customer deposits. so the federal government put in a regulation for bank deposits. money fled from banks. people would look for returns on deposits. you had newmarket's grove. -- you had new markets growing. you also run the risk of tightening too much and reducing the innovative elements of the markets that create benefits for people. it is a delicate balance. we will not know for some time if they have struck the right one. host: have of the markets responded to that news this week? guest: the markets have been prepared for this for some time. a few years ago there would have been very aggressive action against trying to increase regulations for investment banks. there was vigorous debate in the clinton administration led partly by larry summers about over-the-counter derivatives. the people who argued for more regulation ended up losing. after the crisis we have been through a think everyone on wall

there are always unintended consequences and i just want to understand. if we are going to put a lot of little guys out of business tell me that. >> here's the thing i want your little guy to have the same facility of pricing a contract as the dealer. how do we do that? that goes to transparency but if i have transparency of an instrument that's still opaque even after of legislated transparency than i have a problem. >> and the tools that we have been given i think in the end is when to be the capitol requirement. that's the alternate protection, and we, when you talk about what we require, treasurys, to me like you're talking about cash. you're probably not going to take something very risky, right? >> i think the standardized tests to bring those down over time though i really do. >> in the credit to default swap area we have introduced a very high degree of standardization to the first point about which of the contracts would be most standardized and i think in the credit-default swaps base we do have contracts that will be easily to move into the cle

those who would use troor are terrorists no matter their unintended target. i've consistently called on the administration to declassify and provide the american people with information regarding the capture, the detention, and threat assessment of each detainee they intend to release into the u.s. regardless of their intended targets of terror, the american people deserve to know whether they have been either further radicalized due to their exposure to al qaeda leaders such as khalidshake moment and see the assessment -- khalid chic mohammed and the assessment of the threat they pose today. what message does their release into the u.s. send to al qaeda and the rest of terrorist network. how can the government guarantee the released detainees won't stay in contact with their al qaeda and provide them with intelligence from within the u.s.? if the attorney general cannot or will not answer these questions, he should not even consider releasing them into the united states. the administration has a moral obligation to share this administration with the american

i say that -- the two things that were entirely unintended on my part and in my view, everybody that i saw, -- entirely well-intended on my part and in my view, everybody that i saw, still produced confusion. the outcome produced a perception that i don't believe was at all involved in the forces that were for it. >> and you believe that corporal tillman earned the silver star by his actions before he died? >> i absolutely do. >> given your experience in afghanistan, deeply the interrogation techniques in the army field manual -- do you believe the interrogation techniques an army field manual are sufficient to get the information you need? >> yes, sir, i do. >> do you believe any additional techniques unnecessary? >> no, sir. >> do you believe counterinsurgency in afghanistan to be depended in some extent on pakistan? are you encouraged by the temporary but at least some success but a pakistani army in -- by the pakistani army in the swat valley and waziristan? >> sir, i am encouraged. if you look back several years, what appealed -- what appeared to the people of pakistan as an ame

iran to return to prince turki's metaphor, but it could actually unleash a whole host of other unintended consequences. so with that i'll close and take questions. [applause] thanks, fred. i just want to start with one quick question to both of you and that i will open it up to the audience. david, you mentioned a number of retaliatory capabilities they all. in the specific instance of an attack on its nuclear capabilities from israel or the united states which seems unlikely right now, but the israel option certainly is still talked about, what do you think would be their preferred choice of retaliation, and where do you think it might take place? and, fred, and the saints and mario, how do you think the arab side will react to such an attack? . .

i just want to be clear that there's not some unintended here because if that cracks part of this opennd deals with your amendments, some of the concerns senator coburn has. because the liability issue is an issue that also overhangs this conversation. but i would really hope that we can focus on the quality issues and not use prohibiting quality initiatives because people are -- because it's getting entangled with the liability issue. we ought to just have a straight conversation about liability or do a joint conversation with us in the judiciary committee. >> mr. chairman, what's the state of lay on this? >> the state of play is senator coburn has asked to withdraw his amendment while we get clarification on that. >> it's being laid aside. >> i have what i think is a modest improvement. it has three words instead of one. i'd like to -- i don't know how you want to work this other than senator coburn, myself, the senator from maryland, yourself, staff, senator harken who came up with the idea. what do you want to do? >> we're going to go back and check and see if there was something a

i say if they could afford it because another unintended consequence of creating a government plan is that it would cause rates for private health plans to skyrocket, leaving most americans unable to afford them. they'd simply be too expensive. right now government programs like medicare and medicaid pay hospitals and doctors less than private insurers do and hospitals and doctors pass on the cost. doctors and hospitals would shift more of their costs on to private health plans making them even more expensive and making it even harder for them to compete with a government plan. in the end only the wealthiest would be able to afford private health plans and the kind of care that most americans currently enjoy. some say safeguards could be put in place to create a level playing field, but the very fair of the government running a health insurance plan in the private market is the problem. any safeguard could easily be eliminated, and one look at the government take overs in the insurance and auto industries shows that when the government's involved there is no such thing as a fair playi

the unintended consequence becomes the tpho*frplt that's what happened in -- becomes the norm. that's what happened in canada and america is concerned it could happen here too. a medium-size city of about 115,000 is about the same size about lansing, michigan. at kingston general hospital wait times can be staggering. take hip replacement surgery, for example. a couple of years ago the wait time for hip replacement surgery at kingston general was almost two years. a lot of people were understandably unhappy with the fact that they had to wait more than a year and a half between the time a doctor said they needed a new hip and their surgery to actually get it. so the government worked to shorten the wait. today the average wait time for the same surgery at the same hospital is about 196 days. apparently in canada the prospect of waiting six months for hip surgery is considered progress. that's hip replacement surgery. what about knee replacements. at kingston general, the average wait is about 340 days, or almost a year, from the moment that the doctor says you need a new knee.

and we don't want to invoke the law of unintended consequences here and have a great revolution, havea standard that's imposed on new jersey and then not have the jobs created in new jersey, especially if they have the richest renewable energy resource right off their shore. mr. english >> mr. chairman, i think you make a good point. but i also suggest one other thing. that it might make more sense in light of the objective of the legislation, in like of the fact that we're entering into a little different world than we have in the past that really what we're trying to do here is maximize the amount of renewable energy that we get produced all over this country. now, the fact of whether it's produced in one state versus another state, as long as it's the most cost effective way in which we can produce it and we, can in fact, make use of it all across this nation, i would think be the ultimate objective. now i can understand why some folks may want to look at this very localized and maybe very parochial thing, but this is a national piece of legislation. and we're trying to achieve a n

the arab world will return to prince turki anavar but could actually and they say holes and other unintended consequences so that i will close and take questions. [applause] >> thanks, fred. i just want to start with one quick question to both of you and all open up to the audience in a david, you mentioned a number of retaliatory capabilities, the finance told to offset their inferior position conventionally. in this specific instance in attack on its nuclear facilities either from israel or the u.s. which seems unlikely right now of the israel option is still talk about the, what do see would be their preferred choice of retaliation and where do think it might take place? and fred, in the same scenario can do things the arab side will react to such an attack? >> it's a very good question and i don't predispose to be a moment to define what iran's escalation ladder is, for example,, but it has a number of options which i think early on could take in the event of an attack on as nuclear facilities and one certainly is the use of its ballistic missiles as a way of trying to increase the cost

and, we don't want to invoke the law of unintended consequences and have the standard imposed upon the jersey and not have the jobs created in new jersey especially if they have the richest renewable energy resources to write off their shore. mr. anguish. >> mr. chairman, i think you make a good point but i would also suggest one other things, that it might make more sense in light of the objective of the legislation and it led to the fact we are entering into a little different world than we have in the past that really what we are trying to do here is maximize the amount of renewable energy that we get reduced all over the country. in fact, whether it is produced in one state for is is another state, as long as it is the most cost-effective way in which we can produce it and in fact make use of it across the nation i think would be the ultimate objective. i can understand why some folks may want to look at this very localized and may be a very parochial thing but this is a national piece of legislation and we are trying to achieve a national objective and the thing that is limiting u

so let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies and making adoption more available and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft a sensible conscience clause and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women. i could go on with the speech. but what i want to say is that while speaking at notre dame, the president said, let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortions and draft a sensible conscience clause to make sure our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound evidence. i didn't take it out of context. but he actually said this, madam speaker. after his administration had rescinded the conscience clause regulations promulgated by the bush administration. these regulations made it clear that a health care provider who would not have to choose between his or her deeply held moral and religious beliefs and

administer what isakson would like as well as the aarp, there was a very serious concern about the unintended and adverse consequences for medicare beneficiaries and their families mandating that he must have an advance directive before you would be eligible for medicare. there are several bills pending, with both the administration and aarp, a very good way to accomplish this objective. rather than vote on isakson, where i would have to oppose the mandate around eligibility for medicare, i would like to be able to promise, and as the subcommittee chairman on aging, with my colleague, senator burr, the ranking member, that we review the legislation that is spending, that helps deal with this issue of encouraging the development of advanced medical directives. in other words most people getting the directives. and look at the existing legislation. with various legislative proposals that are being recommended, it seems this bill moves forward, we could not come back to the committee with an idea-- there he is, good. >> john, we are talking about yeah, thank you sir. your timing is perfect. barb

exposed to a lot of the concerns on the other side of that in terms of whether that would have unintended effects in terms of denying people rights to credit. it's hard to make the case for why some of those products are necessary and desirable. but i do not believe those caps are necessary part of a strong credible consumer protection reg when i set out the proposals talk about whether they go far enough. >> if we can't sell the notion of a usery cap, shouldn't we prevail -- credit unions have been coming to me saying, we're different, we're not greedy like banks, we're trying to serve our group of people that we loan to them. shouldn't we be talking about making credit available to the poor people who are lured in to these pay day loans and title loans, have credit available in lower amounts at reasonable interest rates so they are not exploited? i don't thing think we can continue to look the other way. but perhaps the banks bear some responsibility here. if we're going to have credit available for people who are truly struggling in this economy, why do we throw them to the wolves with

the safety of consumers but not in a way that impairs companies from doing their work and also unintended consequences of giving copies of all test results could be less testing. as companies go through lots of tests for products that never make it to market, would it be to test hundreds of samples each day to be available or a change to the testing of products in the marketplace. with regard to the country of origin labeling and disclosure, to list every increase in on a website will increase the cost of resources and not necessarily bring added value and the recent general levels such as the same and this product may contain ingredients from one or more of the following countries. also praising them for as of making sure all enforcement standards and the officers and auditors are well-trained and calibrated to work to define audit standards. there is concern about happens with the family farm that sells a local grocery stores and what level they would have to comply and would it be that the fees for them would be so high they simply could not sell any product outside of their own farm s

science and i have measurable benefits, be affordable, be realistic and be implemented without unintended consequences. first we applaud you for not only designating an entire section of the bill to prevention but also putting this first and most extensive section of the bill. in harper's by the of this is the proper emphasis. addition out like to specifically comment on certain sections of the draft. fmi recognizes strong public-private partnership is needed to help insure safety of the food supply although every penny counts in these tough economic times, there is nothing more important in improving and insure the safety of our food supply. we are willing to support a thir registration or user fee provided in is utilized by the fda in a chance and an accountable manner to improve the safety of our food supply through means such as connecting researching consumer education programs. we look for to working with the committee to address our concerns about how the fda and may utilize any fees collected and we support the requirement that every registered for a facility conduct risk assessme

issue but also the care and writer one must take to ensure well-intentioned actions do not lead to unintendedonsequences. i will mention a few of the principles the secretary geithner linda out, a couple of examples and then i look forward to the discussion. one, compensation should accurately measure and reward performance and i think this is an important issue. it is a lot easier to get everybody to agree that performance page should be performance related but it is a lot more complex to find out what is the right mix of metrics that ensures that it is true performance? simply using stock as they say can confuse brains for a bull market and on the other hand not properly reward an executive who may be doing enormously well in a difficult economic time. negative one of the things we should study carefully is the mix of metrics that rewards performance in fact and not just the name. second, compensation should be structured in line with time horizons. the right time horizons. a friend of mine said recently it is like there is an entire industry, in tire sets of financial actors which are able

were undefined and i think that we are seeing now is the american public looks at this a lot of unintended consequences. there things that are happening that the american people are thinking, that is not what i thought it was going to be. i know you were facing a lot of questions today and they go right to the hard to think of questions concerning the federal government's proper role in private enterprise, how do we step in appropriately, how do we not step in? the federal government has very mixed performance when it comes to the issues of interfering or intervention in private enterprise. he this committee has hearings on issues as basic as our contracting processes with private enterprise. we are not a very good customer. many times issues arise for people wonder whether there is an abuse of processes, conflicts of interest, so when you then put another layer of us not being a customer but as being an investor, an entity that is providing e bailout or a been an owner, the people of a great deal of concern. yesterday, i introduced house joint resolution 57, the preserving capitalism in a

you know -- because we discussed some of the unintended results impacting thrift stores, charity sales, small businesses and you used the word "commonsense" and your description of what you think is right in the enforcement arena. so i would ask you if you think the law gives you sufficient flexibility for the commonsense enforcement that i think we agree is the right standard. and where do you think it doesn't give enough flexibility and the law is clear even if it is pretty hard to enforce? >> well, thank you, senator. it would be premature and we talked about this in the office to take a position on whether the law needs to be amended. but i hope that my tenure at the commission will be seen as a tenure where we worked with people to exercise commonsense in a regulatory manner. acting chairman moore has said that we need to wait till the commission is fully formed to collectively make decisions and i am a collaborator. i want the input of my fellow commissioners as well as the staff and also in conversation with you to talk about can we go ahead and implement some areas of the law o

or exacerbated or even institutionalized due to government actions or unintended consequence. i worry some of the policies being considered by the administration and likely be part of its plan will unfortunately do more harm than good if they are actually implemented. systemic risk regulator in conjunction with a bailout regime will set up where certain companies are explicitly perceived to fall under this new layer of supervision, too big to fail, gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace and threaten further taxpayer pain. further complicating the resolution authority proposal is a question how to pay for it. large firms, potentially subject to the authority are asked to pay for it, they will fairly be seen as beneficiaries of that regime. asking a broader swath will not be equitable since smaller firms will have no chance to benefit from it will be asked to prop up their larger competitors. i don't believe individual taxpayers should contribute to a fund set up to bail out a large failed firm and its creditors. such a fund created for the resolution authority would be nee

however, some of the unintended consequences of our current u.s. export control system have contributed to a situation in which the u.s. is now among leaders in science and technology but we no longer dominate. as chair of the science and technologies committee subcommittee on space and aeronautics, i'm concerned about our future leadership in space, especially as more nations seek to increase their space activities this provision directs the president to take into account the views of the federal departments and provide a report to congress on plans of the agencies to streamline u.s. export controls and processes to better serve the needs of the united states. we can't afford to undercut our technological competitiveness. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida continues to reserve. the gentleman from california. mr. behrman: i'm pleased to yield to another excellent member of the committee, former colleague that the legislature of california, ms. watson, ambassador watson, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman

i think in today's technological environment you just can't disconnect somebody without either unintended consequence for the services that network provided or the fact that there are all kind of redundant networks and ways people continue to do business so while you may have disconnected one thing you haven't disconnected another so you have to sit down and have a dialogue about what actually would happen if you did that and i would say that perhaps there might be alternative measures to protection and the emergency efforts that might be needed. >> i'm going to give you a chance on this since this is senator rockefeller's bill but i want to get the perspective of the dod as well as phill if both of you on this issue and senate response but courting of private sector infrastructure from other systems how does that play of? >> ayman cold play at dod now so i have ancient history stuff i think actually might be helpful as we think through this. when at&t broke up they said our infrastructure is no longer owned by one company. the country actually said it's a national security priority to be

that the policy may not be accurate in its accounting of federal responsibility and may have the unintended consequence of leaving gaps in assistance for local communities and levee districts. fema and the army corps are reevaluating the policy to make sure there are no gaps in disaster assistance. i would like to stress, this is only a policy, not a rule. so fema can easily make adjustments to this document. if changes are necessary, fema should do so in consultation with the army corps to ensure accurateness. this issue also is being evaluated by the house transportation and infrastructure committee, the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. i'll monitor the issue as our bill progresses, i'll work with the gentleman and the energy and water appropriations subcommittee as we go forward. mr. hare: i thank the chairman. thank you again for your attention to this matter. this is of great importance to my district. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. price: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentlem

so i urge others to take every new caution, the law of unintended consequences has a very short turnaround time in our current globalized world and we need to be cognizant of that. finally, worried about bipartisanship in a deal is bipartisan if it is bipartisan at the beginning. chairman dingell, i appreciate the courtesy that you should be in the last congress and getting me involved in some of the parliamentary discussion of the draft that you are considering but really when the draft comes to the committee for consideration, it really got to have had input from both sides. and the fact that there are five or six democrats on the bill and no republican, there was no republican on this side which you could sit down and talk and perhaps get to a point where there could be some general agreement. we've done this before on other pieces of legislation. we did on the food and drug reauthorization act in june of 2007, and i frankly do not understand why it is not worth the effort to make these pieces of legislation based we are not talking about points of the next election. we're talking about