i'm glad there's a requirement of the volcker rule. i think they're strong and enlightened provisions. david is right. it's not a perfect piece of legislation. if we wait forward that, it will never pass. >> the leverage, you could still go super-leverage. the banks can still take a lot of risks. and some of the hedge fund guys who want a lot of these markets brought out in the open said it brings two-thirds them out in the open but then there are some holes in the regulation , so the money will go just throw into those holes, and they'll grow, and they'll become even more potentially dangerous than before. so i still think there's a lot of danger out there. >> woodruff: just quickly, what we were just talking with lori montgomery of the "washington post" about, and that is the senate not agreeing it extend unemployment benefits. does this matter in the scheme of things right now? it certainly matters to 200,000 a people a week who will lose it 1.2 million starting losing unemployment benefits. it's a political defeat, yes, for the adm

host: what is the volcker rule finer -- finale outcome? guest: named after paul volcker, be the fed chairman 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that several goals. one of them was to scale down a actities ofg banks. of the other one was to sort running andom funds andin hedge equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of that was abecause contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength been weakened. it is still there. withestrictions on trading their own money that the banks , andn theast remain the regulators won't have as limitst those might be. written into law, which is the good part. negative part that was sort thaa they can compromise the bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge fds. it was aimed to not let them do activity. now they can continue to in privatege funds equity firms, and they can to 3% of their , which is small, not too much, but it really opens up the risk that when, during the crisis, for example, bear stearns hedge fund, when they

host: so, the volcker rule, was this contentious and opposed by the big banks?guest: yes, it was, because the biggest bank -- j.p. morgan, goldman sachs, bank of america, all of them have huge operations of hedge funds. j.p. morgan is actually -- it operates the largest hedge fund in the world, according to some rankings. so, they would really be forced to spin off their hedge fund operations, separate them from their main businesses, sell them off. and the also have major investments in those funds and the private equity, especially their private equity. they invest heavily, along with their clients. they still have to scale those back, but it is not going to be as much as they steer it was going to be. host: 202 is the area code if you would like to talk about the regulations deal that was reached at 540 -- 5:40 a.m. by the conference committee of the house and senate. all the democrats voted for it at all republicans voted against it. yalman onaran from bloomberg, another contentious issue was the issue of derivatives and senator blanche lincoln of arkansas h

we will have -- we will toughen the volcker rule. they are not a bigger mess than you think they are. >> how will toughening the volcker rule help? >> that is going in a direction that many people are supporting. the house empowers the regulators. >> [unintelligible] >> did you say you were moving in the direction of murtha 11? >> i will not get into that theme how would you characterize -- >> people want to know what is in the bill. we need to see where our colleagues are. we have to see if there are some modifications that can be made. this is not a predetermined outcome. there are some people who object to the business and that bill. >> i think we should be strengthening the house bill. the republicans think we went too far in this legislation. >> what did you think about what some of the senators said about going with the house bill? >> we will have to work through that. >> the differences between these two late -- major pieces of legislation are small. people differ about what the languages. >> can you resist changes in your bil

so we are -- i know the senate has been working on it an offer to the volcker rule.hen we get that, we will respond. that means we'll get the derivatives later in the day after we have the volcker rule in place. i think we all agree that you should know what that is as you consider the derivatives. we have some responses to make to some senate offers, a couple of cases, a couple of titles could be closed out right away. a couple of counteroffers will be accepted. we will making progress there. and i cerinly on the house side a package of miscellaneous amendments. i've spokening to the republican side about it. there are a couple of amendments that the gentleman from california mr. isa has in this regard. and what i'm going to do is -- when we get to it, i'm going to offer the package that we circulated. but any member that wishes to get a separate debate on any one of them simply needs to move to do that. we won't treat that as a partial division of the question. so we will -- we will begin with those miscellaneous amendments -- first, let me -- we will begin with se

we'll enact what's called the volcker rule to make sure banks protected by a safety net like the fdic can't engage in risky trades for their own profit. we'll create what's called a resolution authority to help wind down firms whose collapse would threaten our entire financial system. put simply, we'll end the days of taxpayer-funded bailouts, and help make sure main street is never again held responsible for wall street's mistakes. beyond these reforms, we also need to address another piece of unfinished business. we need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis -- so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money. getting this far on wall street reform hasn't been easy. there are those who've fought tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. in recent months, they've spent millions of dollars and hired an army of lobbyists to stop reform dead in its tracks. but because we refused to back down, and kept fighting, we now stand on the verge of victory. and i urge congress to take us over the finish line,

i think chairman volcker would agree that there are circumstances where you don't want to prevent banksfrom buying at the -- assets because that makes the more risky, not less risky. the way the senate bill would work is that it would ask -- it would create this separation between proper -- proprietary trading but would ask the regulators including the federal reserve to figure out what that means. they would want to find out when the purchase of a derivative or secured a legitimate hedging and when is it gambling with bank capital or the taxpayers backstop ? as long as there is a process for distinguishing between those two sets of assets, this can be made to work. as one of the regulators, we will work with our colleagues to make it operational. >> derivatives, as the bill seems to be written, most of the derivatives go into exchanges. credit defaults what which are the most dangerous might not. isn't that a bad thing? shouldn't we regulate them? >> they will be regulated. credit defaults what are essentially insurance you can buy or sell on the credit of a country or company and they

have done that with this ne ll, one of our most basic objections to i has to do th the so-called volcker rule which has been alluded to in a different way. we still, am guessing i don't know but i am guessing wewill end up with a system where institutions that have government insur deosits will be able to utilize very high leverage in the financial sector. and i am a very old-fashioned guy on that. if y want to be a smart speculator that is fine but the vernment should not be insu your deposit base and i really think we have to get away from that before we kind of cut the link between the financial ran bbbles. >> when we talk about the financial sector and the so-called volcker rule, as i have said set on other occasions we have to remember that a lot more financialinstitutions have gone broke in the old-fashioned business of making loans, specially real estate loans then they have by trading on various markets. ng on. there is a question right here. >> this question is for you congressman foster. do you have any times for when this proposal might be introducedncongress or the feral rese

does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implling that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it haddwhitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budgettaxpayel lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willinnness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i think the treasury department and secretary geithner deserves consideeable credit for the overall performance of the assets the government has acquired through tarp. as my colleague, mr. waters, pointed out in a

on the volcker rule, i want to ensure that it achieves what it was intended to. it seeks to eliminate trading that pose a systemic risk. including trade execution on behalf of clients, private equity fund, that provide needed capital to companies nationwide, promoting job creation and innovation. i am concerned about language that limits the imf's capacity providing global monetary stability. the imf must protect the resources of the shareholders so that a crisis in one country does not trigger international contagion. i plan to work with my colleagues on language -- american industry must act responsibly and contribute to development and not be complicity in perpetuating conflict. in closing, is prudent to look back on lessons learned and implemented from the great depression. during the 1930's, legislation was designed to curb systemic it is time to set the stage for decades of financial stability, economic growth, and job creation. >> i want to thank chairman dodd and all my esteemed colleagues for their outstanding work on this matter. i am pleased to say tha

host: what is the volcker rule and what was the finer -- final outcome? guest: named after paul volcker, we used to be the fed chairman in the 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that whole had several goals. one of them was to scale down a risky trading activities of banks. and the other one was to sort of stop them from running and investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of compromise because that was a very contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength of the role has been weakened. it is still there. the restrictions on trading with their own money that the banks could do in the past remain, and the regulators won't have as much say on what those limits might be. so it is written into law, which is the good part. the negative part that was sort of that they can compromise the a little bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge funds. it was aimed to not let them do any of that activity. now they can continue to operate hedge fund

host: what is the volcker rule and what was the finer -- final outcome? guest: named after paul volcker, we used to be the fed chairman in the 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that whole had several goals. one of them was to scale down a risky trading activities of banks. and the other one was to sort of stop them from running and investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, which are also riskier activities. at the end, there was a lot of compromise because that was a very contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength of the role has been weakened. it is still there. the restrictions on trading with their own money that the banks could do in the past remain, and the regulators won't have as much say on what those limits might be. so it is written into law, which is the good part. the negative part that was sort of that they can compromise the a little bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge funds. it was aimed to not let them do any of that activity. now they can continue to operate hedge fund

it sounds like they came near a deal regarding the volcker rule. guest: the volcker rule is a rule proposed by the former fed chairman, now white house adviser, paul volcker, the taliban banks from using their own money -- basically doing proprietary trading to buy and sell securities on the market purely for their own profit, not on behalf of their clients. it has not yet been formalized, but there is a discussion about exempting firms like insurance companies and mutual funds that could secure the support of senator staff browbrown, one ofe republican senators to support the bill on the floor. it is something we will see later in the week, not today. host: you said senate negotiators have a little more power here. will it play out this week? guest: yes, i think so. the $150 billion resolution fund being proposed by the house -- to be used to -- to be paid for by large banks, to wind down collapsing financial institutions. the senate had to drop it because the bill would not pass the senate if you include it. the house is still trying to push and

does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budgetwill%% lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i think the treasury department and secretary geithner deserves considerable credit for the overall performance of the assets the government has acquired through tarp. as my colleague, mr. waterss pointed out in a d

guest: in may, he raised concerns about the volcker rule and its potential to impact banks and other insurance companies in his state -- in his home state of massachusetts. he raised concerns about that, as well as the hedge funds. his concerns were not entirelyy addressed in the senate's. he received letters from chairman barney frank in the house saying that his ccncerns would be taken up when the house and senate met in ttis conference process. we will see, maybe by as early as the end of today, if his concerns are satisfied or met halfway, or not met at all. host: could he be a key vote? guest: when the bill host the senate, four republicans supported it. scott brown was one of the four after heereceived those letters. i think it's pretty clear that democrats wish to retain his vote, as well as the other three republicans who supported this. yes. host: "the new york times" business section has this headline this morning. guest: yesterday, the senate side basically agreed to the outline. they want to change several provisions. they have not fully agreed on the exemptions. it appea

does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replaced all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budget office suggests that taxpayers will lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i think the treasury department and secretary geithner deserves considerable credit for the overall performance of the assets the government has acquired through tarp. as my colleague,

does chairman volcker believe it will be all but impossible to liquidate in an effective manner? does he believe that tarp, too, will be required? why did treasury released a press release and pine that the tarp program has been profitable, -- implying that the tarp program has been profitable, even though the congressional budget office expects taxpayers to lose approximately $109 billion. why it had whitaker implied that gm has replacedd all of its tarp funds, even the taxpayers have yet to receive payments in cash? the congressional budget that tl lose $34 billion of the tarp- fund investments in gm, chrysler, and gmac. thank you, mr. secretary, for joy in the. and look forward to our disk of -- discussion. >> thank you. damon silvers. >> i wish to express my appreciation to secretary geithner for his willingness to appear before this panel and a regular basis. today, i think the treasury department and secretary geithner deserves considerable credit for the overall performance of the assets the government has acquired through tarp. as my colleague, mr. waters, pointed out in

i'm particularly very proud of the sick -- significant areas of the world, things like the %- volcker rule, executive pay and risk. however, we all know that these also -- these issues acting as a first mover do raise issues around global competitiveness, regulatory arbitrage and regulatory gaps around the world. would you mind sharing with us the standard you would apply when determining the u.s. must leaddand when the u.s. mustt lead in global concert? >> weeare trying to do so together. we are trying to fix the things we got wrong but at the same time we laid out our basic objectives of reform. we negotiated internationally a broad consensus on the set of broad objectives internationally that would parallel the basic strategy we adopted here. you will see when the g-20 leaderssmeet in toronto on saturday and sunday they -- a remarkable commitment across the major economies through that set of basic principles for providing better oversight, better transparency and disclosure, better protections against risk takkng on a more even standard and across the major markets. we could have

but it is not what will end up being voted on on this floomple equally, something called the volcker rule was watered down in the conference committee this proposal by american economist and former value reserve chairman paul volcker would have restricted banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments if they are not on behalf of their customers. volcker argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial cry soifs 2007 to 2010 and he's absolutely right but the conference report that will come before us allows them to keep their hedge funds and private equity arm up and running and they can still do some proprietary trading. do we really want home to do that? haven't we gone through enough? right now, wall street is choking the life out of our local credit systems and the communities they serve. let me just give you one example of why it's so difficult for local banks. when the big banks, i call them the big six, made all these mistakes, inside the banking system local institutions be they banks or credit unions, pay into insurance funds. well even if

whi i call the volcker concept. it is merely a concept because there is no rule accepted. despite assances from high- ranking tasury officials that clarity would be provided on what constitutes proprietary trading and what does not, no such clarity has been ovided. this is an area that should be addressed with some specificity. this bill will grant discretion to the regulators who filled us the last time around and hhve yet to account for past lapses. theegislation offers concepts but no definitions punts on the hard decisions. as everyone here that has been paying attention to the causes of the financial crisis is aware, the rating agencies favored to their fees and market share over their franchise reputation as highly creditworthy would proveo be junk securities. the legislation introduces concept of increased oversight and speaks out against conflicts of interest. what this willean is presently unclear from the bill. perhaps more hearings on these matters would have been lpful. the aaa ratings assigned to mortga

joint ventures used to hold other investments that the volcker rule won't deem those things hedge funds. mr. frank: if the gentleman would yield. there's been some mockery because this bill has a large number of pages. although our bill's smaller. we do that -- by the way there are also the people who complain sometimes we have too much discretion to the regulators. it's a complex bill and we want to make sure we get it right. the point the gentleman makes is correct. there is -- we do not want these overdone or extensive regulation and the distinction the gentleman draws is very much in this bill and we are confident that the regulators will appreciate that distinction, maintain it, and we'll be there to make sure they do. mr. himes: thank you. my understanding is it's consistent with attempt not to have firms with the regulation. providing a holding company with both financial and nonfinancial businesses will cease to be a holding company when it establishes an intermediate holding company under section 626. that company also may have an intermediate holding company under section 167.

and of the volcker rules, banks can face strict proprietary trading band. -- boat volcker rules, banks can face strict proprietary trading ban. next is orange county, california. caller: i wanted to talk about illegal immigration. i am retired from the carpenter union. one thing i did, i went into the service at 17 and got out. because there were jobs available to us, i was able to find a job until i got into the carpenters. 17 years as an instructor with.- the high school vocational and then seven years with the apprenticeships. the big thing that i have, with the carpenters union, i know for a fact because i had to sign these students in, they were coming through without legitimate papers, none at all. and i took it to my supervisor and i also talked to my union and they told me if i wanted to teach, that i'd better just pay attention to my job and not worry about the legality of the students. one thing i want to complain about, if i had not been able to get into the union when i was young, i would not have had the union -- living that i had, but the unions have turned their backs on

they have the ball rolled -- volcker rule, not as strong as glass-steagall, but i am informed or maye misinformed that you are not particularly a fan of that rule. am i wrong? >> that is a yes or no question. >> can you answer it yes or no? >> there are many times in which a bank has to do something for proprietary trading for good reason for it to hedge a position. it's got loans that they may need to buy various derivatives to hedge those loans. it did is building upon, in order to attract customers, it may take a share of that fund. and so on and so on. there are lots of ways in which a bank may need to have close to a position in order to serve its customers. i think chairman volcker would agree with you do not want to prevent banks from buying the assets, because that actually makes it more risky not less. the way that i have looked at this and in the senate bill i think it would work, is that it would create this separation between proprietary and on proprietary trading, but it would ask federal regulators to figure out what that line is and when is the purchase of a derivative

which i call the volcker concept. it is merely a concept because there is no rule accepted. despite assurances from high- ranking treasury officials that clarity would be provided on what constitutes proprietary trading and what does not, no such clarity has been provided. this is an area that should be addressed with some specificity. this bill will grant discretion to the regulators who filled us the last time around and hhve yet to account for past lapses. the legislation offers concepts but no definitions punts on the hard decisions. as everyone here that has been paying attention to the causes of the financial crisis is aware, the rating agencies favored to their fees and market share over their franchise reputation as highly creditworthy would prove to be junk securities. the legislation introduces concept of increased oversight and speaks out against conflicts of interest. what this will mean is presently unclear from the bill. perhaps more hearings on these matters would have been helpful. the aaa ratings assi

it comes down to how the last two items on the agenda and are derivatives and what is called the volcker role. both the fact what -- both in fact what banks can and can't do. taking a closer what it had been, which was called the glass the goal -- glass-steagall did not permit banks to do proprietary trading and kind of this mix of your money and my money, which is part of what got us into a bonanza crisis. a very controversial, and they saved the largest part for last. it is an interesting dynamic. you've got two different pressures on each chamber. on the senate side, the senate bill, which was used as a base for this debate, the senate version would put a total ban, almost complete ban on commercial banks having derivatives -- instead they would have to spin it off. blanche lincoln from arkansas got it in there, and a house had something much tamer. on the house side, her standing strong on the senate side but on the house side, a new democrat coalition, 69 moderate democrats who are more pro-business or business friendly. they are threatening to withhold support if it is in there. th

>> paul volcker was in my office last week. we were talking about regulatory reform not the budget deficit per se, but he and i and some months ago discussed the issue of debt level, debt load that a country could carry without danger. and his observation was he wasn't sure where that number was, but he was sure we were getting pretty close to it and therefore needed to exercise the discipline that i discussed. so that while we didn't get into your specific question, i don't think there's any doubt that with many, many economists. let me make it very clear, i think i said this in the speech but i don't want anybody confused by this. in the short term we cannot stimulate and depress at the same time. that is not only counter intuitive but i think will not work. and therefore in the short term i still think we need, as i said in my speech, to ensure the growth of our economy. as mark standy said the other day,,and i'm -- zandy said the other day and i'm sure many will agree will you not solve the deficit problem if you onnt have

paul volcker says that sweeping financial reform legislation before congress would make the u.s. a model for tte world. "the u.s. would go from laggard to the parade if we get this legislation passed." i am glad thereeis a chance of getting international acceptance for the basic principles. he expects this to produceeof coherent legislation of package3 be helpful and i would say to my friends from tennessee -- i do not know why he said there was nothing in heee about mortgages. some tough regulation to ban the kind of irresponsible subprime mortgages we tried to get banned before but >> this is the largest rewrite of the bill since the great depression. work on the bill resumes tuesday morning, including votes on amendments on derivatives and the consumer protection agency. expect livv coverage on c- span3 and c-span.org. at the white house today, president obama met with members of congress, republicans and democrats. here is what the president had to say. for engaging in a substantive conversation and i am going to be relatively brief in summarizing it. at the top of the list w

i think chairman volcker would agree that there are those circumstances, like hedging for example, whereu do not want to prevent banks from buying the assets because that actually makes them more risky, not less. the senate bill, as i understand the way it would work, is that it has to -- it would create this separation maturing proprietary and not on proprietary trading. but it would ask the regulators at the federal reserve to figure of what that line means. -- figure out what that line means. when is it gambling with the bank's capital, and ultimately the taxpayers? as long as there is a reasonable process for distinguishing between those two categories of assets, i think it will work. as one of the regulators, we will certainly work with our colleagues to try to make it operational. >> second specific question, derivatives. as the bill is written, most of them going to exchanges. but credit defiled swaps, certainly the most dangerous and lucrative, -- credit the fault swaps, certainly the most dangerous and lucrative, they might not. >> at credit default store -- credit defaults swap

that is what -- and will enacted what is called the volcker rule to make sure that banks cannot engage in risky trades for their own profit. we will create the resolution of story to help winddown -- resolution 4authority. we will help make sure that mean streak is never again held responsible for wall street's mistakes -- that means street -- that main street is never held responsible for wall street's mistakes. we want to recover a everydime of -- recover every dime of taxpayer money. some fought tooth and nail to preserve the status quo, spending millions of dollars and hiring an army of lobbyists to stop the report in its tracks. we refused to back down and we kept fighting. we're on the verge of victory. i urge congress to take us over the finish line and send me a reform bill i can sign into law, so we can empower people and help prevent a financial crisis like this from happening again. >> i am paul ryan. i serve as a top republican on the house budget committee. yes, congress does have a budget committee. i'm afraid it has not been very busy this year. in fact, the house majori

volcker is reasonableeto quote, but he is entitled to the status of being quoted inaccurately, and he said he does not see any other way to do it. the point is there is no to big to fail, and there is funding with private money only. the question now comes on the adoption of the capital amendment. the oversight and government reform, judiciary, and financial services committee are eligible to vote on this. all those in favor? oppose? teh nos -- the nos have it. do not leave just yet. we are about to call the roll. the clerk will call the roll. >> [roll call] >> the clerk will report. the change -- i change mr. cummings from my by proxy to aye aye mr. cummings. no by mr. cummings, i'm sorry. my fault. clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that roll call, they ayes are eight and eight nays are 14 -- and the nays are 14. >> that amendment is defeated. there is a great deal of debate. members are free to speak as much as they want. my evening is shot, so i'm going to be here for the rest of the night with my proxy's and with or without my colleagues, so members are invited me to -- invit

they want -- they call it the volcker rule, talking about strengthening it, stopping banks from breakingmaking banks break off their proprietary trading and not use the depositors' money, but just the profits from their trading desks only. the feeling is they don't want them to risk money of depositors, or federally insured money into the market. host: the article also points out that despite traction on the blanche lincoln amendment that bankers will tristill try to stp the. today at the conference, a variety of other issues. we will address other flashpoints of the banks in coming weeks. is there anything on those topics you want to talk about? guest: the interchange fees is an interesting dynamic. you are assessed a fee every time you swipe your credit card or debit card. it does not show up. the effort is to stop that. what you are paying for and what people need to understand every time they get a card --your pain for the convenience of having that piece of plastic with the bar code that enables you to not have to carry cash. congress is try to limit what they can charge. it would b

and of the volcker rules, banks can face strict propriary trading band. at volck rules, banks can fa sict proprietary trading ban. next is orange county, california. caller: i wanted to talk about illegal immigration. i am retired from the carpenter union. onehing i did, i went into the service at 17 and got out. becaus there were jobs ailable to us, i was able to find a job until i got into the carpenters. 17 years as an instructo wrade.- the high school vocational and theneven years with t apprenticeships. the big thing that i have, wh the carpenters union, i know for a fact because i had to sign these students in, they were coming through without legitimate papers, none at all. and iook it toy supervisor and i also talked to mynion d they told me if i wanted to teach, that i'd better just pay attention to my job and not worry about the legality of the students. onehing i wt to complain out, if i had not been able to get into the union when i was young, i would not have had the union -- livinthat i had, b the unions have turned their backs on the americ

we will enact the volcker rule to make sure the banks protected by the safety net of the fdic to not engage in risky trades for their own profit. we will create resolution of 40 to help wind down firms whose collapse would threaten our entire financial system.