but the tarp bill, british petroleum supported that, the stimulus bill. most people think all these big oil companies, they're all republican. well, if you look, just like wall street, wall street gives four-to-one to democrats over republicans and british petroleum, they were working closely with the administration and with democrats in the majority. as one article talks about senator kerry communicating with, working with british petroleum to try to pass the crap and trade bill at the time the deepwater horizon blew out. it is beginning to appear that british petroleum used a cheap way of drilling in such deep water. it shouldn't have been used in such deep water. that's what is beginning to appear to be the case and that they felt like -- it seems like there was an attitude that we don't have to worry. we are big buddies with the white house and with the majority, they got our backs. we can cut corners. you know, and so we find out minerals management service send out their two-man you unionized father and son team to be the last team to inspect the de

bill. the clerk: h.r. 4505, a bill to enable state homes to furnish nursing home care to parents any of whose children died while serving in the armed forces. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 420, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will come to order. will members please take their conversatio

to be complete the bill must suggest that. in its current form this bill does not necessarily help us rein in these programs. for example, just last week in our information policy subcommittee we held a hearing in the national historical publications and records commissions, a program that appears to give grants duplicative of grants in the national archives and records administration. i questioned then and ask it again today why should we continue to fund this duplicative program? it costs the committee nothing to find out this duplication. why if we cannot trim $10 million of federal spending without -- why should we authorize $150 million to be spent? what exactly do we expect for it do bring in return? the congressional budget office estimates this bill will cost the federal government to spend $150 million to determine what many people already know. we have federal government programs that are not performing and duplicative, but the bill before us leaves wasteful programs intact. as we came to the floor, one of the amendm

taxpayer foots the bill. i look forward to working with my colleagues to craft the best possible bill. let me briefly mention a few points that i think are worthy of note. first, this legislation establishes a new office of financial research. it represents and the sport -- an important step in understanding the threat to our system could it will provide early warnings -- our system. it will provide early warnings. second, we are required that hedge funds register with the securities exchange commission. this will shed light on an important aspect of our economy, the dark pools of today. thirdly, we will bring economy -- accountability and transparency from regulators who supervise derivatives in the first place. we also must make as many swaps as possible, transactions that are traded, cleared, and reported to regulators and the marketplace. firms should be required to put sufficient capital to engage in these transactions, which should help rein in the excessive speculation we have seen in the past. we must

that's what this bill is about. this bill, the small business lending fund act, invests capital in community and small banks that were not the problem that caused this financial meltdown. invest in those community and small banks under terms that become more favorable to those banks as they make more loans to small businesses. in other words, carrots for getting money to small businesses. and the c.b.o. tells us all the money in the small business %% lending fund will be repaid with interest and that taxpayers will actually make $1 billion profit over the next decade. now, that's not too hard to believe, i think, when you understand that in terms of the dollars that the bush administration asked us to put on the table to stabilize the economy back in 2008, that to the extent that the money has now been paid back, not all of it yet, but to the extent that we have gotten repayment, we have made some 12% on that money. unfortunately 45% of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even just stay afloat were turned do

i voted against that bill. i said it at that time if we gave him -- give them that money we needed to o the reform right then. we have done some of those now. we passed the fha what are two days ago we passed it out of the house. there are things we can do. it is a disappointment. is an awful lot of money. ps a republican, maybe i cannot say this with the elephants in the room. republicans like to see fannie and freddie become in the future. should they be private entities? should they be split have government and half private lacks -- half private? where do you stand? >> i do not think they should be public utilities. that is saying the puulic will guarantee themm the private market is not there now. i think we all agree. it will need to be a slow transition. i think we can make that transition. it may take 10 years. it may take 15 years. in our bill, we have a three or four years of thing. i think that is oveely ambitious. some of our colleagues felt we could do that. i do think the problem was not in the sec

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 bill? >> there is a strong vote in the senate. i don't think the house will try to resist that. it may be subject to further amendments, but we will try to get a bill would 64 senators voting for that. >> chairman frank, -- >> i will not get into the specifics. >> i agree with the chairman. i think there will be some modifications, but basically this underlies provisions of that are needed. >> >> there will be votes each day on the provisions. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> our public affairs content is available on tel

we need this bill to hit them where it hurts and i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today. i yield back. ms. ros-lehtinen: thankkyou, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm proud to yield to mr. garrett, the ranking member on government sponsored enterprises as well as a house conferee on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognizeded for two minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the gentlelady. many have urged me to ensure congress enacts strong sanctions. we are all too well aware of the existential threat that a nuclear powered iran would be. but today we are about to pass a conference report that was supposed to protect americans and our allies. if that was our goal, i believe we only have partial success. as a conferee representative, i do admit that the sanctions themselves have been approved. i was pleased to see the legislation would cut off the connections between the u.s. financial sector and foreign financial institutions that do business with iran. yet the conference report, ye it does add addition

now, let me say that i voted for that bill. i was wrong. the gramm bill. we didn't need to regulate derivatives. by the way, there were a number of democrats, leaders who said that as well. and mr. greenspan said it as well. he admitted he made a mistake and he was distressed by that mistake. now, we can't erase that crisis. but we can work to rebuild what we lost as democrats have done every time we've been supporting job creation, to the recovery act, for cash for clunkers, for tax relief for small businesses. frankly been instructed by the minority party and the other body who have made a high stakes political bet on recovery's failure. that would be a shame. we can also, just as any responsible family would, ensure ourselves against a repeat crisis and protect america's jobs from another devastating collapse. the wall street reform and consumer protection act, which mr. frank and mr. dodd have led to this point, means an end to the irresponsible practices of the big banks. and i want to say the community banks, which i think mr. royce referred to, he's

you believe there should be and will be a separate dairy bill prior to the farm bill that will address the dairy price issues that you're concerned about? >> we put this council together and charged them with coming wup a proposal that is is a consensus proposal by the end of this year. my hope is they will meet that deadline. and if they do i think it's something that congress needs to discuss in 2012 before the farm bill discussions get started in earnest. >> mr. secretary. >> we don't have any time to waste on that. >> you talked about the administration creating a different framework for relating to rural america. and revitalizing the economy. one of the things that some lawmakers have criticized you for is too much emphasis on rural economic development, not enough on productive agriculture. how do you respond? >> well, i would like to sit down with those lawmakers and explain some of the things we are doing at usda so they are ensured. one of the things i would talk to them about is our renewed emphasis on trade. we just announced an upgrade of our trading numbers for this fiscal

consumers in the new banking bill. a banking bill that will collapse where there's $1 trillion worth of equity and other arrangements that can be made that today fund american businesses and keep small businesses alive. mr. speaker, i think it's time that we change the direction that we are heading. taxing and spending is something that the american people do not want or need for their future. the unemployment rate still stays near 10% and since taking office in 2007 our democrat friends have set a record for deficits, spending, and unemployment. the american people know this and they are speaking out. i encourage americans to visit the website www.americaspeakingout.com. americans speaking out is an opportunity for americans to have a say in their government. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> to address the house for one minute. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cleaver

this bill requires c.e.'s to certify under penalty of perjury that their companies are not foreign nationals. under the newlyy+ expanded standard of the bill. but the bill does nothing to ensure that when labor unions are spending money on elections, that money did not come from people who are themselves prohibited from spending noun influence american elections. again, we offered an amendmeet to treat corporations and unions equally under the bill by requiring the same certify scation of labor union chiefs but again, it was rejected. mr. chairman, a third example. i point to the centerpiece provision of this bill. the so-called disclosure requirent. the bill requires organizations to disclose information about the individuals who gave more than $600. but the federal election committee asked everybody else to do it at $200. as one of the majority members of our committee -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recogni

bill. dairy farmers today are faced with significant price spikes. their prices go up for a short time to historic highs and then fall deeply and sharply and stay low for a considerable time, putting a great deal of stress on the farmers. the one consistent message i got in 20 states i attended in the world summit and for was that dairy farmers are hurting. we put together a council representing all parts of the country and all aspects of gary to say to the industry that we have to come up with a consistent -- all aspects of the dairy to say to the industry we have to come up with a consistent voice to maintain the dairy industry for the united states and make it competitive against european competitors and new zealand. that's not going to happen with the 2012 farm bill. that will happen before. >> to make sure i understand what you're saying, you believe there should and will be a separate dairy bill prior to the farm bill that will address dairy price issues you are concerned about? >> we

the house bill has a bailout fund. the senate bill allows the fdic to borrow money to wind down the is a institutions. o ultimately pay for these mechanisms? the taxpayer. enough is enou we c do better by creating an enhanced chapter of the bankruptcy codwith a resolution of 40 to prevent future bailouts and create er transparency -- resolution of failed entities to prevt future bailouts and create better transparency. as we kw in the conservatorship of fannie and freddie, we hav $145 billion of taxpayer dollars already at stake. the time has come for sensitive reform of th gse's. we still have plenty of time. we have the will to tackle the enormous exposure tthe taxpayers of fannie and freddie. i look forward to an open and transparent conference and the type of financial reform that will hold wall stree i look forward to the kind -- >> the chairman of the agriculture committee will be next. the gentleman from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership on this issue of financialefor we have b

that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue. senator mitch mcconnell was quoted in april saying we need to have real disclosure. why wod a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure? republican leader john boehner in twetch said, i think we ought -- what we ought to do, we ought to have full disclosure and went on to say i think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. this measure, the disclose act, has been supported by government reform groups including common cause, league ofomen voters, and public citizens. senate majority leader harry reid and the chairman of the senate rules committee have released a letter indicating their strong commitment to senate action on the disclose act. the white house strongly supports the disclose act. the president says he'll sign this bill when it comes to his desk. now, i ask my colleagues, will

i believe in this bill. i believe that this amendment will help with transparency and accountability. and i also believe that it is time for us to do all that we can to help the small businesses in this country. i believe that this is something we can do and i believe that it is something that will make a difference. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i appreciate the gentleman. i still go back to the point and i think that's where we get kind of in a -- we live in wally world here in washington, d.c., where you still have to have $33 billion if you're going to go loan -- or invest in the preferred shares of these banks, you still got to find the $33 billion. and the truth of the matter is, for every dollar we're going to appropriate or allocate in this country this year, we're going to have to go borrow 42 cents of it. so i just guess the question -- begs the question, should we go out and hawk another $33 billion for a program that

added to the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from idaho. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part c of house report 111-506. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, made in order by the rules. amendment number 5. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in part c of house report number 11-506, offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1436, the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: mr. chairman, i yield myself such tim

the bill requires c.e.o.'s and highest ranking officials of corporations that sponsor political advertisements to record stand by your ad disclaimers as well as protest taxpayers dollars from misuse by preventing certain government contractors from making campaign related expenditures. the disclosure act also closes a loophole creebate citizens united to ensure foreign corporations and foreign governments aren't able to influence elections by spending unlimited sums through united states subsidiaries or affiliates. by allowing them to make campaign contributions, foreign players could use limitless funds to influence the election. the bill is designed to accommodate nonprofit issues advocacy group who have long participated in political activity of which their members are aware. the bill must have more than 500,000 dues paying members in all 50 states, have had tax exempt status for the past 10 years and derive no more than 50% of its funding from corporate or union sources. it cannot use corporate or union mo

we had 1,600-page bill. we were told that it would be the senate language, and the 1,600 pages turned out to be lot of the house language too, so it was a mesh of the two. we read the senate bill thinking that is what are we were going to get. plus we got another 400 pages, and in two weeks we have to vote on that. you look at the agenda for tuesday, and you're dealing with three or four subjects that problem at a minimum, the smartest economist in the world woofer to take a

there was a difference in this bill. when we were debating this in the house last year, house -- health care was getting all the attention. it was not as strong a bill as i would have liked to and been able to bring out because we were not getting public attention. my initial thought was that it was a much tougher job. once we passed health care, the american public began to focus on this through the media. this is a better bill than it would have been because the american public focused on it. in addition to the substance, i hope people will get a sense that we worry about big money. it is reassuring to know that when public opinion gets engaged, it will win. our staff is full of the most extraordinary people, i agree with the senator. they put in an enormous amount of time under stressful conditions. the majority? we i Ñ with the republicans on the senate floor and0f6a who supported the bill coming out of the senate. there was daily communication with them to inform them as to how things were perceiving. -- proceeding

someone said the we should rename the bill to the franc/dodd bill. he does combine that to the broad bill to describe exactly what we have here now. it amazes me that in this day and age when our constituents are going through such hard times and americans are asking for congress to do the right thing, smaller government, less spending -- here we end this bill process with doing the exact opposite, a larger government, increased spending, and increased taxes. there is no other way. there are no other alternatives. we are in a catch-22. really? there is no other way? when it the novel if just once from the viktor departed the we would hear the idea of cutting spending, reducing spending, finding some offset some place. in my state in new jersey, we did just that. we did it in a bipartisan manner would take governor chris christie reaching across the aisle taking a budget -- a $30 billion budget, reduce spending by $11 billion, 9.2% over time. bipartisan without any tax increases like we are talking about here. can you do that here? the answer from the

>> the energy bill. any version of the energy bill. we have not seen the bill. like i said earlier -- i use the verb "jammed." it is getting larger as we go. i will let you guys handle it. >> um, so, i guess, i would start by making the obvious comment. i'm not sure i would hear myself saying this. i'm not going to negotiate in public. >> good quote. >> that is why i have never used it. there are lots of things in terms of mechanisms and so forth that can be decided. we're going to look at what the bill would result in in terms of reductions in carbon pollution, like the movement toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. what affects would actually be likely to have on the ground? -- what effects would it actually be likely to have on the ground? will this result in genuine, measurable results that matter? we're also concerned that it not roll back environmental protections. people have been negotiating for years on this. there are ways to negotiate bills. the house showed one possible way of doing that. there are other things out there. there are issues of

i think it makes the bill better. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. braley: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois, congresswoman bean. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. bean: thank you, madam chairwoman. i just want to acknowledge congressman braillely's efforts recognizing the challenges americans have -- braley's efforts recognizing the challenges americans have reading documents particularly lending disclosures. this amendment is a commonsense approach to making the program more accessible. i commepped his leadership to expand plain language to our government documents. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois yield back the remainder of her time. the gentleman from texas -- from iowa. mr. braley: madam speaker, i think that the comments that you heard are indicative of what's wrong with the way of government agencies write their documents. i think deplorable that we have to take this action

we don't know what they are going to do with this energy bill. we don't know, we are trying to figure out how this new health care bill is going to impact our business. how it's going to impact our bottom line. and then i went over and talked to the lenders, many of the lenders are sitting on record amounts of cash and capital in their banks. they are looking hard as they can for lending opportunities. what they said is unfortunately some of our customers are not creditworthy. that the economy has hurt their sales and so it wouldn't be prudent to loan those businesses more money. others say that our good customers, customers that are creditworthy, are not coming to us and borrowing any money because, again, of this uncertainty. so again our opposition to this bill is that it's not really addressing the real issue in our economy and that is bringing some certainty and leaving the capital in the companies, leaving the capital in the economy instead of the federal government continuing to create uncertainty and taking money out of the economy. with

because of the failed stimulus bill on top of the 2,000-page health care bill no one read, this week congress will take up an almost 2,000-page bill that will institutionalize bailouts. i think -- we don't have a budget, first time in 40 years. at the end of this week they are going to make up numbers. we are not going to vote on it, have a debate. we haven't funded our troops in afghanistan and iraq. they need money. people here want to spend it on other things. we've got to get this deficit under control, folks. we have to do it or we are putting a noose around their children's necks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, for years reckless republican economic policies and lax oversight of the financial industry led to historic economic collapse for which everyday americans are still paying the price. but now we are beginning to turn the corner. today we are creating jobs not losing jobs. mr. deutsch: the unemployment rate is beginning fall

tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way. what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can takeover was the n.r.a. they were

while that bill passed the house, i can tell you if you brought that bill backing from brought that bill backing from of the house today,

th bill provis such actions. provides access to credit for small businesses who desperately need it, i think amecans are frustrated and sll business people share therustation. that after aancing hundredof bilionof dollars to banks, manyf those dollars don't seem to fi their way into loans to small businesses. the unrlying bill beginso dress at probl in a very signifint way. it ea prtice that this chairman and his predessor ben of extendingax cs to small bunesses, a small business that bu a laptop truckr some other pie of uipment, they can expense that, can effect cut their taxes binvesting in their business within the economy. and then whave theroc statemt by the minority leader th in order to help all businesses, hwants to repl a law at helps small businesses for the first time buyealth care. what the new hlth care l says is this, that a person running a small software compa or a restntr -- restaurant should bable to buy health sunce ith the same volume discothat locheed martin small business people have be king

house bill. let me briefly mention a few points that i think are worthy of note. first this legislation establishes a new office of financial research. there represent an important step toward understanding the factors which threatened to rip holes in the financial system. it will provide early warnings to act on the information more preemptively, something that was clearly missing. we are requiring hedge funds and private pooos of capital. this will shed light on these ddrk pools of unregulated money. we're bringing accountability and transparency to the derivatives markets by overturning the law that prevented regulators from surprising derivatives in the first place. we must bring transparency to the marketplace [unintelligible] to regulators and market participants. we must make as many transactions that are traded, cleared and reported to regulators and thh marketplace. firms should be required to report sufficient capital to engage in these transactions which should rein in the speculation.

sperling would fit that bill, others would fit that bill. i think the president will have a full slate of choices and all of them good. >> i want to talk to you about your own race. you have won comfortably in the past, but republicans really seem to be going for your district. can you talk about the political environment back on? you're in a tough southern district. what is the environment like when you go out and talk to folks? one of the "new, and what is your sense of this election season? >> jobs, work, and the economy, no question. that comes first. i have 14 counties just shout -- just south of charlotte, north carolina, and the unemployment rate in all 14 has been in the double digits for some time now. some places more than 20%. what we see in my particular district is cyclical unemployment layered on top of structural unemployment. the structural unemployment coming from the demolishing -- the demolition of traditional industries, furniture in the southeast, where you have been taking it on the chan on top of the cyclical effects.

the amended bill does not sco. colleagues, the electric grid's vulnerable to cyber and other attacks is onef the single greatest threats to our national security. this bipartisan legislation is critical to empowering the federal government and the private sector with the capacity it will need to protect us against that threat. there are people plotting right now that if they could would exploit this vulnerability. i urge all members to vote yes on the grid act. it is a moment that we must all come together in order to protect our country. at this point i resee the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i reserve -- i yield two minutes to t distinguished ranking member of the full committee, mr. barton were texas, in support of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished speaker. i want to compliment chairman markey for referring to mr. u

tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way. what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can takeover was the n.r.a. they were

by the bill. states could create a patchwork of differing laws and requirements, thereby, frustrating the stated goal of creating a uniformed national standard for formaldehyde emissions and composite wood products. in addition, the e.p.a. is currently considering a regulation under tasca addressed by this bill. if the e.p.a. completes its current rulemaking process, any resulting formaldehyde standard would preempt state regulation as provided in tasca. the bill would require the e.p.a. to issue the mandated emissions regardless of whether they ultimately prove technically feasible or reasonably affordable. congress lacks experience of these standards in the real world. we have learned through the consumer products improvement act that it can comply with them. we learned the hard way that well-meaning bills can lead to unemployment for small manufacturers and we should not repeat that mistake with almost 10% unemployment. this bill does not provide the e.p.a. with any discretion if ppone or more

i have appointed a bipartisan commission to look into the causes of this bill. if laws are inadequate, laws will be changed. if oversight was lacking, it will be strengthened. if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice. over the last few days, bp has played with their wealth. they are -- has plugged that there well. -- has plug theige their well. we are prepared for the worst, even though we hope the peace efforts will bring better news. regardless of this attack, there will be slippage until the relief wells are completed. there will continue to be a these are hard times in louisiana and across the gulf coast. louisiana has seen more than its fair share of trouble. i have seen communities determined to fight to this disaster, as they have before, to preserve not just a way to make a living but a way of life. we will fight alongside them until the awful damage that has been done is reversed, people are back on their feet, and the great natural bounty of the gulf coast is restored. >> president barack obama promised he would not stop fighti

or is the bill silent? the bill is silent. even though we know we need additional agents at the department of justice and, yes, this bill is coming out of the financial services committee, but the bill doesn't even have a finding that references the importance of adding financial fraud agents at the department of justice, at the f. -- s.e. cremplet because these wrongdoers were set up at the highest levels, but the bill remains silent on that. what about -- i mentioned capital margins a little bit earlier. this is really an important issue to get at the question of pursuant lending. and -- prudent lending and how much power we grant these institutions and the instruments they create to create money and to check it against the value of the underlying asset. the bill is quite weak on that. finally, i'd ask the question, does the bill create truly an independent systemic risk council or does it merely politicize risk evaluation through the u.s. department of treasury which has caused such confusion in the markets? credit is seize

guest: -- climate bill? guest: a little bit before the house passed its greenhouse gas bill the senate and natural resources committee passed a bill with republican support to require power companies to buy more electricity from renewable sources like wind farms and solar farms, geothermal plants and things like that. there is a benefit in terms of greenhouse gases. if a power company purchases electricity from wind farm for a coal-fired power plants, you would not be directly imposing a limit on greenhouse gases. for some members of the senate right now at this moment it might be easier to accomplish that rather than something similar to an economy wide cap and trade bill. host: are there enough votes in the senate for this legislation? guest: reporters asked senator kerrey that yesterday and he was quite frank that he did not have the votes now but he felt that they were close enough that he wanted to keep pushing. they certainly feel that the president's speech last night would have an emphasis put on cle

that with all the talk and senator kerry and global warming bill and the bill they were trying to get done. it makes it so outrageous that they got sloppy. lots of safety problems. and this thing happens, because it deficient states not just -- the worst tragedy is the loss of life and there are 17 others that were severely hurt and our thoughts and prayers go out to them and i know my friend says that it's almost comical. and you know what a personal loss of life and me including, losing a brother and cousin's funeral i attended yesterday and nothing like that kind of heart ache. but then the next tragedy is what's being done to this country, what's being done for us to be energy independent and be dependent on countries that don't like us and who are our enemies. there are tragedies. most tragic the loss of life, injuries and what they have done to our future is also really devastating and we have got to take a step forward. and our friend from the navy made it clear, you got to take charge. people are looking at you. i know when i was in the army, it made an impression on me when a

the only bill i remember being overridden was ronald reagan, when he sent back a bill to us which said you are not spending enough on defense. that was overridden pretty handily. >> let us take one last question back here. >> could you please address, as the gentleman earlier articulated, that some retirement -- some entitlement changes, such as raising the retirement age -- >> how did you preface that? >> an earlier gentleman started to address this. reform the entitlements in a way that impacts some american people. >> thank you. were you through? as i said in my speech, i think, and i hope you got that, was that i think we need to make sure that those who are in most need are protected. as we look at entitlement programs, we have to look at entitlement programs in the context of assuring those most in need of entitlement help get it. but that is what i have talked about in terms which are very controversial, and i understand that. some people on my staff do not want to say it. i said it. there you go. i agree with your premise, making sure those most in need affected by entitlements

where's the bill that does that? and what we get instead is inaction and honor a couple more universities for winning a sem meet or can you recalling tournament and not deal with the commercial mortgage crisis and there's the blame game, it's george bush's fault and barack obama's fault. how about rather than honoring trains we take an hour and do something about a crisis that we know is coming and i yield to my friend from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for organizing this hour today and i think you've really hit on some of the important points. when you look at -- you got to go back over auto year ago when the stimulus bill was passed by the majority, the speaker said that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. mr. tiberi: boy, it would be nice to see unemployment at 8% in ohio today, wouldn't it? it would be nice to see unemployment at 8% in my district, it would be nice to see unemployment at 8% in your district and nice to see unemoyment even close to 8% nationally and we don't see that today. in fact, as someoneho

the financial reform bill. many of our colleagues have spent countless hours grappling in dealing with this very esoteric area of the financial- services sector. i want to commend them for doing so. it is a very difficult job. they have spent hours to increase the transparency and accountability in what is a $600 trillion derivatives market. $600 trillion services market -- derivatives market. this is very important. this one is profoundly important. i would like to turn to my colleague. he has done a great job with this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and chairman frank for your leadership and hard work, as well as your staff. i also want to thank my colleague for his hard work and the ability to work together. there is a lot that has been done. the magnitude of this task has not been lost on anyone over the last few months -- certainly not myself. we've heard a lot of talk about risk, job loss, stability. i think we have worked very hard, in coming together to find common ground and to, more

i don't know if john morton read the bill, but he didn't want to enforce the bill. posner had no business sticking his nose in it whatsoever and carried it all the way to the chinese. i can't stand here on the floor of the house of represtatives without raising anssue of president calderon back behind where i'stanng now spoke to a joi session of congress and had to lecture us on how he strongly disagrees with arizona's immigration law. if he does, he also disagrees with the federal united states federal government's immigration law. it mirrors the feral immigratn law. and so we are in an era where the administration, the highest raing officials within the administration aren't compelled to check the facts before they misform the amerin people. they might cck a left-wing website, butar ecking the facts. and the amen people, who are they going to trust, shouldn't they tru the voicef the president of the united states? who's briefing him. who is telling him was in the bill? codn't anyone have given him an objective analysis. what kind of a shop is being run at thwhite

speaker, this bill has no direct cost. we are in support of the bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for his support of the bill and for working with us and providing the amendment that he referenced. i think it's important to underscore his point that this is not a requirement that ferc reissue these licenses to the town of canton. it's just permissive language allowing them to do that given proper environmental review and proper availability of comment from other interested parties. this really is an example of how local power production can be done right. this is a nonpartisan local issue. republicans and democrats at the local and state level, along with administration in the state of connecticut coming together to try to promote a project that can bring two long dorment dams online. i would also note that the reconstruction of the dams would allow for the potential fish passage along a strea

they've cut the bill down dramatically. it started out as a $two00 billion bill. they got it down to nearly $100 billion. and theor paying for a lot of this-- or proposing to-- by using unexpended funds from last year's economic stimulus package which the republicans had been calling for. >> woodruff: but you still have in here, or always have, the element of politics and each side is always thinking not only about the substance, but this is an election year. >> expectly. and the republicans, you know, we don't really know if they truly believe that we shouldn't spend this money, that we should cut the deficit or if this is trying to build a case to prevent democrats from accomplishing some of their goals. >> woodruff: meanwhile, democrats are saying we may be able to use the fact that republicans voted against it in the fall. >> well, that's the thing because they could have moved an emergency unemployment benefit piece separately, but they're choosing not to do that. >> woodruff: why not? >> because they want to keep the entire package together. they don't think

many would fit that bill. i think the president has several tauruses and all of them good. >> i want to -- several choices and all of them good. >> i want to talk to you about your own race. republicans seem to be going for your district. i wonder if you could talk about the political battle back home. what is the environment when you go out and talk to folks? what are they asking you, and what is your sense of this election season? >> jobs, work, and the economy, no question. i have 14 counties just south of charlotte, n.c. and the unemployment rate in all 14 has been in the double digits for some time now. there is one district of a cyclical unemployment layered on top of structural unemployment. the structural unemployment coming from the demolition of traditional industries on top of the cyclical effects. we will probably be the last recovering. i have people very much concerned, very worried. in small towns, large cities, whatever it maybe, they are concerned. and secondly, when you get down to the man on

host: we are discussing an energy bill in congress. will this hange how that bill might shake out? guest: the mood of the country right now is very strong. people are extraordinarily angry. i would hope that that kind of message can get through to congress, and that people here in washington will hear it and act. the exxon valdez in a sense was a huge cultural moment. something like 98% of americans knew about the oil spill and you how bad it was. it really was not taken advantage of. the laws that were passed were not big enough for the moment. in effect, one of the laws that past was that $75 million liability cap that is now protecting bp. i hope there is leadership and i am sure i am not the first one to call for it, saying this is our environmental 9/11. now is the time for the country to pull together and do something big. host: a follow-up question to your thoughts on localities. guest: from a technical standpoint, the wells that are beyond the territorial waters of the state, those moneys generally go to the federal government. there is sharing in discussion i would take it

which is a function of meeting 60 votes to end the debate on a bill. the democrats sort of nominally have 69 -- 59 votes. there are some republican proposals out there, or democratic proposals with republican support, these would ramp up things like solar energy without greenhouse gas limits. again, that is sort of going into this meeting on thursday with senate democrats where senator reid is going to try to work out whether there is support beyond new electricity standards or on the republican side what senator lugar has called for, diversity standards calling for things like nuclear plants that capture and store their emissions. . you have to have some powerful fuel or diesel engines for your trains and stuff like that. why in the world do we have 12 million vehicles in the world run on natural gas and only 170,000 in the u.s.? why are we not using this natural gas? i hope this is in the energy policy. i think the cap and tax will ruin this country. any tax on oil or coal will drive this further down into a depression. host: is that part of the sena

this bill is 1500 pages. on thursday we began our hearing. when it got to make, i asked for a show of hands of anyone who has read all of the pages. nobody raised their hands that they read the bill. host: have you read it? guest: i have read the sections we are dealing with. if you have not read it, how can you say it is a great thing? host: the conference committee will deal with corporate governance? is that the first issue on the agenda? guest: i believe cell along with executive compensation. the funding mechanism for the sec. there were all of these failures where they did not see the bernie madoff situation and the institutions that failed there. we are one to reward them for that. they will be self-funded and not go through the normal appropriation process and oversight in the future. they can get as large as they want to without any more oversight. that is what they sec has always wanted. to be rewarded this behavior? i do not think so. this behavior?e host: california? caller: it sounds as if you are saying the new administration is

tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way. what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can takeover was the n.r.a. they were

this was a huge bill. this was a monumental vote and a vote that many of us took with the knowledge that there were things in the bill that we could support. there were a lot of things we knew moving forward were going to have a tremendous impact on the nation and our districts. and as we have seen rom some of the charts, a year and a half later, we have seen an incredible difference in our economy, both as a nation and in our districts. six of the last seven months, we have had positive job growth and yes, we are at the time, in the decade, once a decade, where yo% hire census workers to go out and folks on the other side will say those numbers are inflated and there are census numbers included in that. but private sector job growth has gone up over that same period of time by the hundreds of thousands in the previous two months, and we expect the strong number again for the month of june. and also at the end of june, we will have our fourth straight quarter, a full year of positive g.d.p. growth and this