PA-0694 Digibeta; PA-2088 Beta SP ; PA-2296 Beta SP
Perversion for Profit
Perversion for Profit (Part II), 1965
Anti-pornography film produced by financier Charles Keating, linking pornography to the Communist conspiracy and the decline of Western civilisation.
Bridgeman Images Details
Is it possible to simplify formalities? guest tray
A2 / France 2
Ecuador Correa - President Rafael Correa's State of the Union address
NAME: ECU CORREA 20080115I TAPE: EF08/0064 IN_TIME: 11:01:49:13 DURATION: 00:01:32:10 SOURCES: POOL DATELINE: Montecristi, 15 Jan 2008 RESTRICTIONS: SHOTLIST: 1. Various of arrival of Ecuadorean presidential helicopter 2. Ecuador's president Rafael Correa arriving for State of the Union speech 3. Wide of military ceremony 4. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador: "There will be sacrifices. Every change implies resistance, more so when the changes are revolutionary ones. Thus far we have governed with clean hands, lucid minds and burning hearts, but under the existing system. In 2008, with the assembly there will be a definite change to this perverse system that has accompanied us for so long and caused us so much harm. The established powers, in their desperation, will do the impossible to stop change, to discredit an honest government and a patriotic assembly." 5. Correa arriving for State of the Union speech 6. Wide of military ceremony 7. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador: "2008 will be a great year for oil, not because of what we will do in 2008, but because of what we did in 2007." 8. Correa during national anthem 9. Close up of security 10. Exterior of headquarter of Constituent Assembly 11. Wide of State of the Union address STORYLINE: Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa marked his first year in office on Tuesday saying his country will experience a "historic" moment of change in a peaceful and democratic environment and reiterated the central role played by the Constituent Assembly in that process. "Thus far we have governed with clean hands, lucid minds and burning hearts, but under the existing system," Correa told the assembly during his first State of the Union address. "In 2008, with the assembly there will be a definite change to this perverse system that has accompanied us for so long and caused us so much harm," Correa said in reference to Ecuador's established power structures. The centrepiece of his first year was the election of a special assembly to write Ecuador's new charter. In September, Correa won over 60 percent of the 130-member assembly's seats and despite strained relations with business sectors and some of the media, he enjoys a popularity rating of 64 percent, according to a recent Cedatos-Gallup poll. During the two-and-a-half hour speech Correa showed optimism that a possible increase in oil production will boost the impoverished nation's growth. Correa, a U.S.-trained economist and former finance minister, blamed Ecuador's slow growth last year - less than 3 percent, and one of the lowest rates in the region - on a nearly ten percent decrease in oil production in 2007 compared to the year before. However, Correa, who is a close ally of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, again brushed off criticism that 2007 was a poor economic year for Ecuador, when growth totalled 2.67 percent compared to the year before, adding that "2008 will be a great year for oil." In his first year in office, Correa, who won the presidency in 2006 on promises to increase state oil income and social spending, sharpened his populist rhetoric, striking oil refining deals with ally Chavez. In November, Correa replaced the head of state oil company Petroecuador in order to increase its "efficiency." A month earlier, Correa signed a decree boosting the state's share of windfall oil profits - earnings on oil sold above prices fixed in company contracts - to 99 percent from 50 percent, worrying financial analysts. Correa had repeatedly promised greater state control of the economy. Ecuador is South America's fifth-largest oil producer with a daily average production of around 500 thousand barrels of crude.
Nader - On - Corporate - Fraud
RALPH NADER WEIGHS IN ON CORPORATE FRAUD
Belgium Exchange
AP-APTN-1830: Belgium Exchange Wednesday, 1 February 2012 STORY:Belgium Exchange- European competition chief blocks trans-Atlantic derivatives exchange deal LENGTH: 02:59 FIRST RUN: 1230 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound/English SOURCE: EBS STORY NUMBER: 725904 DATELINE: Brussels - 1 Feb 2012 LENGTH: 02:59 EBS - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Various of EU's Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia arriving for news conference 2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner: "We have decided today to prohibit the proposed merger between Deutsche Bourse and New York Stock Exchange Euronext. Deutsche Bourse and NYSE Euronext operate the two largest exchanges for European financial derivates in the world, Eurex, belonging to Deutsche Bourse and Liffe belonging to NYSE Euronext. The two companies are by far the largest global players in these products. If the merger would have been allowed it would have resulted in a quasi-monopoly in exchange traded financial derivatives based on European underlyings where the two companies control more than 90 percent of the global market." 3. Various of Almunia at stand 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner: "In accordance to our merger control rules, the prohibition aims to protect the European economy from the perverse effects of a combination that would have practically eliminated effective competition in the market with significant harm to the consumers. The merger would have led to the worsening of conditions for companies trying to access financial instruments and would have harmed the European economy as a whole." 5. Journalist asking question 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner: "During our investigation that formally started last August, we found ample evidence that Eurex Deutsche Bourse and Liffe NYSE Euronext compete head to head and are each other's closest competitors. These two companies constrain each other's prices and compete in product and technology innovation. Therefore the merger would have eliminated a healthy process of competition." 7. Journalist asking question 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Joaquin Almunia, EU Competition Commissioner: "In the end we had no alternative but to prohibit the merger. To conclude, financial exchanges are the lifeblood of European economy. I'm convinced that in order to serve the real economy well, financial markets must be open, efficient and competitive. Our important ongoing work in financial regulation fully supports this approach. Whatever the regulatory framework, entrenching a monopoly that would likely lead to higher prices and lower innovation is not in the European interest." 9. End of news conference STORYLINE The European Union on Wednesday blocked the Deutsche Boerse's planned merger with NYSE Euronext, a 10 billion (b) US dollar deal that would have created the world's largest financial exchange operator. The European Commission, the EU's executive body, said it was ruling against the merger because the combined exchange would have controlled 90 percent of the trading in European derivatives - complex but highly profitable financial products that allow investors to bet on areas like interest rates or the price of oil. It said that the combined company's dominance of that market would have made it almost impossible for competitors to offer rival trading systems. "If the merger would have been allowed it would have resulted in a quasi-monopoly in exchange traded financial derivatives based on European underlyings where the two companies control more than 90 percent of the global market," the EU's Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said at a news conference. "The merger would have led to the worsening of conditions for companies trying to access financial instruments and would have harmed the European economy as a whole," Almunia added. The Commission's decision deals a blow to Deutsche Boerse AG and NYSE Euronext, which hoped combining their businesses would have allowed them to compete better with other large exchanges in the US and Asia. But it also underlines the profound transformation their businesses - and financial markets as a whole - have undergone over the past decade. Today, the value of outstanding derivatives contracts has surpassed by many times the value of traditional financial products like stocks and bonds. Deutsche Boerse and NYSE Euronext both managed to build highly profitable businesses out of this trend and today own Europe's biggest derivatives exchanges. A push from regulators across the globe to push more derivative trades onto exchanges to make the market more transparent has opened even bigger opportunities for established players. To make the merger acceptable, the Commission wanted the companies to sell either Deutsche Boerse's Eurex or NYSE Euronext's Liffe - something they refused. The Commission's decision did not come as a surprise as last month a competition case team recommended the merger should be blocked, based on the combined company's dominance in the trading of some of the most popular and liquid European derivatives. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 02-01-12 1345EST
STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFING (2000)
The State Dept spokesman James Rubin delivers the briefing to reporters.
CONFERENCE CALL / SENATOR FRIST ON JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) ECONOMIC PLAN AND COMMENTS ON CLARKE / RS 136
[CONFERENCE CALL / SENATOR FRIST ON JOHN KERRY (D-MASS) ECONOMIC PLAN AND COMMENTS ON CLARKE / RS 136] [USA] 15:48:57 KERRY SAYS FOR HELPING US KEEPING JOBS, OPPORTUNITY PROVE IT WED, TOO BUSY TO SHOW UP FOR VOTE. HUGE SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION. DEMOCRATS ARE FILLERBUSTERING. 15:49:27 EXCESSIVE TAXES, HIGH ENERGY BILLS. 15:49:53 KERRY HAS OPPOSED ANY ACTION TO HELP WITH COSTS... TAX BURDENS SIDED WITH SPECIAL INTERESTS AND MANUFACTURERS. 15:50:34 PART OF JOBS BILL, HYPOCRISY, HE HAS VOTED AGAINST COMMITTEE OF RE-PATRIOTISM AND NOW SAYS HE'S FOR IT. 15:51:06 CHRISTMAS TREE FOR TAX LAWYERS AND ACCOUNTANTS... CONVOLUTED, HUGE RULES, FOREIGN OWNERSHIP, PROVISION, HURT BY OUTSOURCING CAN APPLY TO TAX CREDIT. WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT? MANUFACTURING MORE COMPETITIVE, REDUCE TAX RATES, US HAS WORST BUSINESS TAX REGIME NEXT TO JAPAN. LOWER TAX BURDEN. ONLY COUNTRY DOUBLE TAX BUSINESS PROFITS. DON'T PAY TAX AT HOME AS WELL. NOT ONLY PAY TAXES TO IRELAND BUT TO AMERICA. 15:52:49 SO MURKY, TALK TO EXPERTS, NOT TAX BURDEN THAT IS CAUSING OUTSOURCING, LABOR COSTS, MATERIAL COSTS AND BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU WANT TO OPERATE OVERSEAS YOU MUST PUT FACILITY IN COUNTRY OR THEY WILL NOT LET YOU DO BUSINESS THERE. GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS DESTROYING MORE JOBS THAN CREATING THEM. COST ECONOMY AND BUSINESS 230 BILLION. HUGE INCREASES ON SMALL BUSINESSES, 2/3'S OF PEOPLE ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS PROPOSE MAJOR TAX INCREASE, RAISE ON CAPITOL, DIVIDENDS, HURT CREATION OF CAPITAL. JIMMY CARTER TAX PROPOSAL VERY COMPLICATED AND MAKE GOAL ELUSIVE RATHER THAN NEARER. IN TERMS OF OUTSOURCING, KERRY DOESN'T MENTION WE IMPORT MORE JOBS THAN EXPORT. 15:55:34 WONDERING SENATOR FRIST, DECLASSIFICATION OF CLARKE REMARKS WHY SHOULD THESE BE RELEASED 15:56:04 CLARKE'S COMMENTS SHOW THAT HE IS SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS WITH DIFFERENT AUDIENCES AT DIFFERENT TIMES. THE FOX INTERVIEW MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT HE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO WAS 180 DEGREE TURN TO WHAT HE SAID THIS WEEK TO THE 9/11 COMMISSION UNDER OATH. 15:57:30 THE POINT I WAS MAKING TODAY IS THAT HE MADE SIMILAR COMMENTS IN A CLASSIFIED BRIEFING ALLEGEDLY, AND THAT WAS UNDER OATH. AND IF COMMENTS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT SHOULD BE DECLASSIFIED TO DEMONSTRATE THE HYPOCRICY AND JUXTAPOSITION OF REMARKS THAT ARE NOT SIMILAR IN ANY WAY. 15:57:15 I HAVE CERTAINLY NOT ACCUSED HIM OF PERJURY. I BASICALLY AM CALLING FOR THE RELEASE AND DECLASSIFICATION CONSISTENT WITH THAT REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN MADE. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT HE'S TOLD TWO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE CLINTON ADMINSTRTAION AND BUSH ADMINISTRATION -- THAT'S CLEAR. THE ONLY THING I'VE ASKED FOR IS THE DECLASSIFICATION OF THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH, NO ALLEGATION OF PERJURY. 15:58:30 FIRST OF ALL IN TERMS OF HELPING ON ISSUE, YOU DON'T RAISE GAS TAXES, 50 CENT GAS INCREASE, SCUTTLING KYOTO PROPOSAL, TREATY EXPERTS WOULD RAISE GAS BY 65 CENTS AND THAT'S A BUCK A GALLON AND GAS ALREADY AT RECORD HIGHS. SEVERAL THINGS BE DONE, INCREASING PRODUCTION, NOT JUST OVERSEAS BUT HERE AT HOME AND IN ALASKA, COULD BE HUGE THING BUT KERRY WOULDN'T LET EXPLORATION TAKE PLACE. PUSHING TO INCREASE PRODUCTION, VENEZUELA CRISIS, PRESSURE ON OPEC, DON'T PUT IN REGULATIONS THAT WILL INCREASE COST OF ENERGY, COAL MORE EXPENSIVE AS WELL. HIGH COST ENERGY MAN AND THAT'S GOING TO HURT HIM. 16:01:22 I WOULD HURT ECONOMY TAKE OFF SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS SINCE TAX CUT PASSED SINCE MAY, EVEN THOUGH TOOK HIT ADDED 2 TRILLION DOLLARS, INVESTING IN CAPITAL SPENDING, SLOW DOWN COLLAPSE OF BUSINESS SPENDING. COVER VIGOROUSLY, IF YOU TAKE AWAY, RAISE TAXES AS KERRY HAS DONE, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. A LOT OF BUSINESSES ARE CHAPTER S CORPORATIONS. HE'S GOING TO PROPOSE TO INCREASE THOSE TAXES, TAX RICH, PEOPLE MAKING ABOVE 200k ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND THEY ARE JOB CREATORS. IF YOU DO AWAY WITH GAINS PRODUCTION THAT'S GOING TO HURT INVESTMENT SINCE TAX BILL PASSED ECONOMY GROWING AT 4% RATE. NOT A RECEDING, IT'S A DISGUISE WORD FOR INCREASING TAXES. SUB GROWTH RATE. 16:03:49 IT USUALLY HIT A VERY GOOD QUESTION, FOR THOSE TWO SURVEYS THEY GO PANDUM TRAVEL IN PARALLEL DIRECTIONS. DIVERGE FOR A WHILE, CREATION FOR A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES, AND TAKES A WHILE FOR SURVEYORS TO REALIZE WHOLE NEW PART OF ECONOMY, GET A WORK PICTURE OF JOB CREATION. WHO'S WORKING AND WHO ISN'T, IS A MORE ACCURATE MEASURE OF JOB SITUATION, NOT NEARLY AS BLEAK AS OTHER SIDE MAKE IT OUT TO BE, ANOTHER FACT IS THAT WE BRING INSOURCE MORE JOBS THAN OUTSOURCE. 6 1/2 MILLION JOBS, SAMSUNG 5 MILLION JOB IN TEXAS, REMOVING, SOUTH CAROLINA, BMW HAS PLANT. FOCUS BEEN ON OFF SHORING OF JOBS WE'VE COME OUT AHEAD, WE WANT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE LOWER, AND SOME REFORMS PRESIDENT PROPOSED AND REGULARITY REFORM ESPECIALLY LITIGATION REFORM WE'D BE MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE IN CREATING MORE JOBS. 16:06:22 OUTSOURCING GOING ON FOR NUMBER OF YEARS HOW DO WE STRENGTHEN OUR ECONOMY SO JOBS DON'T GET OUTSOURCED OR DISAPPEAR IN US. LOT OF THINGS TO BE DONE, WE HAVE SECTOR THAT HAS WORST CORPORATE TAX RATES, BUSINESSES 12.5%, WE ARE AT 40% THAT'S A HURTFUL THING, KERRY PROPOSES ONE YEAR HOLIDAY IF YOU REPATRIOT... 10% GOOD FOR ONE YEAR WHY NOT MAKE IT PERMANENT. NOT WHAT HE IS PROPOSING, EMPHASIZE PERSON HURT BY OUTSOURCING. TAX CREDITS AND BREAKS, TAKE A CALL FROM UNITED STATES BAD, BE HORRENDOUS AND PERVERSELY DO IS GIVE INCENTIVES TO PARTNERSHIPS SO THEY ESCAPE.. DESTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL, I THINK WE SHOULD DO A BIGGER ONE.
MARTIN LUTHER KING DENOUNCES THE VIETNAM WAR
NOTE: B&W FILM - NOT COLOR Part 2 Transcripts below ORIG. COLOR 1200 SOF. MAG. CU CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING SPEAKS " WE HAVE BEEN WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING IN VIETNAM. WE HAVE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE LIFE OF THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE. " HE STATES HIS PROGRAM FOR ENDING THE WAR, END ALL BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM, ETC. HE RECOMMENDS THAT DRAFT AGE MEN WHO OPPOSE THE WAR ON MORAL GROUNDS SHOULD SEEK CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS AND THAT DRAFT AGE MINISTERS SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR MINISTERAL EXEMPTIONS AND SEEK STATUS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. SAYS WE ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF A WORLD SIDE REVOLUTION WHICH PRODUCES BEGGARS NEEDS RESTRUCTURING. HE TELLS OF INJUSTICES PERPERTRATED BY THE US ON THE WORLD. HE ATTACKS THE POLICY OF CONTINUING TO INCREASE THE DEFENSE BUDGET. " WE MUST NOT ENGAGE IN A NEGATIVE ANTI-COMMUNISM BUT RATHER IN A POSITIVE THIRST FOR DEMOCRACY. " CI: PERSONALITIES - KING, MARTIN LUTHER. PART 2 The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam. Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation. Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos. Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government. Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement. Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Protesting The War Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible. As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest. There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God. In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood. This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops. The People Are Important These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain." A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history. As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated: Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side; Some great cause, God's new Messiah, Off'ring each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever Twixt that darkness and that light. Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong; Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong: Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow Keeping watch above his own.
PRINCE WILLIAM AT THE WORLD BANK - SPEECH
The Duke of Cambridge, Prince William ttends the International Corruption Hunters Alliance conference. The Duke`s speech will focus on corruption surrounding the illegal wildlife trade. After the Duke`s speech your pool crew (camera only) will be escorted to a separate room within the WB to shoot a very quick spray of a lunch discussing the transportation across borders of illegal wildlife parts. **Note: He will arrive with Mr. William Hague, First Secretary of State, and be greeted by President of the World Bank, Dr. Jim Yong Kim. Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge, remarks at the World Bank DC Slug: 1200 PRINCE WILLIAM WORLD BANK RS35 75 AR: 16x9 Disc #355 NYRS: WASH6 (4551/5101) 12:15:41 PRINCE WILLIAM, DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: Dr. Kim, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your extremely warm welcome on this, my first visit to Washington. I'm grateful for the opportunity to talk to you about a subject very close to my heart: the illegal wildlife trade. The World Bank is a fitting place to make this speech, founded as it was not only on expertise, but on ideals. Seventy years ago, at its birth, it was a bank for a war-shocked world, needed to reconstruct the shattered economies of Europe and so prevent future conflicts. But even then the World Bank had a wider purpose - to raise living standards everywhere and, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, to make the resources of the world more fully available to all mankind. That task of worldwide development remains a noble ideal and a vital service to humanity. 12:16:37 As you know, huge progress has been made. In our lifetimes, millions of people will have lifted themselves out of poverty. But stubborn impediments to development remain, of which corruption is one of the most persistent and damaging. Tomorrow is U.N. Anti-Corruption Day, and I pay tribute to the courageous individuals who labor against corruption worldwide, often risking their jobs and even their lives. At its heart, all corruption is an abuse of power, the pursuit of money or influence at the expense of society as a whole. Worst of all, it weighs most heavily upon the world's poorest and most powerless people. It deepens their hardship, stifles opportunity, distorts justice and undermines development. Where corrupt hands tear down faster than clean hands can build, escaping from the (traffic policy ?) or conflict is much more difficult. In my view, one of the most insidious forms of corruption and criminality in the world today is illegal wildlife trade. Here, criminal gangs turn vast profits from the illegal killing or capture of wildlife, armed groups and terrorists swap poached ivory for guns, and middlemen oil the wheels of the trade in return for reward. Together they loot our planet to feed mankind's ignorant craving for exotic pets, trinkets, cures and ornaments derived from the world's vanishing and irreplaceable species. 12:18:21 I was inspired by my grandfather and my father, who have championed international conservation for over 50 years. They helped to bring about a revolution in attitudes towards our natural environment. From them, I learned that our relation to nature and wildlife goes to the heart of our identity as human beings, from our sheer survival to our appreciation of beauty and our connection to all other living things. Seen in this light, the extinction of any the world's species of animals is a loss to all humanity, but furthermore, wildlife crime goes to the heart of our security. It recognizes neither national borders nor national interests. It distorts economic development, undermines the rule of law and fuels sources of conflict. Unchecked, it can be a factor in the spread of infectious diseases, with a devastating toll. Illegal trade threatens to wipe the natural endowment for the affected nations by depriving future generations of their heritage and of their right to develop those resources in legitimate ways. Indeed, it suits traffickers that areas rich in natural resources remain underdeveloped or conflict-ridden, so they can go on plundering without restriction. 12:19:50 Ladies and gentlemen, it is wrong that children growing up in countries vulnerable to wildlife crime are losing their birthright in order to fuel the greed of international criminals and that those children will face greater hardship and insecurity as this crime traps them in poverty, for within the last decade, them in poverty, for within the last decade the illegal wildlife trade has mutated from low-level opportunistic crime to large-scale activity by international criminal networks. The trade is only exceeded in value by the illegal market for drugs, arms and trafficked human beings, and generates as much as $20 billion a year in illegal profits, profits which are used to fund organized criminal networks and non-state armed groups. I don't need to tell you that this holds alarming implications for our global security as, sadly, this trade is on the rise. 12:20:50 According to Interpol, recent seizures of illegal wildlife products are the largest ever seen. In 2011, the 17 largest seizures by customs officials netted a staggering 27,000 kilograms of ivory, equivalent to the tusks of at least 3,000 elephants. As these figures suggest, traffickers are taking advantage of globalization, hiding within the huge flows of goods across borders and exploiting technology, from helicopters and precision weapons to the borderless markets of the Internet. As wildlife crime has become more organized and more sophisticated, requiring specialized skills, it has become even more brutal. More than a thousand rangers have been killed over the last 10 years. That is, on average, two rangers dying every week for a decade. As rare animal populations are shrinking, demand is surging, with the perverse effect of making trafficked wildlife more valuable. Some endangered species are now literally worth more than their weight in gold, which makes it even harder for governments and international bodies to counter this trade. For example, according to some reports, in China and Southeast Asia, the wholesale street price of ivory has increased from $5 to $2,100 per kilogram in 25 years. And this is reflected in increases in poaching. In South Africa, the number of rhinos killed by poachers in 2007 was 13. In 2012, it was more than 600. In 2013, more than 20,000 elephants were killed on the African continent. With numbers poached now exceeding the rates of birth, there are now only 3,200 tigers left in the wild. I could go on. 12:22:52 The cumulative effect of wildlife crime is shocking. The abundance of the world's species has decreased by almost a third over the last 100 years. This hugely impoverishes all of us. We need new efforts to drive wildlife trafficking from our lands, our seas and our skies, and time is not on our side. Over the last two years, through the Royal Foundation, we have brought together seven of the world's preeminent conservation organizations into a new collaboration entitled United for Wildlife, of which I am very proud to be president. We work alongside others in a wide range of areas, from the protection of endangered species through anti-poaching programs to projects to reduce demand for wildlife products, efforts to strengthen legal systems and support for local communities. But increasingly, our work has highlighted the desperate need for international cooperation to combat trafficking itself. Last year the Royal Foundation commissioned a report from the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC. It showed that even though national law enforcement is improving and shipments are being seized, loopholes and shifting trade patterns mean that the volume of the trade has not diminished substantially. 12:24:17 The report brought to life the hidden roots and means of wildlife trafficking, from small-scale smuggling in suitcases to vast shipments by plane or container freight companies. It reveals that private sector actors are often ignorant of the role they play in the trade chain. A rhino tusk sawn off in East Africa ends up in the hands of consumers thousands of miles away in Europe, America or Asia, often having crossed multiple borders without the knowledge of those transporting them. If we are to crack down on wildlife crime, this trade must be stifled. So I'm very pleased to say that under the auspices of United Wildlife, a taskforce is to be formed specifically designed to work with the transport industry, from airlines to shipping lines, to examine its role in illegal wildlife trade and identify means by which the sector can break the chain between supplies and consumers. The taskforce will bring together key partners and representatives of the transport sector, underpinned by expert legal advice. It will draw together existing evidence and information about the illegal wildlife trade, identify gaps in knowledge and commission research to plug those gaps. The taskforce will call on companies to implement a zero-tolerance policy towards the trade. Criminals are able to exploit weak and corrupt standards, so we must raise those standards collectively. I'm delighted that William Hague, the former British foreign secretary and chair of the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade held earlier this year, is here today and has agreed to chair an international task force. 12:26:07 Within a year, the task force will work for the transport industry to develop recommendations for how it can play its part for shutting down wildlife trafficking trade routes, with the sole intention that the implementation of these recommendations will lead to a tangible and significant reduction in illegal wildlife trade. Cooperation is our greatest weapon against the poachers and traffickers who rely on evading individual national initiatives. By taking a truly international approach, we can get one step ahead of them. Our collective goal must be to reduce the wildlife trade by making it harder, denying traffickers access to transportation, putting up barriers to their legal activities and holding people accountable for their actions. Those who look the other way or spend the illicit proceeds of these crimes must be held to account. 12:27:04 Some people may say that this is impossibly difficult task. It is true that like any organized crime, the illegal wildlife trade is a many-headed hydra. Tackling it will be complex challenge. But complexity brings out the best in human ingenuity. Here in America, for example, is the groundbreaking Fish and Wildlife Service Forensics Laboratory, the world's only science lab devoted to crimes against wildlife, capable of extracting DNA from trafficked goods, which can be used to trace the traffickers. Another highly commendable example is in China, where the government, working in partnership with local NGOs, is successfully curbing the trade in shark fins. There is also great potential in the application of data analytics to model and predict trade flows. Furthermore, recent research on behalf of Born Free USA shows there is a relative concentration of transit points along the supply chain from African to Asian consumer markets. 12:28:12 The bulk of the trade many involve as few as 100 to 200 shipping containers a year, 10 chokepoint trans-shipment ports and three airports. If we can identify those transit points, enforce regulation and cooperate with the private sector, then we can begin to clamp down on the illegal wildlife trafficking. Some members of the private sector are already leading the way, and New Zealand recently set an important precedent on the transport of wildlife parts by banning the carriage of all shark fins on its planes, whether or not it was legally obtained. Many other airlines followed their lead. And although this is perhaps a simpler ban to implement, as all shark fins require a permit, it does demonstrate the powerful role the private sector can plan in interruption of supply chain if they chose to do so. In criminal justice, Interpol recently issued a list of nine fugitives most wanted for environmental crime, spearheading a stronger institutional response to wildlife crime. The task force will build on these positive developments to encourage global action to shatter the illegal wildlife trade. As we consider the growing threat to wildlife, the corrosive impacts of the trade on human dignity and development worldwide, and all the means we have at our disposal to combat it, we should be utterly determined to see this go through to success. 12:29:43 You are all experts and senior policymakers in this field, and today I make a plea for your support. I am determined not to let the world's children grow up on a planet where our most iconic and endangered species have been wiped out, impoverishing us all. I hope you will join me. Thank you. (Applause.)
Senate Judiciary Hearing on oil related court decisions 1000-1100
Hearing - Oil related court decisions Senate judiciary committee hearing with christopher jones, whose brother was killed on the deepwater horizon, a professor and a lawyer. 10:06:38 LEAHY good morning. 10:07:07 LEAHY statement *10:07:54 LEAHY if criminal conduct occurred, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law *10:08:08 LEAHY cannot let oil companies play roulette with our economic resources. 10:10:33 LEAHY noone's life should become an asterisk in a company's cost analysis *10:11:36 LEAHY congress should update Limit of Liability Act 10:11:49 LEAHY that law was passed in 1851 *10:12:13 LEAHY they want their liability limited to the value of a piece of junk lying at the bottom of the ocean. That is perverse. 10:14:34 LEAHY BP's conduct has damaged the lives and livelihoods of so many *10:14:47 LEAHY if BP can spend millions of dollars saying how wonderful they are, they can spend more to fix the suffering 10:15:56 SESSIONS statement 10:18:49 BP - they are the responsible party 10:22:22 appropriate evaluation of possible criminal activity should be conducted, but in a responsible way 10:22:47 need to be careful (about moratorium) 10:23:02 moratorium will clearly have negative impact on jobs 10:24:28 offshore drilling in Gulf provides 30 percent of america's energy production 10:25:52 WHITEHOUSE statement 10:26:59 I long suspect MMS had been captured by oil industry *10:29:32 raise penalties 10:29:45 exxon court believed predictably for coporations was more important than misconduct Christopher Jones Baton Rouge, LA Jack Coleman Managing Partner EnergyNorthAmerica, LLC Washington, DC Tom Galligan President and Professor of Humanities Colby Sawyer College New London, NH CHRIS JONES statement 10:31:43 Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and other members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to tell you how this disaster has affected the lives of my family and the lives of the many other families impacted by this tragedy. My name is Chris Jones. Seated behind me is my father, Keith Jones. Gordon is my only brother. Gordon is survived by his wife, Michelle, and two sons, Stafford and Max. Stafford is 2 and Max was born three weeks ago. Gordon is also survived by a mother, sister, in-laws and other family members, and many friends who miss him very much. Words cannot describe what Gordon meant to this family. 10:32:15 I appear before you as a representative of only one family affected by this accident. Unfortunately, there are many more. At a recent memorial event for the eleven men who died aboard the Deepwater Horizon I spoke with some of the other family members. Although we never met before this disaster, I want those other family members to know that we grieve for them and are committed to telling our story so we can try and correct the inequities in the law and so no one else will find themselves in this situation in the future. 10:32:44 Of course, you are aware that Gordon died aboard the Transocean Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig. He was employed by M-I Swaco, a contractor for BP hired to provide mud engineering services aboard the rig. He had worked aboard that rig for the past two years and was excelling in his profession. As many rig workers do, Gordon expected to spend his time on the rig, gain experience and continue to advance with his company. He never got that opportunity. 10:33:19 This is a picture of the fort Gordon built, with Stafford's help, for Stafford and Max. It sits in the middle of the backyard of their home. Although you may not be able to tell, it is not finished. 10:33:32 Gordon planned to finish it when he returned home. He will never get that chance. 10:33:41 Certainly, others will step in to make sure it is finished and try to fill the tremendous void left by Gordon's death. But this is yet another example of an incomplete life and what has been lost. I am at least comforted that it will be finished, and Stafford and Max will enjoy it for years to come and know their father built it for them. 10:34:04 The next picture is taken shortly after Max's birth. Notably absent is Gordon, whose presence in the delivery room was limited to a single family photograph. 10:34:22 Lastly, I show you possibly the last picture taken of Gordon before his death. It is taken just after Gordon gave Stafford his first golf lesson, an experience Gordon thoroughly enjoyed. You can see the joy in their faces. I am saddened that neither will experience this same joy again. 10:34:46 I want to take this opportunity to address recent remarks made by Tony Heyward, CEO of BP. In particular, he publicly stated he wants his life back. **10:34:58 Well, Mr. Heyward, I want my brother's life back. And I know the families of the other ten men want their lives back. We will never get Gordon's life back and his wife will live a life without a husband and her two children a life without a father. 10:35:28 At the top of that building is the phrase "Equal Justice Under Law." As a United States citizen, and as a lawyer, I agree with that principle. Unfortunately, it does not exist in the cases of deaths occurring in federal waters. 10:35:40 This is not a phrase that applies to Michelle, Stafford and Max in this instance. I do not make this request only for my family, or the families of the other 10 men. Rather, I make it also for any families who could find themselves in our same position, and who will quickly learn that our current laws do not protect those who need it most. I want to be very specific. 10:36:08 We are asking you to amend DOHSA to allow for the recovery of non-pecuniary damages. Currently, Michelle, Stafford and Max can only recover pecuniary damages, comprised of Gordon's future lost wages minus income taxes and what Gordon would have consumed himself. Stafford and Max will never play in the Father/Son golf tournament at the local golf course with their Dad. Likewise, Michelle will never again experience a quiet dinner at home after a hard day with her true love. She will also never celebrate another wedding anniversary. Gordon and Michelle were looking forward to celebrating their next one on April 23 , three days after this accident. rd Most recently, Michelle did not have Gordon there to comfort her in the delivery room and tell her how much he loves her and the beautiful baby we now call Maxwell Gordon. 10:37:04 These are all experiences, among many, many others, for which there is no compensation under the current law for maritime victims. The overwhelming impression I have gotten from the parties responsible for Gordon's death, besides that no one wants to take responsibility for it, is that they are immunized by the current law. Under the current law there is a finite, maximum amount that Michelle and her boys can recover, and nothing more. Think of it as a drastic liability cap. 10:37:33 While some, but certainly not all, of these same parties express their sympathies, and claim to want to do the "right thing," they can also hide behind the law and say they are protected from doing any more. 10:37:43 There is, of course, an exception for recovery of non-pecuniary damages under DOHSA. After a tragic plane crash that occurred in federal waters in 1996, this Congress passed a retroactive amendment to DOHSA to allow for the recovery of non-pecuniary damages. 10:37:54 Currently, while victims of airline accidents are allowed recovery of these damages, victims of all other accidents occurring in federal waters are not, including aboard cruise ships, ferry boats, and in this instance, oil rigs where hard working men make their living to support their families. 10:38:16 During this past month and a half I have gained tremendous perspective on things. Certain things that I thought were important before April 20th are just not important any more. This is important. This is important to Michelle, Stafford and Max, and all the other families affected by this tragic event. 10:38:37 You have an opportunity to make this right and provide some comfort to the families who loved these men. Thank you, my father and I are more than happy to answer any questions you may have. 10:39:31 COLEMAN statement 10:43:19 this well belongs to the American people, the bounty cannot be made available to American people - **all energy needs for 25 years** ?? 10:46:09 I would encourage committee to take into consideration when evaluating changes 10:46:59 GALLIGAN statement 10:53:02 LEAHY questions 10:54:05 JONES if it remains in effect, these companies want to go get economist, calculate his earnings. *logical reason it should be different on sea or land?* 10:55:10 JONES absolutely not 10:56:22 JONES they want to pay what theyre obligated to under the law. They want to pay it and move on. 10:56:44 JONES under DOHSA - only have to pay for funeral expenses?? *transocean* *doubt in mind BP should have done more to protect?* 10:58:29 JONES im shocked at their profits. Billions of dollars. 10:58:50 JONES mind boggling how they could throw up their hands and say they don't have resources to prevent it 10:59:42 SESSIONS questions
HILLARY CLINTON REMARKS AT NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS NEW YORK NY 072415 / HD
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON REMARKS IN NEW YORK CITY AT THE NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Per her campaign, will address "shifting corporate culture to achieve long-term economic growth and lasting prosperity." TWO CAMERA ANGLES OF HER REMARKS INCLUDING FNC UNILATERAL VERSION BECAUSE OF ZOOM ISSUE DESCRIBED BELOW; Our FNC camera that was there doing our reporter liveshots shot a unilateral version of the speech so we can feed out the first 15 min of the speech on the space and private DA since there was the digital zoom issue "Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Hi. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. I want to tell you it's wonderful being back here at NYU and I thank you all for joining me today. Especially my good friend and former colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. Thank you so much Carolyn for coming. I am grateful for this opportunity to share some of my further thoughts about our economy and the work that our country needs to do in the years ahead. "First I want to say a word about what's in the news today. It's because there have been a lot of inaccuracies, as Congressman Cummings made clear this morning. Maybe the heat is getting to everybody. We all have a responsibility to get this right. I have released 55,000 pages of emails. I have said repeatedly that I will answer questions before the House committee. We are all accountable to the American people to get the facts right and I will do my part. But I'm also going to stay focused on the issues, particularly the big issues that really matter to American families. "Over the past few months, I've had the pleasure of meeting young people all over our country. Many came of age in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the deep recession that it caused. The fallout from that crash has tempered their expectations for the future and left them clear-eyed about the challenges ahead - the challenges they face and that America faces. "Yet, like generations of Americans before them, there is also undimmed optimism. "Today's young people are preparing to enter an economy they know will be competitive, not just at home but globally. They're thinking about how they'll find a good job after graduation that can help them get ahead and stay ahead. The risk of a setback, or, potentially, another crisis, is never far from their minds. But what inspires me is that they are undaunted by these challenges. They're seeking real opportunities and real rewards for the work that they put in. And they're hopeful that tomorrow will indeed be better than today. "I hear these stories everywhere I go. The hard work, grit, and sacrifices of people across our country that have brought us back and driven our recovery. So yes, now we're standing again, but we're not yet running the way America should. "No country is better positioned to thrive in today's global economy. We have the most innovative, enterprising private sector and most talented workers anywhere in the world. "Yet while corporate profits are at near-record highs, paychecks for most people have barely budged in real terms. "And out-of-pocket costs of everything from health care to prescription drugs to childcare, to college, to caring for aging parents are all rising a lot faster than wages. That then is putting a lot of pressure, enormous pressure on families and their budgets. "My mission from my first day as President to the last will be to raise the incomes of hard-working Americans- so they can, once again, afford a middle-class life. We need to end the wage stagnation that's holding back our families and holding back our country. "This is the defining economic challenge not only of this election, but of our time. It gets to the core of who we are as a nation - the basic bargain of America: "If you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And when you get ahead, our country gets ahead too. "Last week at the New School, I laid out a broad economic agenda to raise incomes and build an economy that works for everyone, not just those already at the top. It's an agenda for strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. "In the days ahead, I will continue outlining plans in all these areas, from setting ambitious goals for new infrastructure and clean energy investments, to reining in excessive risk on Wall Street. "Today, I want to focus in particular on long-term growth. "Consider this fact: "A survey of corporate executives found that more than half would hold off making a successful long-term investment if it meant missing a target in the next quarterly earnings report. "In another recent survey, more than 60 percent said the pressure to provide short-term returns had increased over the previous five years. "We also know that publicly-held companies facing pressure from shareholders are less likely to invest in growth opportunities than their privately-held counterparts. "Large public companies now return eight or nine out of every ten dollars they earn directly back to shareholders, either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks, which can temporarily boost share prices. Last year, the total reached a record $900 billion. That doesn't leave much money to build a new factory or a research lab, or to train workers, or to give them a raise. "In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, between 2003 and 2013, while typical companies in the S&P 500 doubled the share of cash flow they spent on dividends and stock buybacks, they actually cut capital expenditures on things like new plants and equipment. "As the founder of the investment management company Vanguard put it, "A culture of short-term speculation has run rampant." "One other concerned business leader calls it "quarterly capitalism." "Now, I understand that most CEOs are simply responding to very real pressures from shareholders and the market to turn in good quarterly numbers. And investors are always looking for strong, reliable returns. "But it is clear that the system is out of balance - the deck is stacked in too many ways - and powerful pressures and incentives are pushing it even further out of balance. "Quarterly capitalism as developed over recent decades is neither legally required nor economically sound. It's bad for business, bad for wages, and bad for our economy. "And fixing it will be good for everyone. "An increasing number of business leaders, investors, and academics are mobilizing to change the culture of boardrooms, classrooms, and trading floors and to better align incentives for long-term growth. For the sake of our economy and our country, we need to stand with them. "Innovators like Google and SpaceX are investing in research that does little for today's bottom line but may yield transformational benefits down the line. "Venture capitalists are patiently nurturing the next disruptive innovator. "The Big Three automakers - GM, Ford, and Chrysler - are putting the memory of the crisis behind them and making new investments in factories and technologies of the future, including advanced batteries. "Companies like Trader Joe's and QuikTrip that have prospered by investing in workers, increasing wages, and improving training are becoming industry models. "And large employers like Target and Starbucks have recently raised wages for entry-level workers - and, thanks to pressure from workers, the trend has even extended to McDonald's and Walmart. "Now you may have heard that I am a fan of Chipotle. And it's not just because of their burrito bowl. Last month, the company announced it would provide paid sick days, paid vacation time, and tuition reimbursements to its part-time employees. "These are all smart long-term investments that will and do pay off for companies, workers, and our society. "And they point to an important question for the future of our economy: How do we define shareholder value in the 21st century? "Is it maximizing immediate returns or delivering long-term growth? Of course we want to do both. But today, too often the former comes at the expense of the latter. "Real value is lasting value. We all know that in our own lives. I learned it watching my father sweat over the printing table in his small fabric shop in Chicago. He scrimped and saved to build that business and provide for our family's future. "It wasn't good enough to be secure for today. What mattered was tomorrow. "And what's true in life is also true in business. Real value comes from long-term growth, not short-term profits. It comes from building companies, not stripping them; from creating good jobs, not eliminating them; from seeing workers as assets to cultivate, not costs to be cut. "American business needs to break free from the tyranny of today's earning report so they can do what they do best: innovate, invest, and build tomorrow's prosperity. "It's time to start measuring value in terms of years, or the next decade, not just the next quarter. "That is one of the ways we can raise incomes, help families get ahead, and deliver real value for shareholders. "Now, there's no single cause of quarterly capitalism, and therefore no single solution. But there are smart, specific reforms that can be made by both the private and the public sectors that would better align market incentives for long-term growth. Reforms that many forward thinking business leaders themselves have been calling for. "I'll mention five areas of focus today, but this list should be the beginning of the discussion, not the end. "First, I am proposing a reform of taxes on capital gains - the profits earned by the sale of stock and other assets - to promote and reward farsighted investments. "The current definition of a long-term holding period - just one year -- is woefully inadequate. That may count as "long term" for my baby granddaughter, but not for the American economy. It's no way to run a tax system. "So as President, I would move to a six-year sliding scale that provides real incentives for long-term investments. "For taxpayers in the top bracket - families earning more than $465,000 a year - any gains from selling stock in the first two years would be taxed just like ordinary income. Then the rate would decrease each year until it returns to the current rate. "This means that from the moment investors buy into a company, they'll be more focused on its future growth strategy, than its immediate profits - and so will some executives who are paid in part with stock or stock options. "I will also be looking at ways to address very short-term trading, whether it's conducted over days, hours, or even milliseconds. "And we should offer the chance to eliminate capital gains taxes altogether for certain long-term investments in small businesses, including innovative start-ups, and hard-hit communities, from inner-cities to the Rust Belt to coal country to Indian country. This should go hand-in-hand with a revitalized and expanded New Market Tax Credit, which also encourages investment in poor or remote communities and helps prevent downward spirals after economic disruptions like plant closings or layoffs. "I want to see more investors helping unlock the potential of the family business that's struggling to get back on its feet. Or the start-up that's on the verge of making it big. Or the community that lost the factory where generations of families worked but now is eager to build a new future. That's long-term growth at its best. "Now of course, I understand that these changes to the tax code alone will not shift investors' focus from short-term to long-term overnight. But I believe this reform is an important first step toward removing some of the incentives that push us toward quarterly capitalism. "And this will all be part of a broader reform of both individual and corporate taxes that I will be discussing later in the campaign. Last week, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and implementing the Buffett Rule, which would make sure millionaires don't pay lower rates than their secretaries. "And in the months ahead, I'll address other inequities and loopholes that distort business decisions and rig our tax code for those at the top. "The second area where action is needed is to address the influence of increasingly assertive shareholders determined to extract maximum profit in the minimum amount of time- even at the expense of future growth. "Now, so-called "activist shareholders" can have a positive influence on companies. It's a good thing when investors put pressure on management to stay nimble and accountable, or press for social and environmental progress. "But that's very different from these "hit and run" activists whose goal is to force an immediate pay out - no matter how much it discourages and distracts management from pursuing strategies that would add the most long-term value for the company. "Even iconic businesses like Apple, or Procter & Gamble, or Dow Chemical have felt this pressure. "So we need a new generation of committed long-term investors to provide a counter-weight to the hit-and-run activists. "Now some institutional investors already are beginning to push back. We need more pension funds and proxy advisory firms to do so as well. Institutional investors control 70 percent of the shares in the largest 1,000 U.S. companies. They have unmatched influence, and therefore an unmatched obligation to guide companies toward strategies and metrics focused on long-term value. "There are things government should do as well. "As President, I would order a full review of regulations on shareholder activism, some of which haven't been reexamined in decades, let alone modernized to reflect changing realities in our economy. "We also have to take a hard look at stock buybacks. Investors and regulators alike need more information about these transactions. Capital markets work best when information is promptly and widely available to all. "Other advanced economies - like the United Kingdom and Hong Kong - require companies to disclose stock buybacks within one day. But here in the United States, you can go an entire quarter without disclosing. So let's change that. "And buybacks lead directly to the third area of focus: reforming executive compensation. "We cannot address the challenge of quarterly capitalism without making sure that incentives for CEOs and other executives are more focused on the long-term growth and strength of the companies they run and less on the short-term fluctuations in its share price. "Now I am all for rewarding CEOs well when their companies prosper and their employees also share in the rewards. But there is something wrong when senior executives get rich while companies stutter and employees struggle. There's something wrong when corporate boards allow exorbitant pay packages that aren't based on credible assessments of executive performance or a company's long-term interests. "Thirty years ago, top CEO's made 50 times what a typical worker did. Today they make 300 times more. That just doesn't make sense. Previous generations of executives were just as talented and hard-working, and they managed to get by with much more reasonable compensation. So have CEOs in other countries. It would be good for our economy and for our country if we get back to compensating all employees when productivity and profits increase, not just those at the top. "Now in the 1990s, there was an effort to tie executive compensation to company performance, including through the use of stock options. "But many stock-heavy pay packages have created a perverse incentive for executives to seek the big payouts that could come from a temporary rise in share price. And we ended up encouraging some of the same short-term thinking we meant to discourage. "In addition, while the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation passed in 2010 called for new regulations regarding disclosure of executive compensation, many rules have yet to be put in place. "That includes a requirement to publish the ratio between CEO pay and the paychecks of everyday employees. There is no excuse for taking five years to get this done. Workers have a right to know whether executive pay at their company has gotten out of balance - and so does the public. "Now we need to take several steps here. "Defend the Dodd-Frank Act from Republican attacks and finally get the promised rules on the books. "Reform the performance-based tax deductions for top executives. "Expand disclosure requirements under the "say-on-pay" rule to include an explanation of how executive compensation will promote the long-term health of the company. "Now, a crucial fourth area for reform is how we empower workers and make sure they're seen as the engines of growth that they are. "Research shows that well-paid and well-trained employees tend to work more efficiently, stay on the job longer, and provide better customer service. But those rewards can be harder to measure than the immediate cost of payroll and training. So under the pressure of quarterly capitalism, they're often squandered. "Employer-funded job training has fallen by more than one-third in the past two decades, even as the premium on skilled workers has increased in a competitive global economy. And even where training programs do exist, too few are focused on providing broadly applicable sectoral skills. "The decline of unions and worker bargaining power has led to a decline in worker voices in long-term decision-making at many companies. And it's no surprise that we've seen corporate investment in human capital decline as well. I think we need to start trying to reverse all of these trends. "As President, I will fight to defend workers' rights and encourage more companies to invest in their employees. "In this campaign I've already proposed a $1,500 dollar apprenticeship tax credit for every new worker that businesses train and hire, as well as a plan to encourage more companies to offer generous profit sharing programs. "I've also called for raising the minimum wage and implementing President Obama's new rules on overtime. "And let me add, I agree with New York's proposal this week to raise wages for fast food workers to $15 an hour. The national minimum wage is a floor and it needs to be raised. "But let's also remember that the cost of living in Manhattan is different than in Little Rock and many other places. So New York or Los Angeles or Seattle are right to go higher. "Now if we're going to ask the private sector to invest in the long-term, let's all face up to the fact that Washington may well be the worst offender of all when it comes to short-term thinking. And this is the fifth area of reform that is desperately needed. "It's time to end the era of budget brinksmanship in Congress and stop careening from one self-inflicted crisis to another. That just creates more uncertainty for business, for investors, and for our country. "You know I've been asking a lot of business leaders with whom I have talked, 'What are a couple of things you would love to see happen?' And almost to a person, they always say, 'We need more predictability. We have no idea what's going to come out of Washington. We can deal with whatever does - but when we don't know, when it doesn't come, when there are stalemates, when there are government shutdowns - that interferes with our business and particularly with our global business.' Which is kind of an obvious thing to say, but I hope people in Washington will pay attention. "And let's stop pouring subsidies into industries that are already thriving - like the giveaways in the tax code to the oil companies - and start investing in the future to create millions of more new jobs in the new economy. "We should be making smart investments in infrastructure, innovation, education, and clean energy that will help businesses and entrepreneurs grow and create the next generation of high-paying jobs. And we know the investments that would be made in these areas have very high returns. There's no excuse not to make them - and to make them now. "For example, we should improve and make permanent the Research and Experimentation tax credit. Every few years Congress has another squabble over whether to renew this credit. They've done it 16 times in the past thirty-five years. Isn't it time we stopped kicking the can down the road and actually got down to doing the people's business? "And as important as the specific reforms I've outlined here are, the truth is that the fight against quarterly capitalism cannot be won in Washington alone. The private sector has to rise to this challenge. We're already seeing a movement for change taking shape. Investors, executives, and employees are all starting to step up. Union leaders are investing their own pension funds in putting people to work to build tomorrow's clean energy economy - and they earn good returns doing that. "We need to build on this momentum. It's time to return to an old fashioned idea: that companies' responsibility to their shareholders also encompasses a responsibility to employees, customers, communities, and ultimately to our country and, yes, our planet. The strength and legitimacy of American capitalism have always depended on its ability to create opportunities for hard-working families to get ahead, generation after generation. We can't lose sight of that. "I'm pleased that since 2010, thirty-one states have enacted legislation authorizing so-called "benefit" corporations, which allow companies to pursue both profit and social purpose. Senator Mark Warner has suggested that we recognize a new corporate form and reward companies that invest in their workers. That proposal has real merit and we should explore it further. "What's good for middle class families also happens to be good economics. We know that strong, sustainable growth can only happen when communities are thriving and workers are well paid. "And after all our economy is a 70% consumption economy. It's that old Henry Ford story, when he decided he was going to be paying his workers, as I recall, the princely sum of $5 a day and a lot of his peers really rose up in opposition: 'How can you do this? You're going to throw off the labor market. You're setting a bad example.' And his response was, 'I'm building these cars, I need people to buy them.' "Well our economy is not yet running the way it should in large measure because we're not putting enough money in the paychecks of enough Americans so that they in turn can be fueling this consumption economy, which not only holds up the American economy, but holds up the global economy. "It's in everyone's interest - including Corporate America's - to contribute to a vibrant middle class and rising incomes. "Now as President, I won't try to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. But I will use the power, the convening power of the office to bring all relevant parties together to help move our corporate culture toward solid long-term growth and investment. "Just imagine how different our history would have been if short-termism had dominated earlier eras the way it does today. "What if an activist hedge fund had persuaded AT&T to maximize cash flow and close Bell Labs before the transistor or the laser was invented there? "What if Xerox had decided that its Palo Alto research park wasn't doing enough to boost share prices in the short term. A young Steve Jobs would never have visited and the personal computer revolution might not have happened. "What if Congressional budget cuts had shut down DARPA - the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - before it developed the early Internet? "Today, we face a choice - between the future and the past. "The Republicans running for President seem totally unconcerned about the problem of quarterly capitalism. In fact, their policies would make it worse. Most would eliminate capital gains taxes for wealthy investors with no incentives for long-term holding. They'd wipe out the new rules on Wall Street imposed after the crisis. And, of course, they'd further strip worker rights and weaken bargaining power. "Indeed, their approach to government mirrors the worst tendencies of hit and run shareholders, demanding quick payouts in the form of tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of investing in the future. They ignore long-term challenges like climate change, poverty and inequality, failing infrastructure. Just look at the current mess in Congress with the highway bill. "We can't afford to return to the same out-of-touch, out-of-date policies that wrecked our economy before. "We have to work together to drive strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. "That's the only way we will renew the basic bargain of America. You know it: if you work hard, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And when you do, America gets ahead too. "It's the only way we're going to build an American economy for tomorrow, not yesterday. "I invite you to join me in this discussion. I'm looking for new creative, innovative, disruptive ideas that will save capitalism for the 21st century because it is the greatest engine of economic opportunity and potential that has ever been invented. It's one of the great accomplishments of the American political and economic history. It created the opportunities that so many generations of Americans took advantage of and that led to the middle class - the extraordinary economic accomplishment of our country. "And as we've had to do in previous eras, it needs to be reinvented. It needs to be put back into balance. It needs to recognize that we really are all in this together - and the better we all do, the more there will be for everybody: to share in, to invest in, to profit from. "So I ask you, and particularly here at Stern - the students and the faculty and others who are studying business - help us think through the best ways to change the culture, to move it back to where it used to be, which was much more focused on long-term investing, with the results of the extraordinary prosperity that we enjoyed for decades. "We have new challenges from technology and globalization and other big problems on the horizon - like climate change, for example - but that is what we are best at doing in this country. We are problem solvers, not problem deniers. We roll up our sleeves, we get to work, and we keep moving forward. It is always all about tomorrow. "Love that song, 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.' "So help me think about it and let's make it happen. Thank you all very much."
MARTIN LUTHER KING DENOUNCES THE VIETNAM WAR - HD - BLACK AND WHITE - SPEECH PART 2
Part 2 Transcripts below PLEASE NOTE THIS FILM IS IN BLACK AND WHITE AND NOT COLOR ORIG. COLOR 1200 SOF. MAG. CU CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING SPEAKS " WE HAVE BEEN WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING IN VIETNAM. WE HAVE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE LIFE OF THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE. " HE STATES HIS PROGRAM FOR ENDING THE WAR, END ALL BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM, ETC. HE RECOMMENDS THAT DRAFT AGE MEN WHO OPPOSE THE WAR ON MORAL GROUNDS SHOULD SEEK CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR STATUS AND THAT DRAFT AGE MINISTERS SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR MINISTERAL EXEMPTIONS AND SEEK STATUS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. SAYS WE ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF A WORLD SIDE REVOLUTION WHICH PRODUCES BEGGARS NEEDS RESTRUCTURING. HE TELLS OF INJUSTICES PERPERTRATED BY THE US ON THE WORLD. HE ATTACKS THE POLICY OF CONTINUING TO INCREASE THE DEFENSE BUDGET. " WE MUST NOT ENGAGE IN A NEGATIVE ANTI-COMMUNISM BUT RATHER IN A POSITIVE THIRST FOR DEMOCRACY. " CI: PERSONALITIES - KING, MARTIN LUTHER. PART 2 The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam. Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation. Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos. Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government. Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement. Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary. Protesting The War Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible. As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest. There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God. In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood. This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops. The People Are Important These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain." A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word." We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight. Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history. As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated: Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side; Some great cause, God's new Messiah, Off'ring each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever Twixt that darkness and that light. Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong; Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong: Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow Keeping watch above his own. And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]
SLAVERY / WN - WAN KIM INTERVIEW
AN INTERVIEW WITH WAN KIM, HEAD OF CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION AT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, FOR WN SPOT. Interview with Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division at US Department of Justice Crew: Brown / Joya 06:01:10 two shot 06:02:02 Q: Would most Americans be surprised to know that there are Americans essentially working as slaves? 06:02:20 I think most Americans would be shocked and saddened. That being said I think it has been a crime that has been going on for a very long time and that most Americans are not aware about the death and the severity of that problem, in America and across the world. If you look at, uh, State Department estimates, 800,000 people per year trafficked across borders, international borders, around the world each year. Uh, conservative estimates place 15,000 within the United States of America. 15,000 people each year in the United States of America being trafficked against their will - that's a big problem. 06:02:51 Q: And describe to our viewers, if you will, the kinds of jobs that people are being forced to do - cleaning up houses, working in fields . I was surprised when I began digging into the story the level and the depth of the problem . and would most Americans be surprised to know that people are working essentially as slaves? 06:03:22 I think most Americans would be saddened and shocked to know about the extent of this problem. This is a problem that goes on in small communities, in boot communities (?), we found cases in small towns, we've found cases in big cities like many people would imagine and if you look at the State Department estimates of how big a problem this is, they estimate 800,000 people a year trafficked across international borders throughout the globe - 15,000 within the United States. Now, if you think about 15,000 people being forced to do things against their will every year in the United States of America, that's a big problem. 06:03:58 And walk us through, if you will, the kinds of jobs that people are being forced to do. 06:04:03 Well, people are being forced to engage in a variety of services - whatever you could force a human being to do against their will, they're being forced to do against their will. We found cases involving, uh, forced servitude in fields, uh, very very reminiscent of modern day slavery. We found repeatedly cases where women, girls, are being forced to engage in sexual acts - dozens of men, every day, weeks on end. Uh, we found, uh, many cases involving domestic servitude, uh, usually young girls, uh, being lured to America with false promises of a good education, a good life in America and being forced to cook, to clean, to care for one's children, forbidden from leaving, often beaten, often sexually abused. Uh, these are terrible, terrible, terrible cases of victimization, and the worst of it is, the victimization is ongoing. It's not one time - that would be bad enough. It is over and over and over again, sometimes for years. 06:04:59 Q: You know, I came up with a phrase, um, the other day driving to work as I was thinking about this story and I can't quite get it out of my mind, but, I said to myself, for these people, there is no American dream, and, you know, an example - they're not getting to go to school, some of these girls. No education, and it's like being trapped in a prison almost. 06:05:19 Well, you know, I am fond of saying that, uh, for immigrants like me - my family came to America when I was a child, I came to America when I was a child - we have been able to live the American dream. The Attorney General is fond about talking of the American dream. That's what brought so many people to America and it has made America the country that it is. This problem is a very personal problem for me - it's a very personal problem for the Attorney General given our backgrounds, and I caught the perversion of the American dream. And for many people across the globe, America is still a beacon of opportunity - it is THE place to come and create oneself and to start a new life and have all these opportunities - we know that. As Americans sometimes we don't appreciate it, but we know that. And human traffickers, they prey upon that dream, they prey upon that vision. It is not that hard we found, in our cases, to lure people to America with all these promises. Good husband, good home, good jobs, good opportunities, good education. They believe that and they come here and they find the American nightmare. 06:06:19 Q: And next question - we have rings doing it, we have individuals - walk us through if you can, the different ways people are lured here. 06:06:28 Well, it's almost always based upon a vulnerability. Uh, poverty, uh, despair, poor education, little prospects. Again, everyone trying to reach for the brass ring - and that is America - for many people across the world. And so when they get a hope of an opportunity to do something significant, to make a life for themselves, in many cases to help bring money back to the family that they're leaving behind - they jump on it - and they're lead by deceit to come to America and then all the promises are broken. 06:06:59 Q: Now and you have rings in some cases doing this and you also have individuals doing it? 06:07:05 That's correct. There are individuals such as wealthy doctors - when I say wealthy doctors, I'm not trying to point out a specific class of people, but certainly wealthy people such as doctors who have imported domestic slaves basically, to come in and care for their children and clean their houses for years on end with almost no pay and repeated beatings. We've had organized operations involving families or networks of people who would bring women and girls into America, force them to engage in sexual servitude and then rotate them through brothels, throughout different metropolitan areas to keep the inventory fresh for their customers. We've had terrible cases of victimization in almost any category of human misery that you can imagine. Again, working in the fields, working in homes, working in sweatshops, producing for garment factories and working in brothels. 06:07:57 Q: And Mr. Kim, walk us though some of the efforts the government is undertaking to combat the problem. 06:08:01 Well, we're very very proud to say that during the past six years this has been a top priority of both the President and both Attorney Generals. This has been something we focused ALL federal resources upon and we have produced results. We have a 600% increase in prosecutions of human trafficking violations in the past six and a half years. We've also formed 42 task forces across the country working collaboratively with state and local organizations to combat this problem. And we've also helped states and worked with states who have taken a great leadership role in passing state human trafficking statutes so they can deal with it a local level. But I think that one of the things that is very very important to convey to Americans is that this is a problem that exists in local communities and it's a problem of recognition and awareness. It could be happening in your neighborhood and if the human traffickers are doing a good job, no one knows about it because it's an underground crime. If they're doing their jobs well, the victims are so scared, so subjugated, so victimized that they will not reach out for help. And that is why it's really a training concern for the Department of Justice to train first responders to look for signs of people being held in captivity. 06:09:08 Q: And in some cases people are living right in neighborhoods and the neighbors don't even know that they are in the house. 06:09:14 Absolutely. In fact, some of the cases that we investigate, we will go and talk to the neighbors and they will say that they've never seen a person even though the person has been living in that house for years. 06:09:25 Q: 600% increase in prosecutions - the GAO put out a study saying that some of the numbers that the State Department gave may not be that accurate, but I hear people saying that it's probably on the lower side and so I guess my question to you is that with a 600% increase, the more you dig, the more you find, so there's no any indication that this is anything but a pretty large scale problem. 06:09:53 I have said repeatedly, the Attorney General had said repeatedly, and it's absolutely true - we have done great things. Our 600% increase in prosecutions is a significant step forward, but this is the tip of the iceberg. By conservative estimates, we have 15,000 people being trafficked into the United States each year. 600% increase in prosecutions bringing several hundred prosecutions is only the beginning. It's an underground activity, it's very very hard to ferret it out, we've been working very hard to go aggressively, raise levels of awareness, conduct training, we've trained tens of thousands of law enforcement officials across the country in the past 10 years. But, one of the things that's very very important to understand about why this industry is so pervasive and why it's so hard to ferret out is people need to understand how lucrative this is. If you think about the typical underground illegal activity - selling guns, selling illegal drugs - once you sell the contraband, it's gone. You get the money and then you go find some more contraband to sell. Selling a human being is something that can be done over and over and over again. A woman forced into prostitution can generate thousands if dollars per night. So when you think about State Department estimates that this may be the 2nd or 3rd most lucrative underground activity in the world, you tend to understand the profit motive behind the victimization. 06:11:10 Q: And also, the other aspect of it too is that the daily labor that' involved here is saving the people that are trafficking these people, or the owners if you will, hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year. So tax dollars are not being generated, it's . babysitting is a lot of money - these people forgo that. 06:11:40 That's exactly right. And that's unfortunately the profit motive that drives these depraved acts of victimization. When you ask yourself, how could a human being do this to another human being, there's no good answer to that. But one of the answers is, boy, they're making a lot of money or saving a lot of money by doing that. We've had cases where people have been victimized and forced into domestic servitude for more then decade. Think about how much you could save, a person could save, if they didn't have to pay for house cleaning, for cooking for babysitting services for that period of time. 06:12:11 Q: And then I guess the final question is . give us a sense of what it's like for these people when they're given their freedom. I guess, is it shock, is it they don't know quite how to act - any examples that come to mind . general reactions of these people when they're brought into the light . 06:12:40 Well, I think you're raising and touching upon a very very important point. I mentioned earlier how hard it is to find these crimes. One of the reasons it's so hard to find these crimes is because the victims themselves have been inculcated with the notion that it's worse for them if they go and try to find help. Because they are often foreign, they often don't speak the language, they come from such society's where law enforcement is not to be trusted - not like the United States of course where law enforcement is to be trusted. The traffickers sometimes make them believe that no matter how bad they have it, if they flee and they look for justice, it will be even worse. And so a lot of times we find trafficking victims, they deny that they're in trouble. They've been victimized tremendously and yet they're worried about something even worse. And so a lot of times when we find these trafficking victims, it takes a long time for us to work with them and to bring them back to a situation that we call rescue - we're rescuing victims and sometimes we have to convince them for days that we're the rescuers and not trying to make the situation worse. 06:13:37 Q: And when the evolution of he victimization seems to seep through - what sort of things to they say - I didn't know how horrible it was - once they get a taste of normal living . 06:13:58 I think that ultimately, once they realize what our intentions are and what America's really about - it's about equality, it's about human dignity, it's about the standards that all Americans enjoy, a right to bodily integrity, a right to decide for oneself - they're deeply grateful. They understand that they have been held in victimization and in many respects they are concerned about what is next, but what is next is a process by which we provide them services as provide by Congress under the victims protection act. We work to try and provide them with continued stay visas and we work - most importantly the department of justice - we work to prosecute their offenders, so the cycle of victimization does not occur over again. It's very very important to understand that even though we're rescuing victims and we need to do that, if we don't put the bad guys away, they'll be back out there doing it again and they TVPA provides extremely strict penalties that allow us to lock up these people, some for more than 50 years. 06:14:56 Q: And final thing . mind of person going through this - it's all they've ever known. 06:15:16 Fair to say in some cases where people have been victimized for a very long time, there is a conflicted sense. It is all they've ever known. And so even though they don't like their circumstances, they feel conflicted because in some respects their captors are their family. That is the very very small minority of cases we're talking about. In most cases, victimization has been so severe, cases so tragic, that victims are absolutely elated when rescued by people whom they view to be rescuers. 06:15:55 Q: Abject squalor people have lived through . cubby hole in a mansion . 06:16:30 Shameful. Been prosecutor for many years. Rarely seen acts of depraved indifference and human cruelty as in the human trafficking context. Seen wealthy people, homes with tennis courts and swimming pools. 06:17:05 Q: Deportation threat . perspective of victims . 06:17:47 Message - in America, law enforcement is here to help you. They re here to try and make situation better - congress has system for relief - one of things we can do is work with state dept and HHS including visas. 06:18:26 two shot and banter 06:20:10 walking shots with Pierre Thomas and Wan Kim
HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN 2016. - INDIANAOLA
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN EVENT IN INDIANAOLA, IOWA 1230pm- Hillary Clinton Indianola Organizing Event at Simpson College, Kent Campus Center, 701 North C Street, Indianola, IA WASH 6 HILLARY CLINTON INDIANOLA POOL C16 012116 12:41:39 HRC: thank you all. Wow I'll tell you it is great being back here at Simpson, Simpson college, a place I have been before. In fact somebody reminded me a few minutes ago, I was here for the first time back in 1996 and yup, yup some people remember that and it's not only because I'm a Methodist [crowd cheers], but also because this is a great private college that has given so many opportunities for so many young people to go on and fulfill their dreams and so for me this is an especially meaningful moment and to all of you who are here, I'm excited to be with you, I feel energized, I know we're organized and were ready to go to the caucus on Feb 1st. I want to thank Daryl who's been a terrific organizer, I appreciate his kind remarks, and I also appreciate that his inspiration is his niece because at the end of the day we all have to do more for those coming behind us and I also want to thank all the precinct captains and organizers. 12:43:03 HRC: I want to thank Claire, Claire (Gazer?), Michael Kimmelman, the others who have been working so hard I hope that you will be willing to go with them. How many people here have already made a phone call or knocked on a door. Will you raise your hands because I want to personally thank you and invite everybody else to come join with us, to reach as many people as possible. And I also want to thank two of my supporters and two of your elected officials who are really inspirational to me. Your attorney general tom (?), your treasurer Mike Fitzgerald. 12:42:47 HRC: It is great to have them on my time and to have the advice and council they are providing, and I'm really grateful to all of you who have already decided you're going to come out and caucus for me. If you haven't I hope you will and I hope before you leave today you'll fill out one of our blue commitment cards. Now if you're still trying to decide who to support, well I'm glad you're here and I hope I can earn that support between now and Feb. 1st. We democrats have an important choice to make and I have a lot of respect for Senator Sanders and Gov. O'Malley and I think it's good we're having a spirited debate because there is a lot at stake in this election. 12:44:35 But let's not forget our differences on the Democratic side pale compared to what we see on the other side right, and I've never seen anything like it and I bet some of you could join me in saying that. I mean one party is becoming defined by paranoia prejudice and greed. And I think we know which one that is. Whereas the other is focused on creating good paying jobs, holding wall street accountable, delivering for people and that's why I'm proud to be a democrat running for the presidency. 12:45:32 I have had to listen to what the Republicans say, that's part of the job. You know sometimes it's like 'oh my gosh' you know. You can't believe it. I do think the Republican candidates want Americans to suffer from collective amnesia. Well I'm going to remind, starting here in Iowa and moving across America, people of the facts, that the economy does a whole lot better when we have a democrat in the white house. 12:46:09 And just as I've been saying I'm going to build on the progress we have made, and help more families get ahead and stay ahead because when families are strong America is strong, that is the fundamental building block for our strength and I want to make sure we never forget that. But for me, this is about a lot more than politics. I feel so blessed to have been born in this country, to loving parents who gave me a great start in life. I went to wonderful public schools with teachers who inspired me. I had the opportunity to go to college which my mother never had. 12:46:57 America has given me so much and I feel passionately that it is our responsibility to make sure that you and future generations have even greater chances to make the most out of your own lives. I know what it's like to be knocked down. I've had a few hard times in my own life and I doubt there's anybody who hasn't had their share but I learned from my mom and my faith that it's not whether you get knocked down it's whether you get back up and I can tell you, I've gotten back up, time and time again because as long as there's work to do and people to help I'm not going to quite. 12:47:49 HRC: And you know why I'm so determined? Because of the people I've met. People have shared their hopes and their heartaches with me. There is something about running for president, particularly here in Iowa where you have the most intimate conversations with people you have just met. Somebody holds out their hand or takes mine, we say hello and then they start to tell me about the problems that keep you up at night, and the dreams that get you up in the morning and I have such a sense of gratitude and honor that people are willing to talk to me. 12:48:34 HRC: You know I watch the Republicans what they say and I don't know who they are talking to, because they never seem to reflect the concerns that people have shared with me. I said the other day that maybe they just have hired a group of actors they take from event to event to event. But let me tell you what I've heard. I met a gentlemen the other day in Cedar Rapids who told me that his prescription drug cost had tripled in the past year. Then I met a mom at the same event who said her son has diabetes and even insulin is getting much more expensive. Now insulin is not some fancy new drug it's been around a really long time. 12:49:21 The only reason it is getting more expensive plain and simple is greed. Companies that feel they can increase the price without any accountability. last night in Waterloo, a worried husband named Larry told me that his wife Brenda spends thousands of dollars every year on medicine for arthritis and osteoporosis and then they look on the news and they see hedge fund tycoons buying drug companies and raising prices by 4 thousand percent overnight and they just want to scream. 12:50:00 HRC: Something is wrong when your paycheck has barely budged but corporate profits and CEO pay are at near record highs. Something is wrong when you can do everything right and still not get ahead. Like Brandy from Des Moines who was laid off 6 years ago. She went back to school. She worked hard, she got her degree and now she's a supervisor in a restaurant but she still only makes $9.50 an hour. That is not enough, especially when you're supporting kids. Brandy needs a raise, Larry and Brenda need lower drug prices. People across Iowa need more good jobs, help with their student debt and a more secure retirement. These are some of the problems I'm focused on and I get up every day thinking about how we're going to really make a difference for people and families who need it and that's what I've tried to do, that's what I've tried to do my whole life. 12:51:11 I think it's a lot of that John Wesley Methodism. It really does both warm your heart and put you on a path, and starting with my first job right out of law school for the children's defense fund, where I went door to door trying to find out why kids weren't in school. You know it's hard to imagine especially in a state that was so smart to send Tom Harkin to the congress so many years that we had problems getting kids with disabilities into schools. And we had to make the case that every single child deserved an education. 12:51:58 HRC: And then I worked with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to create the children's health insurance program that now covers 8 million kids, and I've worked throughout my career to try to find common ground with Republicans. To make progress together. It's not easy I know that. But it's absolutely necessary. We can't give up on our democracy, we can't give up on the hard work that is required to find that common ground to get results to help people. 12:52:33 HRC: I'll tell you, I'm not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in the real world. I care about making a real difference in your life and that gets us to the choice that you have to make in this caucus. Now Senator Sanders and I share many of the same goals, but we have different records and different ideas on how to drive progress. Take healthcare for example. I want us to defend and build on the progress we have made under President Obama with the affordable care act. Remember what it was like before obama care? The insurance companies were free to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. 12:53:31 They charged women more for our coverage, the same coverage than they charged men. Young people couldn't afford healthcare and 44 million Americans didn't have any coverage at all. Today more than 90% of Americans are insured, and young people can stay on their parents policies until they are 26, and I want to keep going, keep expanding coverage to more people, lower your out of pocket costs with a new tax credit, cap what you have to pay each month for prescription drugs and finally allow Medicare to negotiate better prices for drugs. 12:54:18 We can get this done without another divisive debate about our entire healthcare system and without giving Republicans an opening to come in and tear down everything we have achieved. We can make real progress right now for people and families who need it. Now I know Senator Sanders cares about covering more people as I do but rather than build on the progress we've made he wants to start over from scratch with a whole new system. Now in theory there is a lot to like about some of his ideas but in theory isn't enough. A president has to deliver in reality. 12:55:07 Senator Sanders has been in congress for 25 years. He's introduced his healthcare plan 9 times, but he never got even a single vote in the house or a single senate co-sponsor. Not one. Now he has a new plan. You hear a promise to build a whole new system but that's not what you'll get. You'll get gridlock and endless wait for advances that will never come. The people I've met can't wait. The grandmother who has to choose between paying for medicine and paying for rent can't wait. The single mom who desperately needs a raise, can't wait. The student with a mountain of debt can't wait. You can't wait and neither can our country, we need to roll up our sleeves and start making progress right now. 12:56:11 HRC: More gridlock in Washington won't help anyone except maybe the Republicans who are looking for any opportunity to take us backwards. We just can't take that risk. Across the board we have to defend the progress we have made under president Obama and go even further. My economic plan will raise incomes and create good paying jobs right away. First of all I'll fight for more fairness in our economy. Let's make those at the top pay their fair share now and I believe that multimillionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas shouldn't get tax breaks, you should. Let's stop the abuse on wall street and make sure if you break the law it doesn't matter who you are you're going to jail. 12:57:18 Let's enforce our trade rules and stop letting countries like China take advantage of american workers and businesses. It's real simple for me, in America if you work hard, you deserve to see the rewards, so let's have profit sharing for everybody who helps make the profits for the companies they work for. Let's raise the minimum wage, expand social security and finally guarantee equal pay for women in the workplace. 12:58:03 And we can't stop there, we also need more growth in our economy, more jobs, more new businesses especially small businesses. One of the greatest things about young people is everyone I've talked to has a dream of starting their own small business. Well I'm going to make that dream come true and then we're also going to make sure we have higher wages for the jobs you already are doing, how we're going to invest in advanced manufacturing so we're making and building things here, not somewhere else. We're going to modernize our roads, bridges, ports, airports, our entire infrastructure. We're going to create the clean energy jobs of the future because somebody is going to be the 21st century clean energy superpower. It's either going to be China, Germany or us. I want it to be us and I know it can be. 12:59:02 You know I love going around the country and telling people Iowa already gets a third of your energy from renewables, mostly wind and I say to them if Iowa can do it, you can do it so don't let me down let's keep moving together into the clean energy future. We can make our economy stronger and our country fairer, but we have to do it together. the truth is too many people today feel left out and left behind. that's not the America we want to be. Instead of demonizing hard working immigrant families we should be giving them a real path to citizenship instead of a school to prison pipeline that keeps communities of color down we need a cradle to college pipeline that lifts people up. 13:00:09 We have to end discrimination against LGBT Americans wherever it exists. And I will always defend Planned parenthood. Now occasionally I hear the Republicans, when I talk about issues like this, say I'm playing the gender card. Well if fighting for women's health and women's rights and equal pay is playing the gender card deal me in. And let me also say, we can't turn our backs as a nation on working class families in struggling rural communities and small towns. IN coal country and farm country. Families who for generations kept our lights on, our factories running, and our crops growing. So many Americans are hurting right now and in a lot of places in this country the richest in the world, people are dying younger than their parents. 13:01:39 HRC: The epidemic of substance abuse is a big part of it but my husband and I were talking about this the other day. It's really shocking you know, middle aged white people dying at a faster rate than their parents, their life span not as long and then just recently, young white people dying at a greater rate. And he said something like he often does that really grabbed my attention. yes it's substance abuse it's alcoholism it's bad health it's all of the reasons that may go on the death certificates. But Bill said, folks feel the American dream slipping away and they're dying of broken hearts. 130229 I hear that in the voices of parents who don't know how they're going to give their kids the opportunities they deserve. I was in Tama the other night and met a woman who is working three minimum wage jobs. She had her daughter with her you could tell it was the pride of her life. She said I can't work any harder than I'm working. I want my daughter to be able to go to college. I don't know if I'm going to be able to make it. I see it in the eyes of people who don't expect anything to come easy but wonder why it has to be quite so hard. 130305 We have to give the American dream back to everyone willing to do their part. We've got to make this economy work for everyone. The struggling, the striving, and the successful. That will be my mission as president. From the first day to the last. And you know we're not just picking a president. We're also choosing a commander in chief. I'm the only candidate on either side with the experience and judgment to keep us safe at home and strong in the world. 130339 The Republican candidates keep asking about my accomplishments as Secretary of State so I sent them all a copy of my book, Hard Choices. And you know I figured there were so many of them they could start a book club. They could read about how I got Russia and China to agree to tough new sanctions on Iran. Or how I brokered a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that stopped terrorist rockets from falling on Israeli homes. Or maybe they'd be interested in how you push for a global agreement on climate change. 130421 Oh who are we kidding. They don't seem to care about that at all. Well it's all in the book. But i didn't get a single thank you note. And based on what they continued to say on the campaign trail it doesn't seem like the republican candidates learned very much. 130443 Talking about carpet bombing doesn't make you sound strong. It makes you sound like you're in over your head. And last time I checked, bluster and bigotry are not credentials for becoming commander in chief. And it would be a terrible mistake to send US combat troops into another costly ground war in the Middle East. So we know that the Republicans don't get it. And in fact what they say is not only often shameful but dangerous. 130530 Now Senator Sanders doesn't talk much about foreign policy. But when he does it raises concerns because sometimes it can sound like he hasn't really thought it through. For example he suggested we invite Iranian troops into Syria. That is like asking the arsonist to be the fire fighter. As bad as things are in Syria and they are. More Iranian troops will only make it worse. 130558 The challenges a president has to grapple with are beyond complicated both at home and abroad. That's why it's the hardest job in the world. I've seen it up close and personal and I know what it takes. I know how to find common ground and how to stand my ground for you. You know I teamed up with one the most partisan Republicans in the House when i was first lady. Tom Delay from Texas. To improve our Foster care system. 130628 I teamed up when I was a Senator with Lindsey Graham to extend health benefits for our National Guard and Reserves. Now we had deep disagreements don't get me wrong. But we found a sliver of common ground and that made life better for a whole lot of people. So you can count on me to never give up on trying to find common ground. To work as hard as I can to go anywhere to meet with anyone at any time. 130654 To build those relationships that are so necessary to try to make the progress that our country deserves. And you can count on me to stand my ground. You know I'm taking on the gun lobby in this campaign because I cannot bear the fact we are losing, we are losing an average of 90 Americans every day to gun violence. That is so wrong. And I won't back down no matter what they throw at me. But I can't do any of this alone. I need you. I need you knocking on doors and making phone calls. 130738 I need you caucusing on Feb 1 for me. And then I need you to help me win Iowa in November and go into the White House as your partner to build that better America we all want. So please join me. You can text join to 47246 right now. Visit Hillary Clinton.com talk to you friends and family your neighbors and make sure they do come out and caucus. You know I know that this is a tough competitive race. Well it should be. We are trying to pick the next president. 130818 And we are trying to make progress, not have it ripped away and have us turned back from what we have achieved. And i never doubted that i would work hard for every vote and that I would face some tough attacks. Now it is entertaining to some extent that Karl Rove is running and ad against me right now. If i were a cynical kind of person he would be perhaps accused of running an ad against me to convince Dems not to vote for me and I wonder why. 130853 And then we've got two hedge fund billionaires who formed a superpac just the two of them as far as I can tell. And they're running ads against me too. I find that kind of perversely flattering to be honest with you. because they know that i mean what I say and I don't give up trying to get done what I've said I will. I've spent my whole life trying to even the odds for people who have the odds stacked against them. And I'm just getting warmed up. 130932 Because you know I believe that we can make progress because I've seen it. You know when I was first lady working to get universal health care it was hard. I remember going to the Children's hospital in Cleveland during our battle. I met with a group of parents who couldn't get insurance for their sick children because of their preexisting conditions. One father of two little girls both of whom had cystic fibrosis with tears in his eyes the last insurance company that he'd approach had said sorry, we don't insure burning houses. 131018 He looked at me and he said, they called my little girls burning houses. Today because of the Affordable Care Act, kids like his can get the coverage they need. And I am so grateful. That's because we Democrats started fighting for universal health care under Harry Truman and we never quit. That's how progress gets made. You keep going. When you get knocked down you get back up. And you push even harder. Step by step, day by day you keep going. You keep building. That's what our next president has to do. 131104 I know how to build on the progress we made and I know we can't afford more gridlock. The American people can't afford to wait. You shouldn't have to wait for results. You shouldn't have to wait for lower drug prices. You shouldn't have to wait for higher wages or help with college loans. You shouldn't have to wait to start that small business or to enjoy a secure retirement. The people of this country brought our country back from the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. Now it's your turn to get ahead. And you know what, America succeeds when you succeed. 131143 So I want to thank you. I've had the opportunity to not only listen but to learn from the people in this state. You've shared your concerns your hopes your dreams and I honestly believe that thanks to you I will be a better President. A more informed one. Someone who understands first hand from you what we have to do in our country. For that I thank you. For all you have meant to me and all you have taught me. I'm listening to you and fighting for you and with your help as president I will deliver for you. Thank you all so very much!
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS PRESS CONFERENCE
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS - PRESS CONFERENCE - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, and Assistant to the Speaker Chris Van Hollen hold a press conference in the Capitol Visitor Center. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi press conference with other House Democratic leaders SLUG: 1430 PELOSI PRESSER RS23 73 AR: 16x9 Disc: 644 *Fed to NY on 5106* 14:40:56 SPEAKER PELOSI: Good afternoon. Q (Welcome ?). SPEAKER PELOSI: Nice to see you here, the new digs, or newer digs. As we come to the end of this part of this session, it is with great pride that we review the major accomplishments of this Congress. 14:41:15 One week and one day after the president stood on the steps on the Capitol to ask for swift, bold action now to take our country in a new direction, one week and one day later, Congress passed the recovery -- the recovery act. Because of that recovery act, 3.6 million jobs were saved or created for our economy. We proceeded from there with a blueprint for the future, a statement of our national values contained in the president's budget proposal: to reduce the deficit, to lower taxes for the middle class, and to create jobs, around three pillars of investment: 14:41:58 first among equals, health care; innovation and education, recognizing that innovation begins in the classroom; and new clean energy jobs for the future. As you know, we passed the health-care reform bill and at the same time our education bill. We're making college education more affordable for America's working families. Health-care reform is -- we were proud to stand with those who fought for Social Security and Medicare and now health care for all Americans as a right, not a privilege -- health care that is better-quality, lower-cost and more accessible to many more Americans. This too is a job creator. Again, recognizing that innovation begins in the classroom and it is the way that we keep America number one, we passed the education bill as well, again reducing the cost of student loans for students, increasing Pell grants, making sizable contributions to our minority- serving institutions, and the list goes on. Following that, we passed the Wall Street reform legislation with historic regulation that hadn't been done in decades to reform Wall Street, and including in that consumer protection -- the most sweeping consumer protection in the history of our country. The list goes on and on. We are very pleased with what we have done for veterans -- again, historic, transformational changes in terms of putting our veterans first every single day that we serve in the Congress. And our investments in small businesses, taking us to the end of the term. We started with the president on the steps of the Capitol; we've come to a point where this week, on Monday, the president signed the small-business bill providing credit to the tune of -- leverage to the tune of $300 billion for our small businesses, which are our job creators and our capital formation. We all -- did all of this in a fiscally sound way. Economists have told us if we had not acted with the recovery act, "cash for clunkers" and other federal initiatives, we would have 8-1/2 million more people unemployed, that we would have 14-1/2 percent unemployment, and that we would have even worse and deeper deficits. We're very proud of the work of the Congress. We worked closely not only as a team but as a partnership and the leadership to make this happen. And of course none of it would have been possible without the visionary leadership of President Barack Obama. As we go forward, our members left last evening in a spirit of optimism, very pleased about taking the message of fighting for the middle class; of moving America forward and not going back; of making it in America, as we all have here, making it in America and not shipping jobs overseas; giving tax cuts to the -- for all Americans to create jobs, not tax cuts at the high end which will increase the deficit; and to preserve Social Security and Medicare and not privatize it and cut them. So these are the priorities we have as we go into the election. We're very proud of many, many issues on the agenda that relate to our "Make It in America" agenda, creating good-paying jobs here and not shipping them overseas. 14:45:43 And central -- a great leader in that regard has been our majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who designed the (pin ?), coined the phrase and is leading the effort to make it in America. Mr. Hoyer. 14:46:00 REP. HOYER: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker. Of course, our entire agenda has been designed so that every American, every individual can make it in America. When President Obama and the 111th Congress took their oaths of office, America was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing almost 800,000 jobs per month. Over a quarter of the personal wealth in America had been wiped out. We were in a record amount of debt. From the day we began our work, Congress had the overriding goal of stopping the free fall, creating jobs and building a solid foundation to the future. There's no doubt that Americans are still hurting. There's still a long way to go. But we're moving in the right direction. The economy has added around 3 million jobs, and American manufacturing is on the rebound. We added 136,000 manufacturing jobs during the first seven months of this year, the longest sustained growth in 13 years. To build on that success, Democrats have worked hard to pursue a "Make It in America" agenda, a plan to continue the rebound of American manufacturing, create reasons for companies to create jobs in America and not take them overseas, not to outsource them, building an environment that encourages investment and innovation in America. The most recent "Make It in America" bill was signed on Monday by the president. It creates a small-business fund, provides an additional $12 billion in tax cuts for small business. It's a shame that on some 16 of our bills that cut taxes for small businesses, our Republican colleagues voted against 15 of them. It provides an additional $30 billion so that small businesses can get loans to expand and create jobs. Yesterday we passed another important "Make It in America" bill, which holds China accountable for its currency manipulation. This bill pushes work -- works to level the trade playing field, which helps Americans keep their jobs and create new ones here in America. 14:48:33 But in the long run, our economy will struggle if our children are drowning in debt. After President Bush and the Republicans ran up record debt, Democrats are putting us back on a sound fiscal plain. We restored PAYGO to ensure that Congress pays for what it buys. President Obama created a bipartisan fiscal commission to tackle our deficit. And we've pledged to vote on its recommendations when they come. We have a great deal of work, obviously, left to be done before our economy has fully recovered. But our record on behalf of working families contrasts sharply with Republicans' plan to deliver, and I quote, "the exact same agenda" of the failed Bush years, which exploded the deficit, devastated working Americans, and ushered in the worst economy we've seen since Herbert Hoover. Our agenda has been and will be to reinstill the confidence in every American's mind that they, their children and their neighbors can and will make it in America. I'm now pleased to yield to the extraordinarily successful Democratic whip from South Carolina, Jim Clyburn. 14:50:07 REP. CLYBURN: Thank you very much, Mr. Leader, Madame Speaker, Chairman Van Hollen. I don't think that there's anything more central to families' making it in America than for us to protect the men and women who protect America. And on that score this historic Congress has been tremendously successful. We refocused our fight against the terrorists, gave our troops a pay raise, equipped them with body armor and the armored vehicles they need. We improved health care for 5 million veterans. We expanded VA health-care services for women veterans. We provided retroactive pay for troops whose service was extended under stop-loss orders. And we ensure that the Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange will receive long-overdue benefits. We expanded the new GI Bill passed by Democrats in the last Congress, to provide college education for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, to all children of fallen troops since September 11th, 2001. Despite their rhetoric, Republicans failed to make necessary investments in our troops, jeopardized the economic security of military families and shortchanged the veterans' health care. But we're also moving American families forward. We passed historic health reform that makes coverage more affordable for small businesses and families, and we implemented a Patient Bill of Rights last week to stop insurance companies from denying coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, or dropping people when they get sick. It ends lifetime coverage limits, and lets young adults stay on their parents' policies until age 26. Health reform reduces the deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years, and 1.2 trillion (dollars) over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, Republicans are promising to repeal health-care reform and the benefits that come with it. We can't go back. We must continue moving America forward. And to help us get that done, (our ?) next speaker is out and about making sure that every one of the people who voted for all this landmark legislation comes back here next year to keep moving America forward. Ladies and gentlemen, Chairman Chris Van Hollen. REP. VAN HOLLEN: Thank you very much to our very distinguished whip, Mr. Clyburn. As the speaker and all of my colleagues have said in discussing these major legislative initiatives, they all reflect choices -- choices that are made about the priorities for the American people and the way forward. And the choice we made was to begin to rein in the power of some of the big corporate special interests who had their sway during the previous eight years. 14:54:02 The previous eight years had an economic agenda that served the interests of some very few special interests at the expense of American consumers, American workers and American taxpayers. The choices we made were in support of American workers, American taxpayers and American consumers. 14:54:11 And let's start with the Wall Street reform bill. With the Wall Street reform bill, we will ensure that never again -- never again will taxpayers be left having to pick up the tab for bad decisions made on Wall Street, and never again will workers across the country be held hostage by reckless gambling in parts of Wall Street. Now that piece of legislation also ended the TARP initiative, the bank rescue initiative launched by President Bush and former Secretary of Treasury Paulson. It ended that. We passed that important reform legislation. Amazingly, not only did our Republican colleagues oppose it, but they have now made as one of their central planks of their platform repealing it, accomplishing what a lot of very well-paid lobbyists in this town were not able to do: to turn back the clock and give that power back to big banks on Wall Street at the expense of American consumers and others. 14:55:28 There are a number of other examples. We talked about the higher education legislation, making sure that kids could afford their college education. What choice did we make there? The choice we made was to say: We don't think some of the biggest banks need to be taking this big cut of taxpayer dollars without taking any significant risk. Let's make sure that money goes to students who are struggling to pay their way through college. They need it. The big banks don't need it. That choice was reflected when it came to making sure that teachers who were about to be laid off around the country -- that would have led to smaller class sizes this fall for our kids -- we made sure that local school districts have the funds to make sure that those teachers were in the classrooms when all our kids went back to school. 14:56:18 How did we pay for it? We paid for it by shutting down these perverse loopholes in the tax code that reward multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said no to that, putting the interests and the profits of multinational corporations above the interests of American workers right here at home. And interestingly, even though the issue of outsourcing was one of the most popular recommendations made by the American people when the Republicans did their listening tour -- it was right up there -- you will not find one mention of outsourcing, not one, in the 47-page document that the Republicans put forward. Why? Because it didn't fit with the economic agenda, the same one they pursued for the previous eight years. Similar choices were made with respect to health insurance, health insurance. During the previous eight years, health insurance premiums quadrupled and profits went through the ceiling. Under the new bill we passed, we're going to rein in the cost of premiums, and we will ensure that no longer are kids in America discriminated against because they've got asthma or diabetes or some other preexisting condition. Finally, on the health-care issue, we saw the choice they made. They put a budget on the floor of the House last year that would cut Medicare by 75 percent over a period of time; turn it into a voucher program, no more guaranteed benefit; and say, hey, you're off on the private insurance market with this voucher of declining value. That was their health-care proposal -- again, one that would greatly benefit a lot of the same insurance companies that opposed the health- care reform bill. And let me just end with this. We've seen the response of a lot of the special interests whose power has been reined in as a result of the Wall Street reform bill, the health-care reform bill, the end to special tax breaks for corporations that outsource. They're now spending millions of dollars around the country trying to defeat people who are trying to rein in their power and to support people who would return to the economic agenda that serves the interests of those particular entities. That's what's going on. And that's why -- that's why, when it came to the DISCLOSE bill, where we said you can say whatever you want about the records of members of Congress or their (parties ?), go ahead, just tell us who's bankrolling your ads. Just tell us who's paying for those ads. That the voters have a right to know. And the fact of the matter is, they don't want to tell the American voter who's paying for those. We're finding out. And as we find out, it's becoming clearer and clearer that it's the special interests that were served by the economic policies of the previous eight years and whose power was reined in by the measures that we took in this Congress. So that's the kind of choices that our members made, and those are the kind of choices that were made by the other side. And we hope that as the American people look at those records, they will see the choices that were made on both sides and the choices ahead of us. 15:00:03 SPEAKER PELOSI: I thank my colleagues, the majority leader, the majority whip -- (inaudible) -- assistant to the speaker and the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for being here today and being there for America's working families every single day. And we'd all be pleased to take any questions you may have now. Q Madame Speaker, you talk a lot about choices, but there are some choices that your caucus was unable to make this week, unable to make this year. There was no budget. There's no decision or vote on what to do on extending tax cuts. I'm wondering what you can say about Republican charges that you've run out of gas, that you don't have the will to govern anymore. SPEAKER PELOSI: Do any of my colleagues want to take that before I do? (Laughter.) REP. HOYER: You know, I think I answered this -- (inaudible). We have a budget enforcement resolution. 15:00:52 We passed a budget enforcement resolution. What does a budget do? A budget sets, as all you know who cover the Congress, an upper level of spending. We passed that. That's a cap. The budgets beyond that are subject to the Appropriations Committee allocations. So we have a budget enforcement, Leslie (sp). We passed it. And we're going to follow up with that budget enforcement resolution. On the second part of your question, we're going to make sure that no American is taxed any additional tax on their income up to $200,000 -- no American. One-hundred percent of America will not have any increase in their taxes individually, up to $200,000, and as families, up to $250,000. And we're going to do that before the end of the year, when the Republican policy of phasing out the present tax would have required an increase in their taxes. We're going to make sure that doesn't happen. SPEAKER PELOSI: Yes. Q On the same note, there's more than a month until election day, and your members are paid by the taxpayers. Isn't it sort -- seem sort of strange that taxpayers are funding your members to go out and campaign for the next month, rather than be here to work? SPEAKER PELOSI: Well, let me say that our members are called "representatives." And as I say to them over and over again, your job description and your title is one and the same: representative. Our constituents want us to hear what they are saying about the issues so that they can represent us. So our members are doing the other part of their job: listening to their constituents and listening to what their priorities are, so that they can come back here and fight for those priorities. The job is not just what happens in Washington, D.C. It's almost two jobs. You have a job in your district; and you have a job in Washington, D.C., to come here and to legislate and vote. So our members work very hard, and it's up to their constituents to make that judgment about how they'd like them to spend their time. Yes, ma'am. Q Madame Speaker? Madame Speaker, across town, Republican Leader Boehner is now giving a speech about reforming Congress, and he talks about the House that you're running now, and he says it's in a state of emergency; the institution does not function, does not deliberate, and seems incapable of acting on the will of the people. I wonder what you think of his message and his argument that he's the guy to clean it up. SPEAKER PELOSI: Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Van Hollen? REP. VAN HOLLEN: Certainly. I think everybody is very aware of the fact that Mr. Boehner, the Republican leader, 15:03:39 was part of a Republican Party in the House that engaged in a number of efforts that I think were not held in very high regard by the American people, beginning with the K Street Project, which all of you recall was an effort by Tom DeLay and others to essentially have this fusion between special interests on K Street and the legislative agenda of the Republican Party. And what we're finding out when we look at their platform and their recommendations is that fusion remains to this day. Mr. Boehner invited a whole bunch of Wall Street lobbyists down here to Washington and met with them behind closed doors to plan to sabotage and kill the Wall Street reform bill. And so I guess it's no surprise now that that's a major part of their agenda if they were again to return. The measures that were taken by the speaker in this House represent a dramatic change from before. Number one, when it came to making sure that we held our members accountable, we set up an outside group to review all the cases that may have been made, all the -- all the allegations made against members, so that you had an independent body making judgments about those and forwarding recommendations. Republican colleagues oppose that. 15:05:09 Earmark reform. You might remember that there was a lot of talk on the Republican side about how they were going to have this moratorium on earmarks. I want you to look at their 47-page document, and I challenge anyone to find anything in there about earmark reform. We reformed the process. We dramatically reduced the number of earmarks. They quadrupled during the time that Mr. Boehner was part of the Republican vanguard. And as result of the actions we've taken, the process is transparent. The numbers have come way down, and we no longer provide any funding in that form to for-profit corporations and interests, because we think that distorts the market. The Republicans oppose that. It's very clear that they would return to that, since they didn't mention that in their document. And finally, I will end with this: When it came to the whole process of holding members accountable, when their members got in trouble, they actually changed the rules retroactively to protect them. So it's very interesting to see -- MS. : (Off mike.) REP. VAN HOLLEN: What's that? MS. : (Off mike.) REP. VAN HOLLEN: Yeah. And they fired the chairman of the ethics committee who actually brought serious charges against some of their members. So it's, I think, going to take a great -- a great leap of faith with the American people to believe that one of the people who was the architect of all those Republican policies is now somehow going to reform them, when in fact their own document that they released the other day shows that continued cozy relationship between the policies they express and the lobbyists. MORE So -- 15:07:17 REP. HOYER: Let me just add, the Republican strategy has been and continues to this day to create gridlock and failure. That's been their objective in the House and in the Senate. What was the result? They failed. Norm Ornstein has said this is the most productive Congress in recent memory. It's the most productive Congress in which I have served. So they failed, but they gave the impression to the American people that we couldn't work together because that was their political strategy. And then they have now made a pledge to the American people, as has been pointed out, not by me, not by the speaker, not by Chris Van Hollen, not by Democrats -- David Frum, George Bush's speechwriter, when he said, speaking of this new document, "a pledge to do nothing." Speeches are fine. The American people want performance. And on every criteria of comparison, this Congress is moving America ahead. I have to leave now, but this Congress has been extraordinarily productive, though contentious because unlike -- and I claim some degree of credibility in working in a bipartisan fashion with Roy Blunt and with others on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make America secure, on the Help America Vote Act to make America have a better democracy, and on other items for the security and welfare of our nation. Unfortunately, the party of "no" adopted a political strategy of obstructionism and now claims that there is not anything happening in the Congress. And the facts belie their assertions as their pledge pledges to do nothing. Q Madame Speaker? Q Madame Speaker? 15:09:35 SPEAKER PELOSI: I just want to add one thing to that, because when we talk about bipartisanship and cooperating with the Republicans, it was the Democrats in the House of Representatives -- and in the Senate, but especially in the House -- who took the lead in working with President Bush to pull us out of a financial crisis. We were told, because we asked, not because they thought they were responsible to tell -- it was their responsibility to tell us -- on September 18th, 2008, we were told that if we did not act immediately, there would be no economy on Monday. That was a Thursday night. There would be no economy on Monday. This is how far down the road into financial crisis the Bush administration had taken us. We knew we had to do some reform. We did it. We did it in a way, though, that was different from the way the Bush administration proposed. We did it to make the taxpayer whole. And that's almost where we are now, and we have cut off the fund of TARP. That was a very big level of cooperation with the Republicans that not even the Republicans in the House of Representatives gave to their president of the United States. It's no wonder that Mr. Boehner wants to talk about process. They have no substantive issues to take to the American people. If they want to talk about process, we can talk to them about that. But we'd rather be talking about progress, rather than process. Progress for America's working families: That's what the president has said will be the measure of our success, the progress made by those families. Yes, ma'am. Q Madame Speaker? Q Madame Speaker, tomorrow the president is expected to pick Pete Rouse to replace Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Could you say a few words about Pete, what you know about him, and also about your former colleague Rahm Emanuel going off to run for mayor? SPEAKER PELOSI: Now we're talking about people. We were talking about politics; we were talking about policy; now we're talking about people. First let me say about Rahm, of course he enjoys a great reputation, and I might even use the word affection, among his former colleagues in the House of Representatives. He can do anything he sets his mind to, 15:11:44 and we all wish him much success. I extended those greetings to him when I saw him this morning at the White House. 15:11:51 As far as Pete Rouse is concerned, the only issue that matters there is, does the chief of staff have the confidence of the president of the United States. Pete Rouse certainly has the respect of those in Congress, who know his service to our country well. If that's the president's choice, then we salute him and offer cooperation with him. Q Madame Speaker -- Q Would you endorse Rahm? Q Madame Speaker? Q Would you endorse Rahm, Madame Speaker? SPEAKER PELOSI: (Off mike.) (Laughter.)
OBAMA WALL STREET REMARKS
STIX: President Barack Obama remarks on Wall Street in Quincy, ILLINOIS 18:00:38 THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) It's good to be home. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Quincy! Thank you, everybody. Thank you. It is good to be back in Quincy! (Applause.) 180111 We've got some special guests here I want to acknowledge: the outstanding governor of the great state of Illinois, Patrick Quinn, is here. (Applause.) Your fine mayor, John Spring -- give him a big round of applause. (Applause.) Attorney General Lisa Madigan. (Applause.) Treasurer and soon to be senator, Alexi Giannoulias. (Applause.) Secretary of State and tumbler supreme, Jesse White. (Applause.) 180202 So I missed you guys. (Applause.) You know, now, being President is nice. (Laughter.) You live above the store, so it's a really short commute. (Laughter.) There's a nice plane. But one of the toughest things about being President is I don't get a chance to come home as much I'd like and visit with all of you like I used to. (Applause.) I see a lot of familiar faces in the crowd here. 180243 Now, part of the problem is, is that when I travel now it kind of causes a ruckus. (Laughter.) I do remember, though, the last time I was here -- I think it was in this building -- that we were filling up sandbags, weren't we? (Applause.) And I still remember that day because it was the picture of what America is about. You had people from all different walks of life, the whole community coming together; everybody was working hard; everybody knew that there was a challenge coming from the potential flooding; but everybody was in good spirits because they figured if we're all working together then there's no reason why we can't handle this. We've handled things before. (Applause.) And that's the American spirit on display and that's the spirit of Quincy and the spirit of Illinois. So it's just good to be reminded of that and to come back and spend some time with you all. We spent a couple of days in Iowa and Missouri and now back here -- (applause.) Yea, Missouri! (Applause.) How about Iowa? Have we got some Iowans here? (Applause.) We got a few Iowans -- but we are in Illinois. (Applause.) But over the last couple of days, we've talked to workers who are busy building wind blades for these big wind turbines, and a biofuel plant; families and small business owners trying to navigate through a tough economy; talking to farmers about what's happening to family farms in the region. And because it's folks like all of you and towns like Quincy that give America its heartbeat, that's why it's so important for me to be able to visit. It's towns like this where working men and women built the American Dream with their bare hands. This is where our roots are. I just met a young man coming in -- he says he's my cousin. There he is, right 180513 there. (Laughter.) Seriously, it's -- what is it, fourth generation? Four generations back? I told him he was a little better looking than me. (Laughter.) But all of us trace back to this experience of parents, grandparents, great-grandparents building this American Dream -- not having much to begin with. And that dream is shared by every Illinoisan and every American -- the chance to make a good living, to raise a healthy and secure family, and most of all, to give our kids opportunities that we didn't have ourselves. 180550 Now, the truth is, is that sometimes it feels like that dream is slipping away. Times are tough in Quincy. Times are tough all across America. We've gone through the worst economy since the Great Depression. Even though our economy is growing again, even though our markets are climbing again and our businesses are finally beginning to create jobs again, there are a lot of folks who still aren't feeling that recovery in their own lives. 180620 And I've heard their stories across the country. I've read it in the letters that I get each night. And a lot of them are worried about whether or not they're going to be able to sustain their dream for a better life. Many felt that way even before this most recent crisis, even before the economic storm of the past two years. Folks were living up to their responsibilities as best they could, working hard, looking after their families, giving back to their communities, but they kept on finding themselves getting hurt in this economy in ways they didn't expect. And part of it was because Washington and Wall Street weren't living up to their responsibilities. (Applause.) That's why I asked to be your President. That's why so many of you joined the campaign. (Applause.) You joined me because you believed we had it within our power to change things. AUDIENCE: Yeah! 180725 THE PRESIDENT: You figured we could solve the problems that had been holding us back year after year after year, and focus on working Americans again. You believed we could keep the American Dream alive in our time, and for all time. And so that's what I want to talk about today. 180744 When I took office, we were in the midst of this historic financial crisis brought on by reckless and irresponsible speculation on Wall Street. (Applause.) That in turn had led to a recession that hammered Main Street across America. And you saw lost jobs and lost homes and lost businesses, and downscaled dreams. The first thing we had to do then was mount an aggressive response -- to make sure that this terrible recession didn't turn into another Great Depression. And let's face it, that required some tough steps to stabilize the financial sector. And some of those steps weren't popular. I knew they weren't popular. I've got pollsters. (Laughter.) 180832 They told me, boy, that's really going to be unpopular. (Laughter.) But we made those decisions anyway, because the well-being of millions of Americans depended on them. Even if they didn't poll well, they were the right thing to do. It was the only thing we could do to take those steps. (Applause.) 180858 So we took these steps to get America back on its feet. We aimed tax relief right at the middle class, the cornerstone of the American Dream. We made sure that we cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, put money in their pockets because they were experiencing hard times -- fewer hours or somebody in the family being laid off, making sure that they could still buy groceries and pay the bills to keep the economy afloat. 180926 We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for students and parents paying for college. (Applause.) And all of this -- not only did this help those individual families, but it increased purchasing power and spending power for businesses all across the country. And then we extended unemployment benefits and we made COBRA cheaper for folks who had lost their jobs. (Applause.) And then we helped give help to the states. And Pat Quinn will tell you, because of the federal assistance that was provided, we averted some massive layoffs of teachers and police officers and firefighters all across the country. (Applause.) 181018 So we did what it took to rescue our economy and spark its recovery. And that work goes on. And so I'm pleased to see that we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when I came into office -- now we're gaining jobs. (Applause.) The economy was contracting -- now the economy is growing. (Applause.) The markets are back. We're making progress. We're moving in the right direction. 181049 But, keep in mind, I didn't run for President just to get back to where we were when we started. I want us to do better than we were doing. (Applause.) I want folks to have more opportunity. I want people to have more and better jobs. And I want our young people to be getting better educations and more access to college. (Applause.) 181117 It's time to rebuild our economy on a new foundation so that we've got real and sustained growth. It's time to extend opportunity to every corner of Main Street, in every city and every town and every county in America, so that young people don't feel like they've got to move someplace else to make their way. They can stay right here in Quincy. (Applause.) They can stay in Monroe. They can stay in Macon. (Applause.) They can stay in Fort Madison. 181148 It's time to create conditions so that Americans who work hard can gain ground again, and they don't have to take out a bunch of credit card debt. They don't have to endanger their long-term financial future. And that's what -- that's at the heart of all our efforts. It's why we made the biggest investment in clean energy in our history, creating middle-class jobs in Middle America that harness the wind and the sun, and biofuels -- that won't be shipped away; jobs that will stay right here in the United States of America, and create energy independence so we don't have to import as much oil. (Applause.) 181229 It's why we took on the special interests and reformed the student loan system so that it works for students, not bankers. (Applause.) I don't know if people paid attention to this. Because we were having such a big debate around health care, people may have missed this. The way the student loan system was working, the federal government was guaranteeing these loans but the banks were still taking billions of dollars of profits out of the student loan program. And my attitude is, well, if we're guaranteeing them, then where's the risk? So what are you getting paid for? 181315 So we said we'll just lend the money directly to the students. (Applause.) That saved tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending that we're now reinvesting in making college more affordable and upgrading America's community colleges, so that every young person in America can get ahead in the 21st century. (Applause.) 181341 And, yes, Quincy, that's why we finally passed health reform in America -- (applause) -- reform that will begin to end some of the worst practices in the insurance industry this year. (Applause.) So this year, they're going to -- they will have to stop dropping you when you get sick. This year, children with preexisting conditions, they've got to be able to buy insurance. This year, some of these lifetime limits that mean that you got insurance but you still end up being bankrupt -- those practices are going to end. (Applause.) And in a few years, millions of families and small business owners are going to have more choice, more competition. You're going to be able to purchase the same kind of high-quality, affordable care that members of Congress get. And you know that's going to be pretty good. (Applause.) You know they're going to give themselves good insurance. You're going to be able to buy it, too. (Applause.) 181442 And by the way, this reform will reduce our deficit by more than $1 trillion. (Applause.) And, listen, don't -- this notion -- I know the debate was contentious. But the truth of the matter is since I've been here, I've already met -- I was in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, met a woman -- (laughter) -- met a woman at Jerry's -- you know Jerry's, right? This is a restaurant there, and met a woman and she said -- she came up and she said, "My husband is self-employed. I'm a homemaker. We both have preexisting conditions. We need help now." And I told her this is exactly why we fought so hard for health care reform. 181535 And then today, I met a woman who had breast cancer, and she was wondering how soon can we start moving on some of these programs inside the health care legislation. This isn't some abstraction. Sometimes, the folks who were fighting us, they made it sound as if, oh, he just wants big government, this -- no. I just want people to be able to not go bankrupt and lose their house when they get sick. (Applause.) I just want them not to have -- see their premiums doubled. I don't want them to be taken advantage of by insurance companies. (Applause.) I want you to get a fair deal and a fair shake. (Applause.) And that's part of my job as President of the United States of America. (Applause.) AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you! THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) 181625Now, speaking of -- speaking of you getting a fair shake, that's why we need good old common-sense Wall Street reform. (Applause.) And we need it today. We don't need it next year. We don't need to do another study and examine it. We need it now. (Applause.) And in case you're wondering, let me just take a minute to explain why it's important to you. The crisis we went through, it wasn't part of the normal economic cycle. What happened was you had some people -- not all people -- there's some very decent people here who are in the financial sector -- but you had some people on Wall Street who took these unbelievable risks with other people's money. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Damn. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: They made bets. They were making bets on what was going to happen in the housing market, and they would create these derivatives and all these instruments that nobody understood. But it was basically operating like a big casino. And it was producing big profits and big bonuses for them, but it was all built on shaky economics and some of these subprime loans that had been given out. 18:17:51 And because we did not have common-sense rules in place, those irresponsible practices came awfully close to bringing down our entire economy and millions of dreams along with it. 18:18:02 We had a system where some on Wall Street could take these risks without fear of failure, because they keep the profits when it was working, and as soon as it went south, they expected you to cover their losses. So it was one of those heads, they tail -- tails, you lose. 18:18:26 So they failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child's college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what's working fine for them wasn't working for ordinary Americans. And we've learned that clearly. It doesn't work out fine for the country. It's got to change. (Applause.) 18:19:00 Now, what we're doing -- I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or you're providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy. I've said this before. I've said this on Wall Street just last week. I believe in the power of the free market. And I believe in a strong financial system. And when it's working right, financial institutions, they help make possible families buying homes, and businesses growing, and new ideas taking flight. An entrepreneur may have a great idea, but he may need to borrow some money to make it happen. It would be hard for a lot of us to buy a house -- our first house, at least, if we weren't able to take out a mortgage. So there's nothing wrong with a financial system that helps the economy expand. And there are a lot of good people in the financial industry who are doing things the right way. And it's in our interest when those firms are strong and when they're healthy. 18:20:18 But some of these institutions that operated irresponsibly, they're not just threatening themselves -- they threaten the whole economy. And they threaten your dreams, your prospects, everything that you worked so hard to build. So we just want them to operate in a way that's fair and honest and in the open, so that we don't have to go through what we've already gone through. (Applause.) We want to make sure the financial system doesn't just work for Wall Street, but it works for Main Street, too. It works for Quincy. It works for Mount Pleasant. It works for Macon and Fort Madison. (Applause.) Now, let me explain to you what this reform should look like, because one of the things you discover when you get to Washington is what's black is white and what's up is down and sometimes people will -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Lie. THE PRESIDENT: I didn't say lie, but -- (laughter) -- they will tell stories about what's going on. So let me just be very clear in terms of what we're proposing on financial reform. First -- and I know this is important to you because it's important to me -- we're going to make sure the American taxpayer is never again on the hook when a Wall Street firm fails. Never again. (Applause.) We don't want to see another bailout. That's what this reform does. 18:21:44 Now, you've got some -- you had some who were saying, cynically, just claiming the opposite, that somehow this was a bill that institutionalized bailouts. What this bill did was it said, no, if you have a firm on Wall Street that fails, the financial industry is going to pay -- not taxpayers. So a vote for reform is a vote to end taxpayer-funded bailouts once and for all. (Applause.) If a crisis like this again happens, financial firms are going to foot the bill. That's point number one. 18:22:21 Point number two -- we're going to close the loopholes that allowed derivatives and all these other large, risky deals that don't make a lot of economic sense and that could threaten our entire economy -- we want to bring those deals out into the -- out of the dark alleys of our financial system into the light of day, so that everybody knows exactly what's happening, what risks are being taken -- investors, shareholders, everybody knows what's going on. That's the second thing. Number three -- this reform is going to give you more power because we're going to put in place the strongest consumer financial protections in history. (Applause.) Because -- and the reason this is important -- the reason this is important, this crisis wasn't just the result of what happened on Wall Street. It also happened because there were a lot of decisions by folks out on Main Street who were taking out 18:23:14 mortgages they didn't understand, credit cards they didn't understand, auto loans that weren't a good deal. Some took on obligations they couldn't afford. But millions of others were deceived or misled by shifting terms and confusing conditions and forests of fine print. And your attorney general, Lisa Madigan, has been fighting on behalf of consumers in this state and she knows how badly we need these protections. (Applause.) In fact, Lisa and a bunch of other attorney generals came to testify on behalf of the need for these consumer protection bills because they see this stuff in their offices every day. And it's true all across the country. Now, some argue that giving consumers more information in clear, concise ways is somehow going to stifle competition. I believe the opposite. See, I think if you know what you're buying, you can make a good decision. And that means that the companies, instead of competing to see who can offer the most confusing products, companies will have to compete the old-fashioned way: by offering the best product. (Applause.) But that's not going to reduce innovation or competition. You just should be knowing what you're buying. It's like a lemon law, right? You don't want to go into the used car lot and get something where they've changed the odometer and put a fresh coat of paint on some old beater and pretend like it's a new car. Well, it's the same thing with financial products. You should know what you're getting. All right, so that's the third thing. Finally, we're going to give the people who own these companies, these financial companies -- mainly investors and pension holders and shareholders like many of you -- we want you to have more say in the way they're run. Because some of these firms, they've got these huge salaries, huge bonuses that create a perverse incentive to encourage people to take reckless risks. But if you own stock in these companies, you need to get some say in how they operate. (Applause.) You'll get to decide how managers are paid and how those firms operate. And that means that we'll actually increase the connection between Main Street and Wall Street. They'll be more accountable to you. So that's the reform we've put forward. (Applause.) These are the reforms that we're putting forward: Accountability -- which means no more bailouts. Closing loopholes -- no more trading of things like derivatives in the shadows. Consumer protections -- no more deceptive products. A say on pay -- so that we give shareholders a more powerful voice. That's what we're trying to do. Now, I don't think this should be a partisan issue. Everybody -- Republicans, and Democrats, and independents -- were hurt by this crisis. So everybody should want to fix it. So I'm very pleased that after a few days of delay, it appears an agreement may be at hand to allow this debate to move forward on the Senate floor on this critical issue. (Applause.) I'm very pleased by that. And I want to work with anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- who wants to pursue these reforms in good faith. And there can be some legitimate differences on certain issues, but the bottom line is consumers have to be protected. We have to end bailouts. We've got to make sure that these trading practices are out in the open. We've got to make sure that people have a say in terms of how these firms operate so they're more accountable. So as long as we're adhering to those clear principles, then I feel okay. What I don't want is a deal made that is written by the financial industry lobbyists. We've had enough of that. (Applause.) We've had enough of that. I want to listen to what they have to say, but I don't them writing the bill. I don't want Democrats and Republicans agreeing to a bill written by them, for them. I want a bill that's written for you, for the American people. (Applause.) So we're going to see how this debate unfolds. We're going to get this done. And we're going to get it done because you demand it. It's been two years since this crisis, born on Wall Street, slammed into Main Street with its full fury. And while things aren't nearly back to normal out here, they're getting back to normal pretty quick up there. Some in Washington think this debate is moving too fast. They think, well, this is kind of a political game; let's see how this whole thing can play to our advantage in November. See, that's not how I play. I've been calling for better rules on Wall Street since 2007, before this crisis happened. (Applause.) So I don't think we're moving too fast. I think we've been moving too slow. It's time to get this done. And I don't think you want to see us wait for another year or two years. I don't think you think Washington is moving too fast. (Applause.) I think you want to get this done. (Applause.) You shouldn't have to wait another day for the protections from some of the practices that got us into this mess. We can't let the recovery that's finally beginning to take hold fall prey to a whole new round of recklessness. If we don't learn the lessons of this crisis, we doom ourselves to repeat it. And I refuse to let that happen. (Applause.) So the time for reform is now. (Applause.) 18:29:15 Quincy, let me just say this. Through all the noise and the lobbyists and the partisanship -- and I know sometimes you're watching TV and saying, sheesh, everybody is yelling and hollering, and why are they so mad? But this debate comes down to a simple choice: Are we going to go down the same road, where irresponsibility of a few can put millions of families at risk and stick taxpayers with a tab? AUDIENCE: No! THE PRESIDENT: Or are we going to protect consumers, and strengthen our financial system, and put rules in place that keep this from happening ever again? (Applause.) Are we going to give in to the 18:29:54 special interests, or are we going to score another victory for the American people? (Applause.) Are we going to stick with the status quo? Or are we going to bring about fundamental change that makes things work for ordinary Americans? (Applause.) We've got the power to do something about this. That's all it comes down to -- the will to act. I still believe we can come together, just like you all came together during those floods, filling those sandbags -- everybody joining together, everybody breaking a little sweat, everybody helping out. That's how America got built. (Applause.) We are not powerless in the face of our challenges. We don't quit when things get tough. We're not afraid. (Applause.) When something happens, we come together. We move forward. We act. We are Americans -- our destiny is written by us, not for us. (Applause.) And if we remember that and summon that spirit once again, we're going to strengthen our economy today and tomorrow, and restore security to the middle class. (Applause.) That's what we're fighting for -- the American Dream right here in Quincy, right here in Illinois, all across the country. (Applause.) 18:31:13 God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.) END
Financial Crisis Inquiry Hearing 1000-1100
TRANSCRIPT: fortunately, this is now understood by -- by just about everyone. BORN: Let me ask you about the political influence and power of the financial services sector, industry leading up to the crisis. There are some reports that indicate that the financial sector may have spent as much as $5 billion in lobbying expenses, federal lobbying expenses and campaign contributions, in the decade leading up to the crisis, and that in 2007, there were almost 3,000 registered lobbyists in Washington who had been hired by the financial sector. I wonder whether some of the regulatory gaps and weaknesses we saw may have been in part at least attributed to this effort to influence federal policy. PAULSON: You know, it's interesting. I can't comment as to how it impacted Congress. I do know that it is very, very difficult to get anything that's fundamental, controversial, difficult done in Congress without a crisis. But there are a lot of jurisdictional issues. This is complex stuff. And what I saw in terms of regulators, I just saw regulators seriously working to try to gather the information, and it was just -- if a man from Mars -- when I arrived, if I had to explain to a man from Mars as to how this -- and I see you laughing, because you know -- how this was regulated, and why OTS regulated these institutions and OCC these, and why there wasn't any regulator that had access to all of the information in the shadow banking market and so on, I could have never explained it. And so I -- I have no doubt that lobbying has an impact, but there you'd have to talk to some other members of the panel that are closer to the political process than I am. BORN: Well, clearly there were regulatory gaps or weaknesses in terms of the oversight of the shadow banking areas. Don't you agree? PAULSON: Yes. BORN: And did you think that the effort by the SEC to create a consolidated supervised entity program for the investment bank holding companies was a step in the right direction? PAULSON: You know it's -- I'll tell you, at the time when I was on Wall Street, I did -- that the people we worked with at the SEC were the highest quality. And when I was in government and working with them, I thought that there were just some very, very strong professionals there working very hard and very diligently. So it was -- so I look at it from that perspective, and then I just simply say, if I get up to 100,000 feet and look at it, I just say we all made mistakes, you know, when you look at -- you know, there were regulatory mistakes over periods of time, and clearly from the bankers and the investors and all the different participants. But I never doubted for a minute the competence and the professionalism of the -- the regulators at the SEC who had just in a very short time -- remember, this program for the consolidated regulatory program had just recently evolved, and then we had the tsunami. BORN: Do you think that going forward it's important to try to eliminate regulatory gaps like those for the shadow banking? PAULSON: Yes. I think -- here's what I think going forward. I think these big complex financial institutions, they need to have sort of a uniformity of approach in having tough, consistent regulation without some being able to find nooks and crannies. And then in terms of the shadow banking, there needs to be -- that's a big reason why I recommended this systemic risk regulator concept. Someone needs the authority and the ability to gather all of the information necessary so you can look at these big systemic issues. I do think that if a systemic risk regulator had been in the place, it would have had more authority to deal with over-the-counter derivatives much earlier, or would have had the purview and the authority to deal with the repo market. BORN: Or with institutions like AIG who... PAULSON: Absolutely. BORN: ... which was not really overseen effectively. PAULSON: Absolutely, at the holding company level. That's right. It was -- that was an example of an institution that was able to arbitrage and build itself up by playing the gaps in the system. BORN: Well, one of the questions that I have is -- and would be interested in your observations on this. You know, obviously, there were problems in supervision even with bank holding companies in terms of the biggest institutions. And today, some of those holding companies are even bigger than they were in 2008 because of consolidations, because businesses have gone out of business, and for other reasons. Are these institutions really capable of effective supervision by government regulators? Indeed, are they capable of effective internal management? Probably your experience at Goldman Sachs could inform that issue. PAULSON: Well, I would say this to you that I think that the level of concentration where we have 10 big institutions with 60 percent of the financial assets, you know, this is a dangerous risk. Now, I believe these institutions are necessary. They perform a valuable role. So the way I get at your question is this. I say, first of all, I know we can have better regulation -- absolutely know -- better, more consistent, bigger capital requirements, bigger liquidity requirements. But then I come to the conclusion that regulation will never be perfect. Unless you hypothesize that these institutions wanted to blow themselves up, it's hard to believe that the regulators are always going to be able to find the problems that they can't find themselves. And so there will be -- there will continue to be failures. There have been since the beginning of time. Since the time we've had capital markets, institutions have failed. We've had financial crises. That is why I believe, in addition to strengthening the regulatory system, you need these resolutions authorities so the government has the authority that when a big institution fails, to step in outside of the bankruptcy process and wind it down, and wind it down in a way in which you're not saving and propping it up in their current form. The expectation has got to be that they're liquidated. I know that's complicated, but you can train regulators to do that, and that's why I'm such a big proponent of this will (ph) concept, you know, that these big institutions work with the regulators to create a road map for their liquidation if they do fail. So again, you'll never get perfect regulation, but I just don't think the American people are ever going to again want to see the taxpayer come in and bail out or save these institutions. So when they fail, we need a way of liquidating them, and liquidating them in a way in which they don't hurt the American people and take the system down. And that, to me -- so you're right. We can never -- regulation, we should strive to make it as good and as effective as we can, and to give the regulators the tools they need and the information they need so they'll be right more -- more often. But then, there will be failures and we have to figure out how to deal with them so it doesn't hurt everyone else. BORN: If I may have another two minutes? ANGELIDES: Yes. BORN: I just wanted to follow up with you on a specific example. For example, Goldman Sachs. You are very familiar with what Goldman Sachs is like; what running it involved. Do you think from your experience as the head of a big institution like Goldman Sachs that it is capable of an orderly wind-down in case it gets into financial problems? PAULSON: Yes, I think that any institution can be wound down -- it's complicated -- over a period of time. You can't immediately. You know, in the middle of a crisis, there is no institution no matter what their capital says, if you have to liquidate it right away, there's no institution that I think that the assets will be worth more than the liabilities. So -- and again, my view is that with any institution, there's got to be a way that if they fail, that you know and the expectation is that they're not going to be propped up in their current form; that they'll be broken up. They'll be changed in some way. They'll be liquidated in a way. And so I believe that can be done. BORN: Thank you. ANGELIDES: Mr. Holtz-Eakin? HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate your testimony. I want to go back to this observation in your book that a crisis was inevitable, and ask you, does that mean that if there had not been a housing market crisis to trigger it, something else would have? PAULSON: Well, when I said "inevitable," what I said in the book was that our history in this country has been, and certainly in modern times, is every six, eight, 10 years there's been some crisis. We could go starting with the S&L crisis and I could just take you through the various -- you know, '94, '98 with long-term -- you know, with long-term capital. We had Russia and Asia. So we've had these. And so what I saw was excesses building in the system. Now, I could have said the same thing in 2004 or '05, and you know, I would have been wrong in terms of the timing, but ultimately you were going to have these. And what I saw, and I didn't realize how true it was, was I said to people, the difficulty or the interesting thing about the next crisis is we're going to be seeing how these complex instruments and some of these private pools of capital and markets away from the traditional financial institutions perform for the first time under stress, because there has been a lot of change. And so we saw a lot of this performed under stress. So yes, I think it's inevitable, and I think as sure as we're sitting here today, the next crisis is inevitable. I don't think it's going to happen right away, but there will be -- there will be stresses and problems in the capital markets sometime in the future, probably in our lifetimes again. And so the key thing is how to have those be relatively small, manageable events. They'll never be small events to those right in the middle of the markets dealing with them, but so that they're small, manageable events to the rest of us in the broader economy. HOLTZ-EAKIN: But the signature of this particular crisis that we sadly have to report on is the housing market? PAULSON: Yes. HOLTZ-EAKIN: You would agree with that? PAULSON: Yes. HOLTZ-EAKIN: In your testimony, you said that there were several policy decisions that shaped the home mortgage market. What would be the list of policy decisions? PAULSON: Well, I think what you would need to look at -- you know, just look at the weight of a whole series of decisions we made, you know, the various programs for housing. It's not just Fannie and Freddie, but it's the FHA, the HUD programs, state programs. I'd say even just take something like the mortgage interest rate deduction. You know, $1 million mortgage, it's deductible. Is that fair relative to renters? Or forgetting about fairness, I think you have the sum total of so many things pushed housing way up. I would travel around the world when I was in the capital markets and other nations would look at us in awe that we had homeownership above 60 percent. You know, we weren't satisfied with that. We got it up to 69 percent. So I just think you need to look at those policies as fundamental causes of -- root causes of the crisis. HOLTZ-EAKIN: And on that list would the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? PAULSON: Right. Yes. HOLTZ-EAKIN: In your book you also said that shortly after you arrived as secretary of the treasury, you received a briefing about the GSEs, and the quote is that they were a disaster waiting to happen and that when our staff interviewed you, you said that the business model was fundamentally flawed. And could you just tell us exactly what the flaws were in the GSE business model and why you thought they were a disaster waiting to happen? PAULSON: Yes, well, I didn't -- sure didn't predict this disaster happening the way it did, so I'll tell you that. That was -- that was a phrase, you know, that I used, you know, I used without the -- you know, it turned out to be prophetic, but I -- I didn't see it quite as clearly as it came about. But in terms of the -- of the structure, that, first of all, there were the ambiguities, OK? There was the implicit government support, the congressional charter, and then private capital and private profit and, you know, the -- the shareholders and the compensation model. So there was just -- there was a contradiction there. And secondly, this was the situation where Congress presumed to be the regulator. They defined capital, you know, legislatively defined capital -- not only the level of capital, but what could count as capital. And some things that I considered BS capital, you know, intangibles and so on, were defined as capital. And so the regulator was set up to be weak, not saying anything negative about the people that held that job, but -- but they were not given the authorities that a normal regulator is given, a safety and soundness regulator to make judgments about capital. You've had a -- and then the elephant had clearly gotten too big for the tent, right? These things just grew and grew and grew, and so you had -- when you look at all of the -- it's just hard for people, when we throw around these numbers, to even comprehend, but you have $5.4 trillion when you look at the securities they'd insured, the debt they'd issued. So the danger, you know, if one of these -- when you look at the capital markets, you know, the danger they posed was sort of unimaginable. You know, we could talk about the failure of any one institution, but -- but the danger posed by a lack of confidence of the ability of these entities to repay their debt was -- was much greater than that. So this -- these -- these were big. And then I think the partner you alluded to really had to do with their portfolios. This was a big topic of debate, because they would not only guarantee or insure mortgage pools, they then would take their low funding and buy in these mortgages and hold them. And they said that this was necessary for their mission to support their market. But there's people explaining to me two-thirds of their earnings were coming from that, so, you know, and -- and their boards had a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. We could talk about the public mission. We could talk about -- you know, we could testify up on the Hill about meeting their housing goals, but they had public shareholders, and that's where their duty was. It was to grow their profits. So as I look at that, I never so much blame the people that ran those organizations as those that designed the plane, who asked them to fly before they flew it into the side of the mountain, you know. So it was -- it was just not -- it was the wrong structure. HOLTZ-EAKIN: So one of the things we heard yesterday was that during the early part of March as Bear Stearns came under duress, agency securities were no longer accepted as collateral in the -- in the overnight repo market. And indeed, if you look back at spreads on Fannie and Freddie during that period, they're -- they're spiking up and showing clear signs of market distrust. So I want you to walk me through the -- the thinking, then, during that period when Fannie and Freddie were actually permitted to drop the limits on their portfolios and lose the capital surcharge at a time when the market is saying, even with the capital surcharge and limits on their portfolios, they aren't really safe. PAULSON: Yes, it was exactly the opposite of what you -- you said. I had had my staff work with them to get them to raise capital, to increase their capital. As a result of what we did, Fannie went out and raised $7 billion of capital, so there was a net increase in capital. Freddie committed to raise capital. It turns out they didn't. They didn't meet their commitment. But -- but to step back -- but that's sort of the -- the specific question you asked, but to get back more broadly, what had happened was this. They had -- the credit crisis came amid, you know, 2007, and then most of the damage had been done by that -- that point, because, you know, after that time mortgage lending virtually ground to a stop away from Fannie and Freddie. And there was all kinds of evidence of really very responsible borrowers that wanted to buy homes and had the economic wherewithal, but were having trouble getting mortgage funding. And so now Fannie and Freddie are essentially the only game in town. And they needed -- and so the -- the -- you know, I -- I believe the -- the problem was already baked. I mean, they own the securities in their portfolios. They had guaranteed what they'd guaranteed before the housing bubble had broken -- burst. And so what we're doing in March of 2008 at the time when we took the action we took with Bear Stearns, we also were trying to increase confidence in these organizations and get them to increase their capital. So again, we -- I was pressing many institutions to raise capital. I was talking to many CEOs of institutions and saying, "I've never seen the CEO of a financial institution that lost his job by having too much capital, you know. Raise capital when you can raise capital." We pressed them. As I said, Fannie raised -- lived up to their commitment. Freddie didn't. HOLTZ-EAKIN: They got it from the treasury yesterday. If you run the clock forward, then, knowing what you know about their financial condition, I believe you said something to the effect of the Freddie Mac -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac legislation gave you a bazooka that you would never have to use, and then shortly thereafter used it. PAULSON: I never said never, OK? HOLTZ-EAKIN: No, so... PAULSON: I didn't say never. HOLTZ-EAKIN: So. PAULSON: What -- what I said was -- what it was when I got this authority, I said there was a -- that -- that I was asking for unlimited authority. It sounded bad politically to say unlimited, so I said unspecified. I -- I wanted to have the maximum amount of authority. And -- and I said to the extent you -- we have more -- the more authority we have, the more confidence the markets will have, and that's the greatest -- and that will increase -- reduce the likelihood we'll have to use it. And what happened was with Fannie and Freddie, we weren't the regulator. We didn't have the authority or the people to get in and look at it, OK? But what we -- so it wasn't until we actually got in, OK, and got the authority, so when -- I went to -- we -- I was working very hard to get the emergency legislation from Congress, or get legislation from Congress, reform legislation. And then confidence went in these entities. And as I said, it was sort of an unimaginable risk. So we went and got this emergency authority. And then once we got it, I was able to -- we -- we had Goldman -- we had Morgan Stanley working with treasury as our adviser. We had the OCC. We had the Fed, working with FHA, go in and look at these entities. And it was only then we were able to get our arms around sort of the scope and magnitude of the capital problem. And then the fact that we had these authorities, for the first time we could address the problem. We could do something about it. We -- we had the -- we had the authority to put in capital and to put them into conservatorship, so that's sort of the story there. HOLTZ-EAKIN: I want to -- I don't have much time, but I also wanted to -- to go back and talk about the Bear Stearns episode itself, wanted to get your views on whether Bear could have been allowed to fail. What we heard yesterday... PAULSON: Whether Bear could what? HOLTZ-EAKIN: Be allowed to fail. PAULSON: Yes. HOLTZ-EAKIN: And we heard yesterday fairly convincing testimony that the -- the purchase of Bear set the expectation that other institutions would get help, and back when the Lehman went down and did not get help, that was a great shock and surprise to the market. So I was wondering if you would give us your views particularly about the -- setting the precedent, having, you know, seeing the intervention with Fannie and Freddie set expectations, how you felt about doing that with -- with Bear. HOLTZ-EAKIN: Mr. Chairman? I give the commissioner five additional minutes. PAULSON: OK. Do you -- OK. I'd -- I would like to -- to answer that question, because in terms of convincing testimony, you will never hear convincing testimony from anybody on this, who was close to the markets, in my judgment. ANGELIDES: And we're giving you time to answer, so go. PAULSON: Because here's what I would say. First of all, let's look at the timing on this, because Bear was rescued in March, and we got the emergency legislation on Fannie and Freddie in July, and they were put in conservatorship in September. I believe that if Bear had not been rescued and it had failed, the meltdown that we began to see after Lehman had gone would have started months earlier, and we would've really been in the soup, because it would have started -- now that I look at it with hindsight -- before Fannie and Freddie were stabilized. Could you -- could you just imagine the mess we would have had? That -- that if Bear had gone, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of counterparties that all would've grabbed their collateral, would have started trying to sell their collateral, drove down prices, create even bigger losses. There was huge fear about the investment banking model at that time, and because of the lack of Fed oversight and access to the discount window and so on. So I think you would have seen other investment banks go very quickly. Now, those that make that argument are missing, to me, one fundamental fact that, as the chairman said, using the expression once the toothpaste is out of the tube, once the -- the crisis had been going on for -- for seven months when Bear went. The system was very, very fragile. You didn't see excessive risk-taking. You didn't see speculation. A matter fact, there wasn't a lot of prudent loans that were being made. Investors were even afraid to buy student loans securitizations where the government was behind it. Sovereign wealth funds and other foreign buyers that have come into Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, had all lost a lot of money. People were scared. So it wasn't like people said, "Gee, they bailed out -- bailed out Bear. Now we can go and let Lehman be profligate," you know. The losses that Lehman had and that others had were in positions that were already on their balance sheet that were -- that were illiquid positions that just had to be marked down as the economy turned down and as the -- and -- and as home prices dropped. So again, the -- you know, I -- I think you would've had a hard time finding any buyer for any institution, if the government had -- if -- if -- again, if -- if Bear had failed. HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you. One last question. You talked about the -- the investment banking model sort of being in trouble. What we heard yesterday from the SEC is that investment banks had voluntarily brought themselves to Basel II capital standards, had liquidity requirements in excess of those required of commercial banks, holding companies, that by the standards of regulation they were fine. And so my question specifically is is there a real difference in the performance of commercial versus other entities during the crisis? We saw failures across the board. PAULSON: Now, I may have a bit of a bias, given where I came from, but I will tell you this analytically, that I think people throw around the leverage ratios, and if you had adjusted for accounting differences the fact that investment banks had the discipline of marking securities to market, that I think that -- that they were at least as well-capitalized as the commercial banks. PAULSON: I -- I believe that the -- the issues that -- I think this was a -- a confidence issue. I think that it started -- I think you had a couple of investment banks in Bear and in Lehman Brothers that had big exposure to the housing market, and Bear in particular probably wasn't as diversified as some of the others, and I think it really comes down to liquidity management and liquidity cushions. And I think I saw the same lack of liquidity management -- you know, I saw it across the board, with banks and investment banks. But -- so my comment didn't get to the relative strength or weakness. It really got to a concern and a lack of confidence. And when the market loses confidence in an entity, in the middle of a crisis, it's very hard for that company to continue to exist. HOLTZ-EAKIN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. ANGELIDES: Thank you. Just I'm going to take a couple minutes of my time. I just want to follow up on something that Mr. Holtz-Eakin raised. At our last hearing when we had Fannie Mae in front of us, the vice chairman and I described a timeline which we've now verified, and I'd like to enter it into the record, as well as the underlying documents, and it gets to what's happening in that late February, early March timeframe, and culminates around what you might call the Bear weekend. PAULSON: Right. ANGELIDES: And let me see if I can describe this very quickly. There's obviously concerns about the meltdown of the private side of the mortgage market. You had expressed some pretty darn big concerns about Fannie. You've also said, both publicly and in the interview with our staff, that -- what you said to our staff is they, meaning Fannie and Freddie, were the game in town, they were the only game in town. But it looks like what's happening here is the portfolio caps are going to be lifted -- I think that happens February 28th -- so that Fannie and Freddie will keep lending now into a market with big headwinds. And the deal I think that you and your team are trying to broker -- I don't know if that's an accurate characterization -- but certainly involved in, involves them continuing to lend in, having their capital surcharge reduced some -- in fact, instantly, I think, reducing their capital by 10 percent -- on the promise to raise more capital. Is that a fair assessment? PAULSON: Well, I -- I would say this. It was a -- it was a -- they made a commitment to raise more capital. And Fannie raised $7 billion... ANGELIDES: Fannie and Freddie didn't, right. PAULSON: And Freddie didn't live up to the commitment. And so that was -- there was net more capital raised. And the -- and there was the deal which the regulator and the GSEs, working with my staff, brokered, was a lifting the -- the capital surcharge to raise capital, and it was to -- and I just can't say strongly enough, it was to raise capital. The other thing I will say, when you're saying lending into headwinds, I object -- I think just the opposite. I think what you will find is that the -- the markets had -- everyone -- the markets had declined dramatically in housing prices, and they were continuing to decline, so everyone was aware of the issue. And so the -- the losses they had didn't stem from -- I think you're going to find didn't stem from going ahead and doing risky things in here. It had to do with what was going on in the housing market and what had gone in -- in all of the -- all of the loans that they guaranteed before that and put on their -- put on their balance sheets. ANGELIDES: Well, see -- and I think this -- and I think we're going to have to look at this -- but here's what I wanted to get to the nub of, which is, it's clear there's deep concerns. Lockhart (ph) -- in fact, there's an e-mail March 16th in which Mr. Steel (ph) writes to Mr. Mudd (ph), quote, "Lockhart needs to eliminate the negative rhetoric," because it looks like the regulator's not really wild about this. But interesting, also, he says, I was leaned on very hard by Bill Dudley (ph), who worked for Mr. Geithner, to harden substantially the guarantee. I do not like that and it's not been part of my conversation with anyone else. I view it as a very significant move, way above my pay grade, to double the size of the U.S. debt in one fell swoop. In the day or two before the transaction gets done, Lockhart (ph) objects by saying, This idea strikes me as perverse, as I assume it would seem perverse to the markets that a regulator would agree to allow a regulatee to increase its very high mortgage credit risk -- mortgage credit risk leverage without any new capital. Now, I understand that part of this was to raise more capital, but here's my essential question: You had deep doubts -- and I'm just trying to get a sense of how you saw the markets in March. Bear had just been, quote, unquote, well, acquired, but there was a rescue involved, because the Fed's involved. At this point, in a sense, you're striking a deal that allows them to stay in the market. You have deep concerns about solvency. Is there a view at that point that, look, we're now in the business of a bailout? Does the bailout start in March or do you genuinely believe things are going to write themselves? PAULSON: Neither one. Didn't believe things were necessarily going to write themselves, and the bailout didn't start in March. This -- I just cannot say it clear and more definitively. This was about getting them to raise capital. That's what this was about. And guess what? It did, OK? Fannie raised $7 billion in capital. Freddie committed to raise capital, and then later their lawyers said, well, we need to wait until the second quarter numbers are out. And by the time the second quarter numbers are out, we had gone and gotten the -- the emergency legislation. But this was solely about raising capital, because what we were dealing with, we were dealing with a situation where the markets were on edge. They were the -- the only game in town. And I was pressing -- this was not unique to them. We were pressing financial institutions to raise capital. And to me, it was an unimaginable risk that these things posed. I had no idea that we would need to go at that time to Congress and get these authorities. And I -- and I had no idea that we could have got those authorities, because, remember, I had seen Congress, Fannie and Freddie were a political football like you wouldn't believe. I'd seen reforms stymied for years, and we were working to try to get the kinds of authorities we needed. And so I had no idea that we were going to need to get the authorities, get the authorities we got, which let us get in with the real experts to get their arms around the problem, and then get the tools we needed to address the problem. So working with the limited tools we had, without being the regulator for Fannie or Freddie, we pressed them to raise capital, and I think that was a right thing. I think it was a -- it was a sign of confidence when they -- when they announced it and then when they went and Fannie raised capital. ANGELIDES: You know, at some point, I think, given your staff one person, I'd like to follow up a little on this, but I think there's a bigger objective here, which is also trying to understand, as markets are wobbling... PAULSON: Right. ANGELIDES: ... this kind of dichotomy I think you faced -- and maybe -- and I'm going to really move on to other members -- I'll just state it and then we'll ask in a written question -- between trying to stabilize the markets versus also acknowledging publicly the state in which they're in. But I'll -- that's -- let me do this. Let me... PAULSON: Well, obviously, I'd just simply say this. What you need to recognize -- just -- and I'll say this, and I'll answer it in writing, and answer it the same way -- that Treasury is not the regulator. We didn't have the authority; we didn't have the people; we didn't have the capacity to really get in there, OK? So we were -- what we were doing was pressing them to raise capital, it was only when the markets lost confidence and we needed to get these authorities that we had the tools to get in there and get our arms around the problem. ANGELIDES: All right, thank you. Senator Graham? GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary. I would like to ask three questions that relate to lessons learned. As you say, this is not going to be the final financial crisis that this country is going to have. One of those relates to a continuation of the Bear Stearns story, and that is, when you faced the issue of Lehman Brothers, you were, in addition to dealing with Lehman, you were establishing a principle which was that Bear was not a precedent for all future similar circumstances, that you were not going to rally the federal government to the salvation of every institution. What were the factors that caused you to make the case-by-case decision that Lehman was not worthy of a federal-assisted transition? PAULSON: Thank you for asking that question, because despite the fact I've written a book and answered this hundreds of times, people tend still not to -- and despite the fact that we've had Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner say the same things, people still question us on this a lot, because it's hard to understand. But the fact is that Bear faced a liquidity and a capital problem, and we were very fortunate to have a buyer in JPMorgan to come in and solve the capital problem and be able to guarantee Bear's trading books during the pendency of the shareholder vote. And so we were -- and we learned there that the government -- how limited our authorities were. We couldn't -- no one had the authority to guarantee an investment bank's liabilities or to put in capital. And so -- and we didn't have resolution authority. After that, I made a number of speeches where I talked about the need for this. Lehman came along. We unfortunately were unable to get any bank to play the role on Lehman that JPMorgan played on Bear. And so we -- we tried very hard to do that, and we were left, frankly, powerless. And so they -- we prepared for the -- you know, for the -- for the bankruptcy. So this was not something we did intentionally. And it was just a -- we just had a flawed regulatory system and powers. GRAHAM: The second area is conditionality of funds to financial institutions through TARP or other bailout practices. In contrast to what seems to be the perception of the U.S., where there were relatively few requirements, in the United Kingdom, for instance, the Royal Bank of Scotland was required to accept certain conditions as to what its lending practices would be, limitations on dividends and compensations. Why were there not similar conditions attached to the bailout of U.S. financial institutions? PAULSON: Well, this was a totally different program. We did not want to be dealing with institutions as they serially failed, as they did in the U.K. We -- we diagnosed the problem of being a big capital shortfall in the banking sector. And so we designed a program that would be attractive to healthy banks so that they would want to come in and voluntarily participate. And we put in preferred, which was passive, what wasn't -- we didn't want it to look or be like a nationalization, and designed so that the government would get the money back, because it was senior to the common. And so that was -- that was the whole purpose of the program. And, you know, interestingly enough, you know, I -- I was hopeful when we announced it we'd get a couple of thousand banks that would participate, 2,000 or 3,000. And I -- but right after we announced it -- and we had critics start saying, "You've got to force them to lend." They didn't say how much or how you were going to make them lend or what the government would do. You've got to control their compensation, understandably. And then, understandably, a number of the banks said, wow, I'm not sure we like this deal. And so we had a good number of banks apply for TARP, get accepted, and then pull back, and we had about 700 -- not quite -- take the money. And it was a big success, because it prevented the collapse, and the government's going to get the money back with a profit. But I think if it hadn't been stigmatized by all those that wanted to put the various controls on it that we would have had 2,000 or 3,000 banks, they would have had the money for three to five years, and that would have done far more than any stimulus program to get the economy going again.
HILLARY CLINTON RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA RALLY POOL / HD
WASH 6 HILLARY CLINTON RALEIGH NC EVENT POOL C16 062216 14:23:13 Thank you! Whoa, it's great to be back in Raleigh. Thank you. Thank you so much. You know, I, I, I have to confess I was having such a good time backstage listening to the listening to the 120 minutes band, listening to Mary Wingate do the National Anthem. And just being absolutely transported by Shay Taylor and Friends, the gospel group that got us all just going today. [ cheers and applause ] 14:23:59 And I cannot think of a better twosome than the people you just saw up here, because I honestly believe Jim Hunt was not only one of the best governors north Carolina ever had, but -- [ cheers and applause ] -- one of the best governors anywhere in America in the last years. 14:24:25 And what he did to really put North Carolina on a path to the future has stood the test of time. We've had a few glitches with others who don't seem to understand what the ingredients are for building an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top, but Jim hunt knows that. And I look forward to continuing to work with him and I was so delighted that you had a chance as I did to hear Alisha Wilkerson talk about her journey, how hard she has worked raising her children, getting an education, making it possible for her to have a better future. And I so greatly appreciate her mentioning the s-chip program which has helped 8 million kids every year get health insurance. 14:25:25 Because we're in North Carolina and we have a lot of friends here, I want to acknowledge some of them. Your secretary of state, Elaine Marshall. Senator Jan blue the minority leader of the North Carolina senate. Representative Larry hall, democratic leader of the north Carolina house of representatives. Linda Coleman running for lieutenant governor. Judge Mike Morgan running against a Republican supreme court incumbent. And don't forget that Dan blue III is running for state treasurer. Josh stein running for attorney general. And let's give a big round of applause to your next governor, attorney general Roy cooper. Your next ag commissioner, Walter Smith. And your next united states senator deborah ross. 14:26:50 We're going to work hard in this election to elect as many democrats up and down the ticket so that North Carolina can get back on the path to the future, get off this detour that you've been on. [ cheers and applause ] Now, I have to start by saying if you notice anything different about me today it could be that now I've got double the grandmother glow. [ cheers and applause ] This past weekend Chelsea and Mark had a little boy and we are totally over the moon about it, and obviously our family will do everything we can to make sure that little Charlotte and now little Aidan grow up with every possible opportunity. 14:27:47 I know that's what every parent and grandparent, aunt or uncle, godmother, godfather, people who care about the children in our lives, that's exactly how we all feel. And I believe with all my heart that you should not have to be the grandchild of a former president or secretary of state to have every opportunity available to you in this in this country. [ cheers and applause ] Every single child deserves the chance to live up to his or her god-given potential, and that has been the cause of my life. It's rooted in the values that I learned from my family and my faith. 14:28:39 We are all in this together, and we have a responsibility to lift each other up. As we Methodists like to say do all the good you can to all the people you can and all the ways you can and that is absolutely true for our children. That's why I got into public service in the first place, and it's why I am determined that we will win this election in November. [ Applause ] And I -- I think -- I think it's an understatement to say that Americans face a choice in November. 14:29:33 As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face. He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash. I'm here today to offer an alternative. I have a clear vision for the economy and it's this. We need to make sure our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, not just for the rich or the well-connected, not just for people living in some parts of the country or people from certain backgrounds and not others. I mean, everyone, and I have a plan -- 14:30:35 I have a plan to get us there. Five steps we can take together to drive growth that's strong, fair and lasting, growth that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country. The measure of our success will be how much incomes rise for hard working families, how many children are lifted out of poverty, how many Americans can find good jobs that support a middle class life and not only that, jobs that provide a sense of dignity and pride. That's what it means to have an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. 14:31:32 That's the mission, and I'm asking all of you to join me in it. Now, we have to overcome some big challenges, I will admit that. First, to many of our representatives in Washington are in the grips of a failed economic theory called trickle-down economics. Now, I do not doubt their sincerity, but it has been proven wrong again and again, but there still are-- there still are people in congress who insist on cutting taxes for the wealthy instead of investing in our future. They careen from one self-inflicted crisis to another, shutting down the government, threatening to default on our national debt, refusing to make the common sense investments that used to have broad bipartisan support, like rebuilding our roads and our bridges, our tunnels, our -- our highways, our airports or investing in better education from zero through high school and college. 14:32:55 Now, look, I like to look at evidence. I plead to that. I think evidence is important when you're making decisions that affect other people's lives, and if the evidence were there to support this ideology, would I have to acknowledge that, but we have seen the results. Twice now in the past 30 years a Republican president has caused an economic mess and a democratic president has had to come in and clean it up. [ cheers and applause ] And, yes, we know too many special interests with too many lobbyists have stood in the way of progress while protecting the perks of the privileged few, and it's not just Washington. 14:33:52 Too many corporations have embraced policies that favor hedge funds and other big shareholders and top management at the expense of their workers, communities and even their long-term value. They are driven by Wall Street's obsession with short-term share prices and quarterly earnings. Now, a recent survey of corporate executives found that more than half, when asked, would hold off making a successful long-term investment, maybe in their workers or plant and equipment or research, if it meant missing a target in the next earnings report. So corporations stash cash overseas or they send it to top shareholders in the form of stock buybacks or dividends instead of raising wages or investing in research and development, and then this pressure, this short-term pressure leads to perverse incentives and outrageous behavior. 14:35:02 It is wrong to take taxpayer dollars with one hand and give out pink slips with the other hand. [ cheers and applause ] And no company should be moving their headquarters overseas just to avoid paying their taxes here at home. And in addition, there have been big changes in how American families live, learn and work, but our policies haven't kept up, and there are so many examples of this. 14:35:45 Over the past several decades women have entered the workforce and boosted our economy, yet we are the only -- the only developed country that doesn't provide paid family leave of any kind. We're asking families to rely on an old system of supports in a new economic reality, and no wonder so many are struggling. The bottom line is that too many leaders in business and government have lost sight of our shared responsibility to each other and to our nation, and --they let Wall Street take big risks with unregulated financial activities. 14:36:35 They skew our tax code towards the wealthy. They fail to enforce our trade rules. They undermine workers' rights. They have forgotten that we are all in this together and were at our best when we recognize that. Excessive inequality such as we have today reduces economic growth. Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits, so the challenges we face are significant. 14:37:08 It's not easy to change Washington or how corporations behave. It takes more than stern words or a flashy slogan. It takes a plan, and it takes experience and the ability to work with both parties to get results! [ cheers and applause ] And -- >> [ chant ] Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! 14:37:44 And that means -- that means we need a president who knows what we're up against, has no illusions about what we need to do to move ahead but can actually get it done, and that is what I am offering because there is good news. The good news is everywhere I go smart, determined men and women are working hard to reverse these trends. Mayors are pioneering innovative ways to work with the private sector to invest in their cities. 14:38:20 Entrepreneurs and small businesses are building and hiring in places that bigger companies have abandoned. Unions are providing training programs that add value to the companies that employ their members. Union pension funds -- union pension funds are already investing in infrastructure projects that have supported more than 100,000 jobs here in our country. So do not grow weary. Do not grow weary. There are great ideas out there, and we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. I believe the federal government should adopt five ambitious goals. 14:39:15 First, let's break through the dysfunction in Washington. To make the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II. Second, let's make college debt-free for all. [ Applause ] And transform the way we prepare Americans for the jobs of the future. Third, let's rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employees and fewer ship profits and jobs overseas. 14:40:02 Finally, let's make sure that Wall Street corporations and the super rich pay their fair share of taxes. [ Applause ] And all of this -- all of this depends upon putting our families first and matching our policies to how we actually live and work in the 21st century. Now, briefly about these five points, let's start with jobs. Every American willing to work hard should be able to find a job that pays enough to support a family. [ cheers and applause ] And I know we can do this because I've seen it in the past. You know, I remember when I was growing up and America had come out of the upheaval of depression and World War, our leaders worked together to invest in a new foundation of American power and prosperity, highways to connect up our entire nation, college and and housing for returning veterans and their families, unprecedented scientific research, and it worked. 14:41:16 We built the greatest middle class the world has ever known, and now [ cheers and applause ] now, we've got to get ambitious again. There is nothing we can't do. Let's be just as ambitious to build our 21st century American economy to produce the same results for hard working Americans. [ Applause ] In my first 100 days as president I will work with both parties to pass a comprehensive plan to create the next generation of good paying jobs. Now, the heart of my plan will be the biggest investment in American infrastructure in decades, including -- including establishing an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars off the sidelines and put them to work here, and I've talked -- I've talked with local leaders around America and I've seen the dire need for investment. 14:42:23 In Tampa, for example, I saw how a smart, targeted highway investment near a major port can create thousands of good paying jobs, support the local economy and unlock national commerce. We can create millions of good paying jobs while preparing America to compete and win in the global economy. So let's set these big national goals, and, you know, I know how important it is to rebuild our roads, our bridges and our airports, but we've got more work to do. Let's build better and let's connect every household to broadband by the year 2020. [ Applause ] 14:43:10 Let's build a cleaner more resilient power grid with enough renewable energy to power every home in the country! Let's fix failing water systems like the one that poisoned children in Flint, Michigan. Let's renovate our public schools so every child in every community has access to safe, high-tech classrooms, laboratories and libraries! Our 100 days jobs package will also include transformational investments in key drivers of growth, advanced manufacturing so we can make it in America and compete and win in the global economy. Making -- making America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century which will create millions of jobs and help protect our planet. 14:44:19 Recommitting to scientific research which can create new whole industries just like we did in the '90s when we started mapping the human genome and small businesses, which should be the engine for creating new jobs across America, they need to be free of red tape. They need to have access to credit. We need to slash unnecessary regulations making it easier to get startup capital from community banks and credit unions. If you've got an idea for a small business, we want you to get started. Let's free entrepreneurs to do what they do best, innovate, grow and hire and make sure that the new service and care-giving jobs being created today are jobs that pay well, too, and that does mean raising the national minimum wage. [ Applause ] 14:45:30 So many of these jobs are so personal to us that they need to be respected and lifted up, and I know, I know, too, that we've got work to do to stand with those who are fighting for raising the minimum wage. It's not always how we think about this, but I can tell you another engine for growth and job creation would be comprehensive immigration reform. It will bring -- [ applause ] It will bring millions of workers into the formal economy so that you don't have an unlevel playing field so that workers who are competing for those jobs get undercut because employers go out and find undocumented workers to do those jobs for a lower wage. 14:46:34 And so I really believe it's not just the right thing to do, but it will be great. It will be smart for our economy. I want people to be able to compete, and I don't want -- I don't want to have that disadvantage that exists in too many places where people are being priced out of the jobs they have always done. So we can work toward a full employment and full potential economy, and that does mean we can't ignore those who are still stuck on the sidelines or working part-time when what they really want is a full-time job. 14:47:11 Or those trapped in long-term joblessness, whether they are veterans, workers with disabilities, people coming home from prison or young people who tried to start their careers in the midst of the great recession. [ Applause ] I particularly want young people to feel that they are going to get good jobs that will give that will give them that ladder of opportunity that they deserve to have in America. That's why I want to expand incentives like the new markets tax credit, empowerment Zones and other ideas that bring business, government and communities together to create good jobs in poor or remote areas, places that have lost a factory or a mine, where generations of families used to work. Anyone willing to work should get the help they need to qualify for and find that good job, and that means breaking down the barriers of systemic racism and discrimination that holds back -- [ cheers and applause ] 14:48:26 Those barriers, they hold back African-Americans, Latinos, Asian and native Americans and women from fully participating in our economy. We need to reverse the long-term neglect that has dried up jobs and opportunity in communities of color, in poor communities. You know, it's not by accident that the unemployment rate now among black Americans is twice as high as among whites. Back in the '90s, we were closing that gap. Incomes were going up for everybody, so I think we're going to have to invest money to create jobs for young people because right now I'm worried that if young people don't get that first job when they're young, learn about work, understand the obligations as well as the promise of work, it will be even more difficult to get them into the workforce later on. 14:49:29 And t is way pastime for us to guarantee equal pay for women which is still not the reality. So you see -- [crowd chanting Hillary] It is not enough to have an affirmative agenda, we have to knock-down these barriers. As you have seen here in north Carolina, discriminating against lgbt Americans is bad for business. So make no mistake, we will defend American jobs and American workers. We will say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the trans pacific partnership which does not meet my high bar for creating good-paying jobs, no to assaults on the right to organize and bargain collectively, no to every attack on the dignity of working families. 14:50:40 We're going to make this economy work for everybody, and it's time we started building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington. Now, I know very well that if you don't have the skills for the jobs of tomorrow it's going to be difficult. Education is still the pathway for greater opportunities. Let's start at the beginning with making quality, affordable childcare and preschool available in every community in the next ten years so that we get our littlest Americans off to the best start. [ Applause ] 14:51:30 You know, Jim hunt was a pioneer in this. Why did he care so much about children zero to 5 besides the fact that he cared about them? Because he knew there was a direct line to how the youngest children were treated, educated and prepared for school and what kind of jobs and economic competitiveness North Carolina would have, so we're going to start by helping families be their child's first teachers, and we're going to give them the support they need to do that! 14:52:01 And when it comes to primary and secondary education, I pledge to you that we'll make sure that all kids have good teachers in good schools, no matter what zip code they live in. [ Applause ] You know, for many years thanks to people and leaders like Jim Hunt North Carolina was a leading state when it came to education. Now, unfortunately, thanks to your governor and the legislature, the average teacher salary can barely support a family. It should not be a surprise that thousands have quit in recent years. We should support our teachers, not scapegoat them! [ cheers and applause ] 14:52:54 And then let's make sure every student has options after high school, whether it's a four-year degree, free community college, an apprenticeship or other forms of higher education. We need to provide the skills and credentials that match the job openings of today and tomorrow. That's why I'm proposing new tax credits to encourage more companies to offer paid apprenticeships that lets you earn while you learn. And I will support the union apprenticeships and training programs already out there. Not every good job in the economy of today and tomorrow requires a four-year college. We need to dignify skills training. 14:53:50 So many young people have the talent and the will to succeed. They just need a helping hand, and that's why I want us to come together to help our young people break free from the burden of student debt. Now, I'm sure we all have stories. I've met so many who tell me they can't start a business. They can't even move out of their parent's basement because of all the student debt holding them back, so let's set the goal to make debt-free college available for everyone so future students won't have to borrow a dime to pay for tuition at a public college or university. And let's liberate the millions of Americans who already have student debt by making it easier to refinance, just like a mortgage. 14:54:49 Let's make it easier to have debt forgiven by doing national service. Let's make it easier to repay what you owe as a portion of your income so you never ever have to pay more than you can afford. I've set out a way to do this, and we'll be talking more about it as we go forward in this campaign. Now, my third goal is to rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with employees and fewer ship profits and jobs overseas. 14:55:25 Now, I know, there are a lot of businesses thriving other in North Carolina and across our country who see employees as assets to invest in, not costs to cut. They are building companies, not stripping them. They are creating good jobs, not eliminating them, but too many -- too many businesses take the opposite view. Now I'm not asking corporations to be more charitable, although I think that is important. . I'm asking corporations to realize that when more Americans prosper, they prosper, too. Right? When your paycheck grows, America grows. We are a 70% consumption economy. If we want higher growth, we've got to raise incomes so people have more disposable dollars to be able to spend instead of holding back out of fear of what will happen. So let's bring a long-term view back to board rooms and executive suites. 14:56:30 Let's restore the link between productivity, growth and wage growth. As president I will make it a national priority for more companies to share profits with employees on top of, not instead of good wages. Let's recognize the people doing the work, putting in the hours. They are the ones who should be sharing the rewards, and we should continue to crack down on wage theft and make overtime count so companies that pay well can't be undercut by competitors paying poverty wages. And I believe we should strengthen unions which have formed the bedrock of a strong middle class. [ Applause ] It should be easier to bargain collectively. That's not only fair. It makes workers more productive. It strengthens our economy. 14:57:25 And let's close the loopholes that help companies ship jobs and profit overseas. Let's make companies that outsource jobs to other countries pay back the tax breaks they receive while they were here in America. And if corporations try to move their headquarters to a foreign country to skip out on their tax bills, let's slap a new exit tax on them and then put that money to work in the communities left behind. And we should extend the rules that were passed in dodd/frank on Wall Street after the crisis and strengthen them, both for the big bakes and the head isso bank is system, and I will veto any reforms to repeal those rules and vigorously enforce the law with accountability so Wall Street can never wreck main street again. 14:58:28 Now, fourth, let's make sure Wall Street corporations and the super rich pay their fair share of taxes. When people say the game is rigged, the best evidence is the tax code. It's riddled with scams, loopholes and special breaks like the carried interest loophole that lets some hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than a teacher or a nurse. That's not only unfair, it's bad economics, and we're going to stop it. I have been saying that for years. As president if congress won't act, I will ask the treasury department to use its authority to close that loophole, and here's another idea that I will be pushing. Let's pass the so-called buffett rule so top executives can't pay a lower rate than their secretaries. [ Applause ] 14:59:32 And let's ask the wealthiest Americans to pay more, including a new tax on multi-millionaires. That's not only the right thing to do, it's smart for our economy because these steps will help pay for the investments we need in jobs and education without increasing our national debt. In fact, every program I have proposed in this campaign, I tell you how I will pay for it. Now, Donald Trump and I disagree on a lot of things, and one of them is simple math. [ laughter/cheers and applause ] 15:00:16 And finally, here's our fifth goal. Let's put families first and make sure our policies match how you actually work and live in the 21st century. Families look a lot different today than they did 30 years ago, and so do our jobs. The movement of women into the workforce has produced enormous economic growth over the past few decades, but with women now the sole or primary breadwinner in a growing number of families, there's more urgency than ever to make it easier for Americans to be good workers, good parents and good caregivers all at the same time. [ Applause ] The old model of work where you could expect to hold a steady job with good benefits for an entire career is long gone. People in their 20s and 30s have come of age in an economy that's totally different. 15:01:12 And a lot of young parents are discovering just how tough that is on families. Many people now have wildly unpredictable schedules, or they cobble together part-time work or they have tried to go independent. Now, flexibility can be good, but you shouldn't have to worry that your family could lose your health care or retirement savings just because you change jobs or start a small business. [ Applause ] Why did you think every other -- >> Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! 15:01:56 You know, I have to ask why do you think every other advanced country has paid family leave? Do you think they are just unrealistic, or do you think that they have figured out they can have a stabler economy, they can support families, and that's what I want us to do. Working families need predictable scheduling, earned six days and vacation days, quality, affordable child care and health care. These are not luxuries, they are economic necessities, and in today's economy benefits should be flexible, portable and comprehensive for everyone. And that means it's time to expand social security as well. 15:02:48 Especially -- especially for older women who are widowed or have taken time out of the workforce to care for a loved one and who are suffering financially because of that. We need to look to a secure retirement for everyone and to provide families relief from crushing costs and health care, housing, prescription drugs. 15:03:16 You know, I looked at the numbers and in some states two parents earning the minimum wage have to spend up to 35% of their income on child care. For a single parent it could be 70%, so I have set a goal. Families should not have to pay more than 10% of your income for child care. And I will repeat today what I have said throughout this campaign, I will not raise taxes on the middle class. I will give you tax relief to help ease these burdens. And you know whenever I talk about these family issues Donald Trump says I'm playing the woman card. Right? Well, you know what I say. If fighting for child care, paid leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in. [ Applause ] 15:04:20 Now, look. Here's what I want you to understand. It may be difficult to imagine all of this getting done when Washington is so broken. I get that, but I really think progress is possible or I would not be standing up here running to be president of the united States. I know Republicans and Democrats can work together because I've done it. As you heard Alicia say, I helped create the children's health insurance program when I was first lady. That happened with support from both parties, and it now covers 8 million kids, and when you go to get health care for your child, nobody says are you a Republican or Democrat? 15:05:01 They say what does your child need? I worked with Republicans many times when I was a senator from New York and as secretary of state so I know we can get results that will make real differences in people's lives. I know however it's rare. There's no question. We need to make Washington work much better than it does today, and that means in particular getting unaccountable money out of our politics. One of the reasons this election is so important is because the supreme court hangs in the balance. We need to overturn that terrible supreme court decision citizens united and then reform our whole campaign finance system. 15:06:00 This is about our democracy, but it's also about our economy. Campaign finance reform and reducing the power of special interests is directly related to getting Washington working for people again. Making the right investments, putting your jobs and economic security first. That's why I'm passionate about this issue and I will fight hard to end the stranglehold that the wealthy and special interests have on so much of our government. So, let's do this together, a historic investment in jobs, debt-free college, profit-sharing, making those at the top pay their fair share, putting families first in our modern economy and a democracy where working people's voices are actually heard. That is what we are fighting for in this election! [ Applause ] 15:06:58 As I said during the primary, I am a Progressive who likes to get things done, and we can do this! Now, just for a minute compare what I am proposing to what we hear from Donald Trump. The self-proclaimed king of debt has no real ideas for making college more affordable or addressing the student debt crisis. He has no credible plan for rebuilding our infrastructure apart from his wall. He has no real strategy for creating jobs. Just a string of empty promises and maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose most famous words are you're fired. 15:07:59 Well, here's what I want you to know. I do have a jobs program, and as president I'm going to make sure that you hear you're hired. And here's the bottom line. Economists left, right and center all agree Donald Trump will drive America back into recession. Just this week one of senator John McCain's former economic advisers said trump's policies would wipe out, wipe out, 3.5 million jobs. His tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy would add more than $30 trillion to our national debt over the next 20 years. That is just astonishing, and it's no wonder that the group called the economist intelligence unit, one of the leading firms that analyzes the top threats to the global economy now ranks a trump presidency number three right behind problems in China and volatility in the commodities markets. 15:09:17 Now, look, I know, Donald hates it when anyone points out that hollow his sales pitch really is. And I guess my speech yesterday must have gotten under his skin because right away he lashed out on Twitter with outlandish lies and conspiracy theories and he did the same in his speech today. Now think about it. He's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance. [ cheers and applause ] In fact, he doubled down on being the king of debt, so all he can do is try to distract us. 15:10:07 That's even why he's attacking my faith. Sigh. And, of course, attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world. It's no surprise that he doesn't understand these things. The Clinton foundation helps poor people around the world get access to life-saving AIDS medicine. Donald Trump uses poor people around the world to produce his line of suits and ties. Here in North Carolina you know as well as anyone our economy is already too unpredictable for working families. 15:11:02 We can't let Donald Trump bankrupt America the way he bankrupted his casinos. We need to write a new chapter in the American dream, and it can't be chapter 11! So please join me in this campaign. I'm offering a very different vision about how we're stronger together, when we grow together. We're stronger when our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top. I am convinced that if we work hard, if we go into november with the confidence were work hard, if we go into November with the confidence and optimism that should be the American birthright, we will not only win an election, we will chart the course to the future that we want and deserve! Thank you and god bless you! Clinton kicked off her economic speech here in Raleigh with a subtle jab at Trump, who questioned her Christianity yesterday. While talking about why she enjoys public service, Clinton slyly slipped in a reference to her faith... "As we Methodists like to say," Clinton remarked to some laughed from the crowd, "Do all the good you can to all the people you can and all the ways you can and that is absolutely true for our children." 2:28:59 Her campaign tweeted the quote as well: Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> 4m4 minutes ago <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/745685581028536320> "As we Methodists like to say: do all the good you can for all the people you can in all the ways you can." -Hillary otherwise: So far this speech is very wonky. Not much Trump. Haskell/Kreutz Clinton waited to the very end of her lengthy remarks on the economy here in Raleigh, NC to launch into a scathing critique of Donald Trump's speech today and his other recent attacks. "He's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance," she said to cheers from the 2,000 people gathered inside the exhibition center of the state's fairgrounds. Clinton - who said her speech yesterday must have "gotten under his skin" - responded to Trump's attacks on her jobs plans, her faith and on the Clinton Foundation. Arguably, her best line of the day was a jab on his famous "you're fired" line. "He has no real strategy for creating jobs. Just a string of empty promises and maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose most famous words are you're fired," she said. "Well, here's what I want you to know. I do have a jobs program, and as president I'm going to make sure that you hear you're hired!" 15:07:59 Also she got a huge laughter and applause in her response when she mentioned that Trump was questioning her Christianity. Her response? A sarcastic, "Sigh." 15:10:07 "In fact, he doubled down on being the king of debt, so all he can do is try to distract us," she said. "That's even why he's attacking my faith. Sigh." 15:10:07 At the beginning of the speech, Clinton also slipped in a reference to her faith (a notably nod to Trump). "As we Methodists like to say," Clinton remarked to some laughed from the crowd, "Do all the good you can to all the people you can and all the ways you can and that is absolutely true for our children." 2:28:59 Defending the Clinton Foundation, she said his attacks are also just is way of distracting from his own campaign. "Of course, attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world. It's no surprise that he doesn't understand these things. The Clinton foundation helps poor people around the world get access to life-saving AIDS medicine. Donald Trump uses poor people around the world to produce his line of suits and ties," she said. She also said Trump "hates" when Clinton gets "under his skin" and mentioned how "he lashed out on Twitter with outlandish lies and conspiracy theories and he did the same in his speech today." **Otherwise this was a wide-ranging economic speech touching on everything from income growth to Wall Street reform to college affordability to education to profit-sharing to immigration reform to equal pay, to taxes, etc. She essentially repeated all of the policy proposals she annoucned throughout the primary. Here are highlights/quotes: Thanks to Maggie McNish for log Full Response To Trump: "Now, just for a minute compare what I am proposing to what we hear from Donald Trump. The self-proclaimed king of debt has no real ideas for making college more affordable or addressing the student debt crisis. He has no credible plan for rebuilding our infrastructure apart from his wall. He has no real strategy for creating jobs. Just a string of empty promises and maybe we shouldn't expect better from someone whose most famous words are you're fired. 15:07:59 Well, here's what I want you to know. I do have a jobs program, and as president I'm going to make sure that you hear you're hired. And here's the bottom line. Economists left, right and center all agree Donald Trump will drive America back into recession. Just this week one of senator John McCain's former economic advisers said trump's policies would wipe out, wipe out, 3.5 million jobs. His tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy would add more than $30 trillion to our national debt over the next 20 years. That is just astonishing, and it's no wonder that the group called the economist intelligence unit, one of the leading firms that analyzes the top threats to the global economy now ranks a trump presidency number three right behind problems in China and volatility in the commodities markets. 15:09:17 Now, look, I know, Donald hates it when anyone points out that hollow his sales pitch really is. And I guess my speech yesterday must have gotten under his skin because right away he lashed out on Twitter with outlandish lies and conspiracy theories and he did the same in his speech today. Now think about it. He's going after me personally because he has no answers on the substance. [ cheers and applause ] In fact, he doubled down on being the king of debt, so all he can do is try to distract us. 15:10:07 That's even why he's attacking my faith. Sigh. And, of course, attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world. It's no surprise that he doesn't understand these things. The Clinton foundation helps poor people around the world get access to life-saving AIDS medicine. Donald Trump uses poor people around the world to produce his line of suits and ties. Here in North Carolina you know as well as anyone our economy is already too unpredictable for working families." 15:11:02 We can't let Donald Trump bankrupt America the way he bankrupted his casinos. We need to write a new chapter in the American dream, and it can't be chapter 11!" Grandmother Glow "Now, I have to start by saying if you notice anything different about me today it could be that now I've got double the grandmother glow. This past weekend Chelsea and Mark had a little boy and we are totally over the moon about it, and obviously our family will do everything we can to make sure that little Charlotte and now little Aidan grow up with every possible opportunity." 14:27:47 As We Methodists Like To Say. 14:28:39 "As we Methodists like to say do all the good you can to all the people you can and all the ways you can and that is absolutely true for our children. That's why I got into public service in the first place" Speech Yesterday & Trump 14:29:33 "As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face. He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash. I'm here today to offer an alternative. I have a clear vision for the economy and it's this." Republican Presidents Caused Recessions 14:32:55 "Now, look, I like to look at evidence. I plead to that. I think evidence is important when you're making decisions that affect other people's lives, and if the evidence were there to support this ideology, would I have to acknowledge that, but we have seen the results. Twice now in the past 30 years a Republican president has caused an economic mess and a democratic president has had to come in and clean it up." "Five Ambitious Goals" 14:39:15 "I believe the federal government should adopt five ambitious goals. First, let's break through the dysfunction in Washington. To make the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II. Second, let's make college debt-free for all. And transform the way we prepare Americans for the jobs of the future. Third, let's rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employees and fewer ship profits and jobs overseas. Finally, let's make sure that Wall Street corporations and the super rich pay their fair share of taxes." First 100 Days & Infrastructure "In my first 100 days as president I will work with both parties to pass a comprehensive plan to create the next generation of good paying jobs. Now, the heart of my plan will be the biggest investment in American infrastructure in decades, including -- including establishing an infrastructure bank that will bring private sector dollars off the sidelines and put them to work here, and I've talked -- I've talked with local leaders around America and I've seen the dire need for investment." 14:42:23 Takes More Than Flashy Slogan 14:37:08 "It's not easy to change Washington or how corporations behave. It takes more than stern words or a flashy slogan. It takes a plan, and it takes experience and the ability to work with both parties to get results!" [chats] Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Immigration Reform "It's not always how we think about this, but I can tell you another engine for growth and job creation would be comprehensive immigration reform. It will bring -- [ applause ] It will bring millions of workers into the formal economy so that you don't have an unlevel playing field so that workers who are competing for those jobs get undercut because employers go out and find undocumented workers to do those jobs for a lower wage." 14:46:34 Ending Systemic Racism 14:48:26 "Anyone willing to work should get the help they need to qualify for and find that good job, and that means breaking down the barriers of systemic racism and discrimination that holds back. Those barriers, they hold back African-Americans, Latinos, Asian and native Americans and women from fully participating in our economy. We need to reverse the long-term neglect that has dried up jobs and opportunity in communities of color, in poor communities. You know, it's not by accident that the unemployment rate now among black Americans is twice as high as among whites." Won't Raise Taxes On Middle Class 5:03:16 "And I will repeat today what I have said throughout this campaign, I will not raise taxes on the middle class. I will give you tax relief to help ease these burdens." Trump & Women Card: "And you know whenever I talk about these family issues Donald Trump says I'm playing the woman card. Right? Well, you know what I say. If fighting for child care, paid leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in." 15:04:20 ---
Firefighters and Candidates / Bipartisan Presidential Forum 1035 - 1135 HILLARY CLINTON
FIREFIGHTERS AND CANDIDATES Bipartisan Presidential Forum with presidential candidates Tentative schedule - changing International Association of Firefighters IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger Former US Senator John Edwards Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore Sen. Barack Obama Rep. Duncan Hunter Sen. Hillary Clinton Sen. Sam Brownback Sen. Chuck Hagel Sen. Chris Dodd Gov. Bill Richardson.-(just switched with McCain) Sen. John McCain- (may switch with Brownback, at 12:30p) Sen. Joe Biden DUNCAN HUNTER HILLARY CLINTON March 14, 2007 FIREFIGHTERS FORUM WITH CANDIDATES: DUNCAN HUNTER, HILLARY CLINTON RS24/X79/Slugged: 0950 FIRE FORUM X79 & 1100 FIRE FORUM X79 TAPE 3 Slugged: 0950 FIRE FORUM X79 10:50:32 Duncan Hunter exits stage Slugged: 1100 FIRE FORUM X79 11:05:59 Hillary Clinton enters room 11:06:23 Clinton enters stage 11:06:45 Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks so much, and thanks for last night, too. (Laughter.) AUDIENCE MEMBER: Whoa! Whoa! SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.) It's an honor and a pleasure to be here this morning. It was a lot of fun to be here last night. (Laughter.) You know, as I look around this room, which is packed with people whom I admire so much, I see a lot of old friends. And it's been an honor to stand with you. We've stood together in good times and bad times. We've stood together when it seemed as though the darkness would never end and when we finally saw the light. So it is just a personal honor of the highest degree to be here today. (Applause.) And I want to thank also my friend and your great leader for that wonderful introduction. You know, Harold and Vinnie have been the heart and soul of leading this great, great union. And we've been through a lot. But the thing about going through tough times with Harold and Vinnie on your side is that you know that you're not going to be alone, and that has meant the world to those of us from New York. And we have a lot of firefighters from across New York here today, and I want to thank you all for everything you do every single day. (Applause.) You know, when I think about the work that you do and the service and commitment that you have given to your nation, I know that for all of you, courage is a job requirement. You don't make this decision to be a firefighter easily or quickly. You have to think about the sacrifice, and you have to think about your families. For you, when you go to work, when you go to that firehouse or that station, these are not just your colleagues; these are members of your extended families. And I recognize how much this family, both the one that you leave at home as you kiss your wife goodbye or you tuck your son into bed -- are part of the commitment that you've made. And I want to also thank your family members, because it's not easy to see you walk out the door, to see you leave for that shift and just wait to make sure you've come home safely again. So I want to express my gratitude to your families and to everyone who loves you and supports you in the work that you do every single day. (Applause.) You know, Harold referred to our meeting that we had on the morning of September 12th. On the day before, September 11th, not only our country but the entire world saw for themselves what firefighters are made of. You were the ones who ran into the fire. You were the ones who ran into the dust, into those collapsing buildings. And for some of your brothers and sisters, it was the last time you saw them. But people who were not even on duty dropped everything they were doing to be there that day, people who didn't even work for the FDNY but who worked out on Long Island, who worked in Westchester, who worked in Connecticut, who worked in New Jersey dropped everything they were doing. And pretty soon, teams started coming from around the country. Everybody sang, "We want to be there. We want to watch your back. We want to help search that wreckage to see if we can find anybody still alive." When Harold and I spoke, it was a time of shock and confusion. Harold was kind enough to describe what I said to him, but I want to tell you what he said to me. He said we will stand with New York. Firefighters across this country and even across our border to the north will be there for you. Well, Harold, you were true to your word. Not only you, but firefighters and paramedics and others poured in to our city. You shared equipment with us, you raised money for us, you worked side by side with us, and you prayed with us. You were there when we needed you, and I want you to know that I will be there with you when you need me. (Cheers, applause.) Now, we have to put this in a little bit of a context today because I know that many of you, including Harold and Vinny, were perhaps a little unsure about me when I started running. Now that happens to me sometimes. (Laughter.) And in fact, you might recall that back in 2000 you actually endorsed my opponent, but I never saw that as any kind of obstacle to working on behalf of your needs and your interests; just as when I ran for the Senate in New York, I said I wanted to be a senator who represented everybody -- people who were for me, people who were against me, people who didn't have an opinion -- and I wanted to find ways we could move a common agenda forward. And of course, a crisis brought us all together, and we rolled up our sleeves. And over the years I've made wonderful friends with many of you, and I was very proud in my last election to have the support of the New York firefighters. That meant the world to me. Because without fail, we have to stand together. We have a lot of big problems that we're facing, and I think we can once again reassert America's leadership at home, restore our values, fulfill the promise of America and get back to leading the world in the right way. Now that starts with restoring what I call the basic bargain, so many of us grew up with that. You know, we were raised to believe that if you worked hard and you played by the rules, you'd be able to build a better life for yourself and your family. Well, I don't think in the last six years our country has actually been living up to that basic bargain. The leadership here in Washington seems to ignore middle class and hard-working families across our country. Under this president's leadership, household debt has soared. Health care costs have skyrocketed, assuming that you have it. Wages have remained stagnant. Now corporate profits are up, and productivity is up, which means that Americans are working harder than anybody in the world, but we're not getting rewarded. I'll tell you who is getting rewarded. Companies like Halliburton are getting rewarded, with no-bid contracts. Then they move their CEOs across the ocean to another country and leave us hanging right here at home. (Applause.) I'll tell you something else that we are going to have to deal with: the Alternative Minimum Tax, which falls heavily on a lot of you and your families. (Applause.) You know, for six years I've been saying, you know, with all due respect, do the billionaires in America need more tax cuts? Don't you think we ought to cut the taxes of middle-income people and particularly those who are going to be hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax? (Applause.) You know, for six long years, our president has not seen the vast majority of Americans, not our middle class, not our working families. He's looked right through them. To him, they're invisible. You know, if you're a child sitting in a crumbling school, you're invisible. If you're a small business owner who worries about energy cost, or someone who can't afford to fill up your tank, you're invisible. If you're a hard-working parent who needs affordable child care while you go to work, you're invisible. Even if you're a soldier returning from combat who needs health care and disability compensation, you are invisible. Well, those days are over. You know, when we look -- (applause) -- when we look at the way our first responders have been treated -- if you're a paramedic who got sick after 9/11, if you're a federal firefighter who can't qualify for workers' compensation or disability retirement, if you're a retired firefighter who can't afford health insurance, well, you're invisible, too. It's great for the photo op, but how about taking care of the people who have taken care of us across our country? (Extended applause.) Well, I want to make clear today you're not invisible to the people of our country, and you're sure not invisible to me. And when we retake the White House, you will no longer be invisible to the president of the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.) And I want to say in this public setting that when I'm in the White House, I'm going to be there for you, whenever you need me, on whatever you need me for. Because there isn't anything more important to me than taking care of our first responders. It is part of our national security; it is part of our moral obligation. And being there for you means continuing the fight to ensure that you have everything you need to do your job -- the equipment, the people, whatever it takes. So let me tell you, when George W. Bush tried to cut the funding for the SAFER Act, which I co-sponsored, and the Fire Act, I took that personally, and with my colleagues we fought him. And when he did it again, we fought him again. And I'm going to keep on fighting until Fire and SAFER are fully funded, whatever it takes. (Applause.) Now being there for you also means caring for every firefighter, every police officer, every paramedic, every volunteer or worker who has fallen ill in the aftermath of September 11th. It wasn't just people from New York who responded that day, and the days to follow, and the months to follow. It was people from all over the country. And when I first visited the site on the afternoon of September the 12th, I could barely see anything. The dark cloud was so thick. But I could smell it; I could taste it; I could feel it. As I watched the first firefighters walking out of that curtain of darkness, covered in black soot, barely able to stand, dragging their axes behind them, I knew that the effects of 9/11 would last long after September 11th. Within days, the so-called World Trade Center cough began to appear. Young men and women in the prime of their lives developed asthma and bronchitis and laryngitis, and their livers were polluted and their lungs were failing. And people who before September 11th could lift three times their body weight could barely stand. They were so bent-over in pain. They couldn't sleep lying flat in their beds anymore. They had to sit up all night long. People who used to be able to run miles without stopping could no longer breathe going up a flight of stairs. Working hand in hand with many of you and with the IAFF, we created a program to screen and monitor those who were sick, and we got $90 million to expand it. And when President Bush tried to take $125 million back, we knew we had to draw the line, and you once again came in and helped us win that fight. Let's just say, the president picked a fight with the wrong people. We won it -- (interrupted by applause) -- but we didn't stop there. With your help, I was able to introduce legislation asking for more than $1.9 billion for medical and mental health monitoring and treatment. We're going to keep working on this not just this year and next year, but as long as our first responders, our workers, our volunteers and residents need help. Being there for you also means getting smart about homeland security. As you know all too well, we confront a new enemy and a new kind of warfare. It's really the warfare of cowards. It's people who sneak around and blow themselves up or place bombs in cars, who have a philosophy of nihilism. You know, they may dress it up in a kind of perverse version of religion, but it's really about destruction and death. And it is imperative that we stand against them. Their warfare is not conducted by armies or navies, but by criminals, by insurgents, by militias driven by this twisted hate. And it's been frustrating for many of us because we can't get the resources to match the rhetoric. We get a lot of tough rhetoric out of Washington, but when it comes to paying for overtime, getting you the equipment you need, not the equipment they want to give you, providing the money directly to local communities and not passing it through the states -- well, we haven't gotten what we know we need to protect our country. And in his latest budget, the president is proposing to cut funds for first responders at the Department of Homeland Security to the tune of $1.7 billion. Well, the way I see it, saying you believe in homeland security without funding first responders is like saying you believe in building a hospital without doctors and nurses. If we don't fund you, we're not funding our first line of defense. (Applause.) And we're going to need to work together to make that happen. And as Harold knows and all my folks from New York know, we have been fighting for interoperable communications since September 12th. We have put in legislation. We've asked for more money. But when firefighters can't talk to police officers, when emergency responders in one state can't talk to those from another, we not only saw it on September 11th, we saw it again during Hurricane Katrina, a crisis that really once again put firefighters in the forefront. And just think about what's happening, where your brothers and sisters are trying to operate out of trailers and they're still using (ruined ?) equipment that we still haven't replaced. What was a natural disaster was turned into a national disgrace. (Applause.) And we need to get the funds directly where they are needed. (Cheers, applause.) And being there for you means trying to end the war in Iraq in the right way, because firefighters have fought and died in Iraq. And we were heartbroken to learn that those who had fought and had been injured were languishing in Walter Reed. I went out there a week ago Friday, early in the morning, to meet with a bunch of soldiers from New York. Some of them had been tied up in the bureaucratic red tape until they were just beyond words. They couldn't figure out "what had I done to deserve this. I served my country, active duty, National Guard or Reserve, why am I being treated like that?" Well, the 2006 election sent a strong message that we do not want our young men and women in uniform to be in the middle of a sectarian civil war where they don't know who is shooting at them and they can't figure out whose side they're supposed to be on. (Applause.) Now, we're trying to introduce some rationality into this in the Congress, trying to stop the escalation, because I profoundly believe that putting more of our young men and women into harm's way, unless the Iraqis decide to defend themselves, we cannot end this war for them. If they're not going to stand up and take responsibility, we should not lose another American life; we should end this escalation now. (Applause.) I hope that the president will extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office. But let me assure you, if he doesn't, when I'm president, I will. (Applause.) And finally, being there for you means standing side by side with you in the fight for your most fundamental rights. As Harold said in his introduction, I believe that it is absolutely essential to the way America works that people be given the right to organize and bargain collectively. Now, nearly -- (extended applause) -- nearly 90 years ago, when 36 delegates gathered for the first IAFF Convention, 84-hour workweeks were the norm, and terrible conditions were a fact of life. You know why that's no longer the case? Because of you. You organized. You unionized. You stood up for your rights. You said, "We're not going to be invisible. We're doing our part. You have to give us safe working conditions, fair treatment and the right to bargain." But some people still don't get it. (Applause.) You know, they say that collective bargaining will undermine our national security. They think you haven't earned the right to organize. Well, you know what I say to them? I say, would you change places? Would you go into that fire? Would you stand on those collapsing floors and under those crumbling ceilings? Well, the way I see it, when you plunge headfirst into burning buildings for a living, you have more than earned the right to organize for better conditions on the job! (Cheers, applause.) So make no mistake about it. The days of George Bush thinking the union bug is something he needs to squash are over. (Laughter.) We are here to stand up for the rights of people who pull children out of raging waters and rescue people from flaming rooftops. We are here to stand up for the people who stand up for us. Now, we have a lot of work ahead of us, and we can get some small victories along the way until we finally get the majorities we need to completely have an agenda that we support in the Senate. They can still stop a lot of what we believe in, unfortunately, but we just have to keep electing more people who see the world the way we do. And we certainly will make a lot more progress when we take back the White House. You know, back after the days of September 11th, so many of you came to me and said that the families of firefighters who had been killed were confronting piles of paperwork just to get the benefits they were owed. They were told it would take weeks or months; and the families didn't have that kind of time. So again, working with Harold and his team, we put together a bill. And my friend Jerry Nadler sponsored it in the House. And within a week, that bill passed into law. Now, when the bill passed, we didn't declare victory or do some kind of big celebration, because the truth is that in the end, there was nothing we could do to give back to those families the people they had loved and lost. All we could do was to come together as a team and help as best we could. And in the end we just followed the basic rule you live by; you never leave a brother or a sister behind. Well, that's how I've tried to serve in the Senate. That's how I've tried to set my priorities. And I want you to know that if I do have the honor and the opportunity to be your president, that's what I will continue to do. Now, people who know me will tell you I don't back down from a fight. And others use more colorful language sometimes about me. (Laughter.) But that's just fine with me. I don't care what they say, I just care about what we do. That is what is important to me. And because I'm proud to fight for you because you fight for us, I'm going to stay on your side. I'm not in any way concerned about the fight that we have ahead because I know we can win this fight. I know that if we stand together, we get our message out to America, if we steel ourselves to all of the criticism and the counterattacks and the stereotypes and everything that they'll put out, then we'll be victorious. I have a little experience in staying the course -- (laughter) -- and in sticking with people who stick with me. (Cheers, applause.) So -- (continued applause). You know, Saint Augustine said a long time ago that hope is really the combination of two things: the combination of anger at the way things are and courage to change the way things are. We're living by hope and understanding. We can't be satisfied with what we see before us on homeland security or collective bargaining. But having the courage to step out and try to make a different future is one of the reasons why I admire what you have done over the course of your work on behalf of firefighters. And I am thrilled and honored to stand with you, and together we will make it clear that those of us who believe that courage and anger about what is leads to hope means that we will change America for the better. Thank you, all, so much, and God bless you for everything you do! Thank you! Take care! (Applause.) 11:33:20 Clinton exiting stage
Hillary Clinton speech on Housing and the Mortgage Crisis
AVS08-028 Hillary Clinton speech on Housing and the Mortgage Crisis Hillary Clinton 08/07/2007 AVS 2008 Derry, New HampshireHillary Clinton speech: Housing and the Mortgage crisis August 7, 2008 DCBM1065I The transcript portion below is not on the tape. What is available starts at 15:31:36 Thank you so much, Christie. And it's not easy to come here and do this, for her and for her family. I am just very grateful that she would share her story. Of course, it's an abbreviated version of her story. Her husband's job was outsourced. He actually trained his replacement. That's when they ran into all the problems that they faced with trying to pay the mortgage payments that kept going up. And I don't know whether there is anybody in this audience or anyone who, through the media, who might be following this, who could do anything to help Christie and her family, but I hope somebody will try. Because it's really important to her and particularly her children. One of her children has a challenge in learning, and being in the school district has worked out really, really well. So I hope that somebody might be able to step forward who has a rental or who has some other way of helping Christie. You know, the bank actually bought the home at higher than market value. So maybe if somebody with the bank or with someone associated with Ameriquest, which started this downward spiral, could step forth and try to, you know, show some humanity and compassion, that would be a good way to start what we need to do to repair some of the damage that is being done to families across our country. You know, before I came out, I met with Michael Dillon and his fiancée, Jenna Kresky, and their attorney, Walter Maroney, who also shared a story of deception, fraud, abuse -- just enough to make you wonder what's going on in our country. And as Christie and I were talking before we came out, I was thinking how, in 1991 and '92, when Bill and I were here campaigning as he was running for president, we actually focused on the issue of home foreclosures. Some of you might remember. We had an event in a home, just like the home that Christie shares with her husband and three children, because that home was being foreclosed on. And because of the economic conditions and some of the problems that people in New Hampshire were facing at that time, people were losing their homes. Well, we all took a big sigh of relief during the 1990s, didn't we? (LAUGHTER) And we didn't face a lot of these economic problems that just cut right to the heart of the American dream for hard-working families like Christie's and like Michael and Jenna and others. Well, here we are; we're back again. And it's a combination now of economic conditions that are not working for the vast majority of Americans and unsavory practices that are undermining the dream of homeownership. So as much as I wish that Christie's story was the exception and that no one would ever have to go through what she and her family are going through, the reality is that they are, by no means, alone. Their story is now the story of hundreds of thousands of families across America, including many right here in NewHampshire: families who have worked hard and done everything right, who maybe lose a job, maybe have a medical emergency or some other intervening event. And they've spent years scrimping and saving to buy their home, they have signed exactly where the mortgage company told them to sign and submitted all the right papers. But then some kind of crisis intervenes, or, maybe because of some provision buried in the fine print, they discover that their mortgage rates are actually much higher than they thought. Maybe they realize too late they've been lured into buying a more expensive home than they could actually afford. Maybe they hit the end of a fixed-rate period and their rates double, but they can't pay off the principle without facing prepayment penalties. And before they know it, their dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare of escalating payments and threatening letters. And too many families end up in default, and too many lose their homes altogether. This past June, there were nearly 165,000 foreclosures in America, 87 percent more than the previous June, in 2006. Here in New Hampshire, there were 1,400 foreclosures in just the first six months of this year, compared with 147 for all of 2006. And, according to the New Hampshire banking commissioner, approximately 4,000 New Hampshire households with sub-prime mortgage loans -- that's 20 percent of all the sub-prime mortgages in the entire state -- will experience a jump in their monthly payments of between 50 and 100 percent. So a $1,500 mortgage becomes a $3,000 mortgage. And that's what we're looking forward to. The problems we're seeing, however, are not limited to what's called the sub-prime market. They're not just affecting low-income families. Defaults and foreclosures are spreading, and they're hitting middle-income families like Christie's. So what exactly is going on here? Well, I think several things. Over the past few years, risky loans have been packaged and resold around the world, mortgage companies have collapsed, and the entire stock market is feeling the effects. Those effects are spreading from Wall Street to Main Street. And Americans who have long counted on their homes as their biggest asset to carry them through retirement are seeing that sense of security be shredded. Now, the Bush administration constantly reassures us that the economy is fine, that everything will be OK. Well, given their track record, that is not exactly comforting or believable. Now, we know the mortgage problem is extremely complex. It has many, many roots. But one of the root causes is the trend in wages. Wages have been stagnant. Housing prices, on the other hand, have been going, literally, through the roof. So we've had an affordability gap. Many families could not afford to buy homes with traditional mortgages. So the mortgage companies came with a really seductive offer. They started offering more high-risk mortgages for people strapped for cash: products like interest-only and no-money-down mortgages. Unscrupulous brokers who get paid based on the size of the mortgages they sell lured many families into buying more expensive homes than they could actually afford. And many families were not told, were not counseled, were not warned, and did not understand the implications of signing on the dotted line. At the same time household incomes have declined $1,300 over the past six years, costs have risen. Health-care costs are up 87 percent. College costs rose 40 percent. Gas prices have more than doubled. So many people started borrowing against the equity in their homes to cover their expenses. Believe it or not, the amount of people's disposable incomes that comes from their home equity is double what it used to be. Now, back when mortgage rates were lower and home prices were rising, if you got behind on your mortgage you could refinance your home or sell it, and you'd be just fine. As my friend Warren Buffet reminds us, a rolling loan gathers no loss. (LAUGHTER) He always has a way of saying things like that. But then mortgage rates started to rise, so people could not afford to refinance anymore. Housing prices started to fall, so it got a lot harder to sell in many markets. Today we've got nearly a nine-month backlog of unsold homes. As a result, many families are finding themselves trapped: stuck with mortgages they can't pay and expenses they can't afford. So they're facing wrenching choices: pay their medical bills or pay their mortgage; put off retirement or lose their homes. And many people who have worked hard their entire lives are receiving the same grim letter in the mail that Christie's family received. Now, there are those who will tell you -- they tell me this -- "Well, that's just the way the market works, Hillary. Nothing we can do about it." Or they'll say, "Buyer beware. People just need to be more careful." Well, now, that's easy to say when it's not your home being taken away. And I don't think unscrupulous mortgage brokers should be part of how our markets work. I don't think families should be lured into buying homes they can't afford so brokers and mortgage companies can make a bigger profit. I don't think people should have to be on the lookout for unfair clauses buried on page 700 of the fine print. And I don't think it's right that so many hard-working, responsible families across this country are losing their most precious possession and their most valuable asset. So let's be clear: This isn't just a problem for families. What happens with mortgages can have a big effect on the economy. That's what we've been reading about in the newspapers over the past weeks. Auto companies have recently noted the weakness in the housing market is even affecting car sales. And, as we've seen throughout American history, homeownership is not just about economy stability. It is also about economic growth. Think about what happened after President Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill, which helped returning soldiers obtain their mortgages. Families across America bought their first homes. A thriving middle class was born and flourishing. We had unprecedented economic expansion. So today, we have a clear choice: We can look at the statistics, wring our hands, and continue to do nothing. Or we can do what America has done in times of difficulty: acknowledge that we have a real challenge and confront it head-on with real solutions. Now, I think the choice is obvious. I think we need to act now with smart, practical solutions to strengthening our housing and mortgage markets. We need to put an end to fly-by-night mortgage brokers peddling loans to unqualified applicants based on inflated appraisals. We need to help those facing the pain of foreclosure. And we need to secure the marketplace and put reform in action right now. Now, back in March, I announced an agenda to address abuses in the sub-prime lending market, because back in March, that's all anybody thought was going to be at stake. People said, "Well, maybe there are problems in the sub-prime market, but, you know, that's not really going to be that significant." Well, I disagreed then, and I disagree now. I think the sub- prime market was sort of like the canary in the mine. You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, "There are problems here." And now the problems have unfortunately spread to the conventional mortgage market as well. In fact, some of the very same tricks of the trade are being used to hurt people in the conventional market that have been long used against people in the sub-prime market. So that's why today I'm announcing a four-part plan for how I, as president, would address abuses across the mortgage industry -- a plan to curb unfair lending practices and hold brokers and lenders accountable, give families the support they need to avoid foreclosure, and increase the supply of affordable housing. I'll be introducing this plan as legislation when the Senate goes back into session after Labor Day. We're going to try, in the Democratic Congress, to push forward on this agenda. But if the president won't sign our proposals that we will send to him in the next months, when I'm president I will take a very active role in making this a priority, and I will sign into law provisions to do exactly what I'm outlining. The way I see it, one of the most... (APPLAUSE) You know, the way I see it, one of the most important jobs of the next president is to restore a sense of economic leadership to our country and a sense of fairness to our economy. I believe in shared responsibility and shared prosperity. I see myself as a modern progressive. I believe one of the crowning achievements of the early American progressives was reforming our economic system, making changes that made the economy work for more Americans. That is why lending reform is so important, because abuses in this area affect those who can least afford to lose their homes. And in today's world of loan repackaging, these failures can and will have ripple effects throughout the entire economy. So it's precisely in areas like mortgage lending, where we see this gathering storm, that we have to act quickly and responsibly to reform the system. And that's where I fundamentally differ with Republicans. They believe in letting everyone fend for him- or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really, "You're on your own." It's the yo-yo economy: Some go up, and some go down, and the strings are pulled by other people. Well, I don't think that is the way America works best. I think when we see a problem; we need to roll up our sleeves and get together to fix it. And that is the kind of president that I intend to be: reaching toward big goals like universal health care, endingthe war in Iraq, but also making... (APPLAUSE) ... also making the economy work for everyone again. You know, that's why, when I was listening to Christie and thinking about where we were in '91 and '92, where the economy was flat on its back, where people were being so left out and at their wits' end, and yet it took a lot of effort and it was politically difficult -- because I'll tell you something: Change is not just a word, it is a challenge. And to get the changes we need in America, we're all going to have to get together and stand up to those who have a lot to gain from keeping our system the way it is. And it's the mortgage industry, and it's all the people they sell loans to, and it's the people who package them, and it's the people who make money off of them. So let me tell you what I would do. First, I would focus on cracking down on unscrupulous brokers who lure unsuspecting families into unfair mortgages. Many families assume their broker has their best interests at heart. But that is often not the case. What they don't realize is that the more expensive the mortgage a broker sells, the more money the broker makes. So brokers have a strong incentive to steer their clients toward the biggest, most expensive mortgages, even if clients can't afford them. We need to help families go into home buying with their eyes wide open. So I'm proposing, as a matter of federal law, we require brokers to tell families up front they're paid on the basis of the size of the mortgage they sell. That will put buyers on notice that they need to ask tough questions... (APPLAUSE) ... and be wary of the products that are being offered. We also need to do more to screen mortgage brokers to ensure they're qualified and that they deal fairly with clients. You know, I had a roundtable event about this down in Orlando, Florida, a couple of months ago. And a former broker from Ameriquest said he could not sleep at night any longer. He quit his job, and he came in and he spilled the beans. And he sat there and he talked about all the tricks and all the pressure that are put on the brokers to make them go out and sell these loan packages that are going to explode in the face of the borrowers. So we've got to do more to really make sure that we have national standards for brokers. Many states don't even have basic licensing standards. In a lot of states, you don't even have to be licensed to be a mortgage broker. So the average homebuyer has no reliable way to know whether a broker is trustworthy or not. And that's why I'm proposing that the federal government work with the states to develop strong, meaningful broker licensing standards to stream brokers and govern their conduct. I will also require... (APPLAUSE) ... that brokers register with the federal government. That way, we can establish a single database to track rules violations, complaints and employment history. (APPLAUSE) So before you hire a broker, you can get online and do your own background check to ensure you're dealing with someone who will deal with you fairly. This is especially important in the home equity refinancing area, because a lot of that business is sold over the phone. People get a call. I'll tell you something, some of the brokers don't even use their real names on the phone. And so, people are listening, and it sounds really good. And they particularly prey on the elderly. So we've got to have more standards governing brokers. Second, I will also crack down on the mortgage lenders by eliminating prepayment penalties and working to ensure... (APPLAUSE) ... that lenders don't lure people into unworkable mortgages in the first place. Now, as some of you know from unfortunate personal experience, prepayment penalties are a gold mine for mortgage lenders and it's a trap for homebuyers. The way many high-risk, non-traditional mortgages work is that you pay a low rate for a number of years -- which is probably why you took the mortgage in the first place -- then, once that time period is up, the rates skyrocketed. Then you are faced with this increasing rate. Now, what many people didn't know and what seems to me to be so perverse is that, when you first get that new notice that your rate has doubled -- which is going to happen to a lot of people in New Hampshire in the next year, because of the mortgages they already have -- a lot of people say, "Oh, my goodness, let's try to start paying down the mortgage as fast as we can." I mean, that's kind of part of the American ethos, you know, pay down the mortgage, get out of debt. What people don't realize is that if you try to pay your mortgage early while you still have the low rate, the lender slaps a huge prepayment penalty on you. So lenders are actually discouraging people from being responsible and paying off their mortgages early, because they want to increase their profits. So it's not surprising that loans with prepayment penalties have a 52 percent greater risk of default than those without. That's bad for families, and it's bad for the housing market, which is why I propose prohibiting all prepayment penalties on all mortgages. I think we should encourage people to pay off their mortgages early. Tape started at 15:31:36:14 - the above highlight (first part of her speech) is not on tape (APPLAUSE) You know, I'm old enough to remember, you know, mortgage-burning parties, where somebody in the neighborhood would pay off their mortgage; they owned their home free and clear. And all the neighbors would get together, and they'd burn the mortgage documents. That was like a, you know, a great celebration. Well, we're not letting people do that. So we're going to change the way mortgage lenders operate. We also need to do more to stop lenders from trapping people in unworkable mortgages in the first place. Right now, lenders have a lot of discretion when deciding whether someone qualifies for a mortgage. In making this assessment, many lenders don't take into account whether a family will be able to pay property taxes and property insurance. And too many families, especially first-time homebuyers, don't know to budget for these expenses. But once they're locked into the mortgage and tax time rolls around, they experience payment shock and suddenly realize they may be in over their heads. That's why I propose requiring lenders to take into account their borrowers' ability to pay property taxes and insurance fees when deciding whether to make that loan in the first place. The requirement would apply to all high-risk mortgage products. These costs for property taxes, insurance, you know are a huge part of what you have to be able to put aside to pay for when you own a home. And lenders say, "Well, that shouldn't be our responsibility," but I think it is, because if they go after first- time homebuyers, they ought to be willing and we'll require them to be more helpful. Now, I've been talking about how to keep people from getting trapped in unaffordable mortgages in the first place, and that's critical. But we also have to do more to help people stay on track and avoid foreclosure once they have their mortgages. And that's the third part of my plan. Back in March, when I spoke about sub-prime mortgages, I called for a foreclosure timeout. And we can't, you know, make that happen yet, because we don't have any legal tools certainly, but we certainly can talk about it, and we can try to persuade the Fed and others to encourage the lenders to think more creatively about how to have a foreclosure timeout: helping people refinance loans, helping people pay a lower rate for longer, doing things that will avoid this cascade of home losses. I propose we expand the role also played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-chartered and -backed institutions that do so much with homeownership. They should have to help at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure. They are supported by the federal government. That is a public service that they should be required to perform. They do an excellent... (APPLAUSE) They do an excellent job in helping to provide reasonably priced mortgages for Americans, and they have a lot of foreclosure prevention programs. But we have to expand them, because the numbers of people facing foreclosures are going up exponentially. And I think we should also have a billion-dollar fund in the federal government to support state programs that help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure. Now, several states, including New York, have included rescue funds to assist people who are on the brink of foreclosure, people who have often nowhere else to turn and are terrified of losing everything they have. Such a program could help Christie's family. You know, her husband did get a new job, paying in the six figures. He will be back on his feet, after having had his job outsourced. If somebody would take the time to sit down and help them and maybe talk to the bank, they will be able to get back into paying for the mortgage on their home. So we need people who are playing that role. Now, this is not easy to implement. Chicago actually tried to have face-to-face counseling and support for people, both before they bought and during the homeownership period. And there was a massive outcry by the lenders and the brokers. So, again, this sounds so common-sensical, but we have to, you know, get together and work to get it passed in order to make it happen, or get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to also step up and do this on their own, maybe with some prodding by the Federal Reserve. Fourth and finally, we need to make a national commitment to creating more reasonably priced housing options, so people don't have to resort to risky or unworkable mortgages in the first place. You know, really, the mortgage issue is partially an affordable- housing issue. Even with recent declines, real estate prices are still quite high, and families are committing more and more of their incomes to mortgage payments. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of households devoting more than half of their incomes to housing increased by 1.9 million. Think about that: half of more of your income going to support your housing. Some families forgo basic necessities to pay mortgages. Others just forgo homeownership in the first place or turn to risky mortgages. I think we should have another $1 billion committed by the federal government over five years to help state, county and municipal governments build and rehabilitate affordable housing across America. Now, that, in and of itself, would not... (APPLAUSE) ... you know, would not do it, but it would incentivize others to do it. We have an affordable-housing crisis. And it is all over the country. It started in high-cost areas, but now it is spreading. We don't have enough affordable rental units, and we don't have enough affordable homes. There are some good examples across America. There are already, in many states and localities, trust funds in place to help people get into affordable housing. And guess what? That also creates new jobs. So it really is a win-win. And it's time the federal government supported these state and local housing trust funds. We also need to look more generally at infrastructure. And I'll be back in New Hampshire tomorrow to talk about what we need to do concerning infrastructure. Because, of course, with the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, now everybody's talking about it. You know, some of us have been talking about it a long time. Our bridges, our tunnels, our roads, our mass transit, our ports, our airports are woefully underinvested in as a nation. (APPLAUSE) And we just have to get serious again, as Americans, that we want to remain the leader in the world. We want to have our children, like these beautiful children here, feeling that, when they grow up, America will be there for them, just as America was there for us; that there will be opportunities to work and to raise a family and to have a home. And, you know, we want to continue to be the strongest, safest, smartest, richest country in the world, don't we? Well, you've got to make investments in order to make that happen. (APPLAUSE) You know, together, my proposals and others that people are putting forth can help curb the abuses that have contributed to the problems we face today. And we can assist people facing foreclosures, we can create more affordable housing and protect the American dream of homeownership. Because we know that's about more than financial security. It is about laying roots deep in a community. It's about knowing who your neighbors are. It's about knowing where your kids go to school. It's about having that sense of belonging and community. And that's what I believe in. You know, my late father, who was in the Navy for five years, and when he came out he wanted to start a small business and start a family. And so, he -- you know, we lived in an apartment when I was born, but for him and my mother it was all about having a home. So he paid for a brick home that, you know, when I was little looked like a castle. When I see it today, it's not as big as I remember it, but it was certainly big enough for my parents and my bothers and me. And back in 1975, Bill and I were living in Arkansas and teaching at the law school. And as I've written about in my autobiography, I was trying to decide whether or not to get married. And it was, you know, one day "yes," one day "maybe," back and forth. And one day, we drove by a little red brick house with a for-sale sign in front of it. And I casually remarked, "That was a really sweet-looking house." That is literally all I said. Then I went away for a few weeks and came back to start teaching again at the university law school, and Bill picked me up at the airport, and he said, "Do you remember that house that you liked?" I couldn't remember. And he said, "Well, I bought it." (LAUGHTER) So he said, "Now we have to get married." (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) So actually we did, in the house. (APPLAUSE) And it's hard to believe it cost $21,000. And, you know, we thought, again, it was just the most wonderful house. You know, the kitchen needed a lot of work, and it was, you know, a little bit funky in many ways. But nevertheless, we were married in our living room, surrounded by our closest friends and family. And that home meant the world to us. It was where we started our life together. It's where we did celebrate, as Christie said, birthdays and holidays and where we hosted our family and friends. Every family should have that same opportunity. That is what America stands for. And... (APPLAUSE) ... I hope that I can earn your vote to become the president who will once again stand up for an economy that works for everyone and stand up for homeownership. And let me end where I started. If you have any ideas about how to help Christie and her family, I hope you will. You know, it's heartbreaking to me that our system operates so well for so many in so many different ways. We have the greatest economy in the world. It's dynamic, it's complex. But it's not working the way it needs to right now for too many. And therefore, we've got to figure out how we're going to help each other until we finally once again have a president who doesn't think his only job is helping those who are already rich get even richer. (APPLAUSE) Thank you all very much. (APPLAUSE) Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President Terms of Service <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/terms/> | Privacy Policy <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/privacy/> | Contact Us <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/> End of speech 15:42:56 Gladhanding shots,
Senate Judiciary Hearing on oil related court decisions 1000-1100
Hearing - Oil related court decisions Senate judiciary committee hearing with christopher jones, whose brother was killed on the deepwater horizon, a professor and a lawyer 10:07:06 PATRICK LEAHY: I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE FAMILIES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH TERRIBLE 10:07:11 TRAGEDIES AND SHOW THE RESPECT DUE FOR THAT. 10:07:16 IT'S BEEN NOW 50 DAYS SINCE BP'S DEEP WATER HORIZON OIL RIG 10:07:22 EXPLODED AND OIL BEGAN GUSHING INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO. 10:07:26 DEADLY CONTAMINATION HAS REACHED THE SHORES AND WETLANDS OF THE 10:07:29 GULF COAST. OUR NATION FACES AN 10:07:33 ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE. AMERICANS ARE ANGRY. 10:07:37 IN THE PAST WEEK, WHEN I WAS HOME IN VERMONT, I DON'T KNOW 10:07:43 WHEN SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE COME UP TO ME ON ONE ISSUE AS THIS 10:07:49 SAYING WHAT'S HAPPENING. AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW HOW 10:07:52 AND WHY THIS HAPPENED. ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER AND 10:07:57 OTHERS INVESTIGATE THIS DISASTER, I'M CONFIDENT THE 10:08:00 FACTS WILL BECOME KNOWN. AND IF CRIMINAL CONDUCT 10:08:03 OCCURRED, IT SHOULD BE AND IT WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE 10:08:05 FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 10:08:11 AISLE BELIEVE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISASTER SHOULD BE HELD 10:08:15 FULLY ACCOUNTABLE. WE CANNOT LET BIG OIL COMPANIES 10:08:18 PLAY ROULETTE WITH OUR ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. 10:08:23 A REGION THAT HAS ALREADY SUFFERED SO MUCH FROM NATURAL 10:08:27 DISASTERS HAS YET ANOTHER TRAGEDY ON THEIR HANDS, THIS 10:08:30 TIME AT THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE LARGEST OIL COMPANIES IN THE 10:08:34 WORLD. MUCH ATTENTION IS BEING GIVEN TO 10:08:36 THE UNFOLDING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. 10:08:39 BUT I HAD HOPED THAT AMERICANS WOULD NEVER FORGET THE 11 MEN 10:08:45 WHO LOST THEIR LIVES, MEN WHO LEFT BEHIND CHILDREN AND WIVES, 10:08:51 PARENTS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS. CHRISTOPHER JONES' BROTHER 10:08:55 GORDON LOST HIS LIFE ON THE OIL RIG IS WITH US HERE TODAY TO 10:08:59 REPRESENT ALL THESE MEN AND THESE FAMILIES. 10:09:02 MR. JONES, I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE. I KNOW YOU'RE ACCOMPANIED BY 10:09:05 YOUR FATHER, KEITH JONES. AND I UNDERSTAND MR. JONES 10:09:14 SENIOR, FROM YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT IS HAVING SOME OF THE 10:09:18 FAMILIES AT THE WHITE HOUSE LATER THIS WEEK. 10:09:22 MR. JONES, YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE OUR CONDOLENCES. 10:09:25 I KNOW IN THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT, HE FEELS 10:09:28 VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. YOU SHOULD FEEL FREE TO TELL HIM 10:09:33 EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AND ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE. 10:09:36 HE ACTUALLY WANTS TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. 10:09:42 YOU ALSO HAVE MY COMMITMENT TO WORK TO ACHIEVE SOME FAIRNESS 10:09:45 UNDER THE LAW FOR YOUR BROTHER'S FAMILY AND THE FAMILIES OF ALL 10:09:48 WHO LOST THEIR LIVES IN THIS DISASTER. 10:09:50 YOU DEZER V A MEASURE OF JUSTICE. 10:09:53 TODAY'S HEARING WILL EXAMINE HOW THE APPLICABLE LAWS HAVE SHAPED 10:09:56 BIG OIL'S BEHAVIOR. WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHETHER OUR 10:10:00 LEGAL SYSTEM ITSELF GIVES SOME KIND OF INCENTIVE TO BIG OIL 10:10:07 COMPANIES TO CUT CORNERS. THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN 10:10:14 THE EXXON VALDEZ CASE AND THE CURRENT CAPS IN THE OIL XLUGS 10:10:20 ACT OF 1990 AND THE LIMITATION LIABILITY ABILITY INCORPORATE 10:10:25 MISCONDUCT. WE'LL ASK WHETHER CURRENT 10:10:28 MARITIME STATUTES THAT COMPENSATE THE FAMILIES OF THOSE 10:10:30 KILLED, WE'LL ASK WHETHER THEY'RE FAIR AND WHETHER THE 10:10:33 CURRENT LEGAL STRUCTURE TEMPS CORPORATIONS TO DEVALUE HUMAN 10:10:38 LIVES IN THE CALCULUS OF PROFITABILITIES. 10:10:41 NO ONE'S LIFE SHOULD BECOME AN ASTERISK IN SOMEBODY'S COST 10:10:48 BENEFIT ANALYSIS. THE DEATH IN THE HIGH SEAS ACT 10:10:50 IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THOSE KILLED IN INTERNATIONAL 10:10:54 WATERS. BUT THIS LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE 10:10:56 ALL THAT IS LOST WITH THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE SUCH AS LOSS OF 10:11:03 CONSORTIUM, CARE, COMPANIONSHIP. IT SHOULDN'T BE SOME KIND OF A 10:11:11 DIFFERENCE WITH THE LOSS AS SEA THAN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE 10:11:16 EMPLOYEES OF THE BP WORKING ON LAND. 10:11:19 THE DISPARATE ADDS INSULT TO THE FAMILIES THAT ARE VICTIMS OF 10:11:22 THIS TRAGEDY. TEN YEARS AGO CONGRESS AMMED THE 10:11:26 DEATH IN THE HIGH SEAS ACT FOR THOSE THAT PARISH IN AIRLINE 10:11:31 CRASHES OVER INTERNATIONAL WATERS. 10:11:33 IT'S TIME WE MODERNIZE THIS LAW AGAIN. 10:11:35 LATER TODAY I'LL INTRODUCE THE SURVIVORS EQUALITY ACT TO MAKE 10:11:38 SURE THESE FAMILIES ARE TREATED FAIRLY. 10:11:41 ANOTHER LAW THAT CONGRESS SHOULD CONSIDER UPDATING IS THE 10:11:46 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ACT. IT LIMITS A VESSEL OWNER'S TOTAL 10:11:50 LIABILITY TO THE POST INCIDENT VALUE OF THE VESSEL. 10:11:55 THAT LAW WAS PASSED IN 1851 FOR A DIFFERENT TIME AND BEFORE THE 10:12:01 CIVIL WAR. THE COMPANY THAT TONED DEEP 10:12:07 WATER WHO VIE SON TRANSOCEAN WASTED NO TIME FILING A MOTION 10:12:11 TO LIMIT TOTAL LIABILITY TO THIS LAW TO THE VALUE OF THE SUNKEN 10:12:16 DRILLING RIG. THEY WANT THEIR LIABILITY 10:12:19 LIMITED TO THE VALUE OF WHAT IS NOW A PIECE OF JUNK SITTING A 10:12:27 MILE BELOW THE SURFACE. THAT'S PERVERSE. 10:12:29 I THINK CONGRESS SHOULD ACT TO AVOID THIS ABSURD RESULT. 10:12:33 AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S THE STATUTORY LIABILITY CAP OF $75 10:12:37 MILLION ON CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO THE CLEANUP FOR 10:12:41 AN OIL SPILL AND THAT NEEDS REEXAMINATION. 10:12:45 TWO YEARS AGO, ACTIVISTS SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION EXXON 10:12:50 VERSUS BAKER CREATED AN ARBITRARY LIMIT OF PUNITIVE 10:12:54 DAMAGE IN MARITIME CASES CHAIRED A HEARING AND EXPRESSED 10:13:00 MY CONCERN AT THE TIME THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S EXXON VALDEZ 10:13:04 DECISION WOULD ENCOURAGE CORPORATE MISCONDUCT. 10:13:06 WHY? BECAUSE IT REDUCED THE 10:13:11 CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR MISCONDUCT TO A DISCOUNTED COST OF DOING 10:13:12 BUSINESS. THAT'S ALMOST LIKE SAYING WE'RE 10:13:17 GIVING YOU A GREEN LIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. 10:13:21 THE FACT IS, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANYBODY WOULD BE SURPRISED THAT 10:13:25 THE SUPREME COURT EFFECTIVELY CAPPED DAMAGES TO CAP MISCONDUCT 10:13:30 WHILE OIL COMPANIES CUT CORNERS AND SACRIFICE SAFETY. 10:13:34 THE EXXON VALDEZ DECISION WAS ANOTHER IN A SUPREME OF 10:13:38 BUSINESS-FRIENDLY SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN WHICH A NARROW 10:13:41 MAJORITY HAS ESSENTIALLY WRITTEN NEW LAW AND DISREGARDED LAWS 10:13:46 ENACTED BY CONGRESS. THE IMPACT OF LIVES OF AMERICANS 10:13:50 IS ENORMOUS. TWO YEARS AGO WE HEARD FROM 10:13:53 ALASKAN FISHERMEN. NOW WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE 10:13:56 LIVELIHOODS OF SLIMMERS AND OYSTER MEN IN THE GULF, PEOPLE 10:14:01 WHO SPENT DECADES, GENERATIONS OBEYING EVERY SINGLE RULE, 10:14:06 BUILDING THEIR BUSINESSES, HAVING SOMETHING THEY COULD 10:14:08 LEAVE TO THEIR CHILDREN. THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES, AND 10:14:11 BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE DOESN'T, THEY LOSE IT ALL. 10:14:15 I HAVE JOINED THE WHITE HOUSE'S EFFORT TO OVERTURN THE SUPREME 10:14:19 COURT'S EXXON VALDEZ DECISIONS. LOOKING AT LEGISLATION TO 10:14:24 PREVENT KORGSS FROM DEDUCTING PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS FROM 10:14:26 THEIR TAXES SO THEY BEAR THE COST OF THEIR FULL EXTREME 10:14:31 MISCONDUCT. OUR LAWS SHOULD ENCOURAGE SAFETY 10:14:33 AND ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY DO NOT CREATE THE RIGHT 10:14:35 INCENTIVES, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THEM. 10:14:39 WHETHER AS A RESULT OF GREED OR INCOMPETENCE OR NEGLIGENCE, BP'S 10:14:44 CONDUCT AS DEVASTATED THE LIVES AND LILY HOODS OF COUNTLESS 10:14:47 PEOPLE AND THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THEY THREATEN THE GULF COAST'S 10:14:51 VERY WAY OF LIFE. IT'S BEEN SAID BY OTHERS THAT BP 10:14:57 CAN SPEND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS RUNNING ADDS SAYING 10:15:00 HOW WONDERFUL THEY ARE AND HOW ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS THEY 10:15:04 ARE. THEY CAN SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY 10:15:05 HELPING THE FAMILIES THAT ARE SUFFERING. 10:15:09 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER FROM ALL BIG OIL 10:15:12 COMPANIES WHO EXPLOIT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES FOR ENORMOUS 10:15:15 PROFIT. IN THE MONTHS AHEAD T PEOPLE OF 10:15:17 THE GULF KOEFT WILL WORK TO RECLAIM THEIR COASTLINE AND 10:15:22 LIVELIHOODS, WETLANDS AND FISHERIES AND MANY OF US HERE 10:15:24 WILL HELP THEM. UNFORTUNATELY THE FAMILIES OF 10:15:26 THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES ON THAT TRAGIC DAY WILL NOT BE ABLE 10:15:30 TO RECLAIM THEIR LOVED ONES. 11 MEN WHO WERE KILLED IN THE 10:15:36 DEEP WATER HORIZON RIG DESERVE BETTER. 10:15:39 WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE IT BETTER. 10:15:44 I PLEDGE THAT TO THEIR FAMILIES. I RENEW THAT PLEDGE TODAY. 10:15:48 MY THANKS UNDER WHITE HOUSE FOR CO-CHAIRING THIS HEARING, ALL 10:15:52 THE WITNESSES BEING HERE. I'M GOING TO YIELD TO SENATOR 10:15:59 SESSIONS WHO ACTUALLY DOES REPRESENT A GULF STATE. 10:16:03 AND THEN SENATOR WHITE HOUSE AND WE'LL BEGIN THE HEARING. 10:16:06 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE DEEP WATER HORIZON DISASTER 10:16:10 IS NOW AND REMAINS A VERY SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR COASTAL 10:16:15 ENVIRONMENT, OUR COASTAL ECONOMY AND PARTICULARLY OUR THOUGHTS 10:16:19 AND PRAYERS REMAIN WITH THOSE, WHO LIKE CHRISTOPHER JONES, LOST 10:16:24 FAMILY MEMBERS ON THAT RIG. 11 WONDERFUL AMERICANS LOST 10:16:28 THEIR LIVES. I HAD A LONG MEETING WITH 10:16:32 GOVERNOR RILEY AND CONGRESSMAN BONNER FRIDAY IN MOBILE. 10:16:38 WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT THE NAX FACES. 10:16:43 WE LISTENED TO THE MAYORS OF GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH AND 10:16:49 PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE MOBILE BAY AREA AND THE THREATS THAT 10:16:52 ARE BEING FACED THERE. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN, 10:16:57 FRANKLY, A LOT OF INTENSITY OF FEELING THAT THINGS HAVE NOT 10:16:59 GONE AS WELL AS THEY COULD, AND WE DO NEED TO DO BETTER. 10:17:03 WE MUST DO BETTER. I REALLY WANT TO THANK GOVERNOR 10:17:06 RILEY FOR HIS PERSONAL LEADERSHIP IN LEADING THE EFFORT 10:17:11 TO COORDINATE THE RESPONSE WITH REGARD TO THE ALABAMA AREA. 10:17:16 TODAY MARKS THE 50th DAY THAT OIL HAS BEEN POURING INTO THE 10:17:20 GULF OF MEXICO, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'LL BE SOME TIME BEFORE 10:17:23 WE ARE FULLY ABLE TO COMPREHEND THE IMPACT OF THIS SPILL AND THE 10:17:27 EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE TO OUR ENVIRONMENT. 10:17:30 STOPPING THIS LEAK, OF COURSE, IS THE TOP PRIORITY, BECAUSE 10:17:37 DEFENSIVE MEASURES, TRYING TO STOP WHAT'S FLOWED OUT WILL 10:17:42 NEVER BE ABLE AS I HAVE LEARNED, TO COMPLETELY STOP THE FLOW INTO 10:17:45 OUR ESTUARIRIES AND BEACHES AND EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS CAN CAUSE 10:17:50 SERIOUS DAMAGE. THE COAST GUARD, BP, MMS, NOAA, 10:17:55 CONTINUE TO EVALUATE SUBSURFACE EFFORTS TO STOP THE FLOW BY 10:18:00 CLOSELY MONITORING ITS EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. 10:18:02 I'M SOMEWHAT ENCOURAGED BY YESTERDAY'S ANNOUNCEMENT WHERE 10:18:08 ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN CONFIRMED THAT THE CAPTURING BY BP OF 10:18:11 AROUND 462,000 GALLONS OF OIL A DAY, WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL 10:18:19 INCREASE FROM WHAT WAS OCCURRING FRIDAY, THAT IS A POSITIVE STEP. 10:18:24 IF THIS PROCEDURE CONTINUES TO WORK, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE 10:18:28 CONTAINMENT CAP WILL BEGIN TO SUCCESSFULLY COLLECT AS MUCH OIL 10:18:32 AS THE SURFACE TANKERS CAN HANDLE. 10:18:35 THAT BEING SAID, THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST STEP IN WHAT COULD BE 10:18:38 A LONG PROCESS, AND IT'S WITHOUT QUESTION THAT THE POTENTIAL 10:18:42 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE ACCIDENT IS 10:18:46 UNPRECEDENTED. BP IS A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR 10:18:50 INTERNATIONAL COMPANY. AS I SAID SHORTLY AFTER THIS 10:18:53 EVENT OCCURRED, THEY ARE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. 10:18:57 THEY ARE LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGES UP TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR VERY 10:19:03 FINANCIAL EXISTENCE, AND THEY ARE NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL. 10:19:07 I BELIEVE THAT THEN AND I BELIEVE THAT TODAY. 10:19:10 THEY MADE GREAT PROFITS. AND SO BE IT. 10:19:18 BUT THEY ASSUMED RISK. THEY BECAME AND SIGNED AS THE 10:19:23 RESPONSIBLE PARTY, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO 10:19:28 HONOR THAT COMMITMENT TO BE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. 10:19:35 IN FACT, IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR, BP'S PROFITS AVERAGED 10:19:42 $93 MILLION PER DAY. BP IS THE ONE THAT UNDER THE LAW 10:19:47 AND UNDER THE PROCEDURES OF OUR DRILLING IS THE RESPONSIBLE 10:19:53 PARTY. SO I'VE QUESTIONED THOSE 10:19:55 EXECUTIVES, THOSE AT TRANSOCEAN AND HALLIBURTON AT THE ENERGY 10:19:58 COMMITTEE OF WHICH I'M A MEMBER AND THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 10:20:01 SEEKING EXPLANATIONS FOR THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT AND 10:20:05 CONFIDENCE AND ASSURANCE THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES WILL 10:20:09 ACCEPT THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DAMAGES. 10:20:14 OFFICIAL HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED FROM BP THAT THE COMPANY WILL 10:20:17 PAY ALL CLEANUP COSTS AND THAT IT WILL IGNORE THE $75 MILLION 10:20:22 LIABILITY CAP ESTABLISHED BY THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. 10:20:26 INDEED, THERE IS NO CAP ON THE CLEANUP COSTS. 10:20:31 EVERY DOLLAR THAT'S SPENT CLEANING UP ANY OIL ON THE 10:20:37 BEACHES AND ESTUARIES, THERE'S NO CAP ON THAT. 10:20:40 IN ADDITION, THERE'S NO CAP, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND WE'LL 10:20:44 PERHAPS ASK OUR WITNESSES, ON THE INDIVIDUAL LAWSUITS THAT CAN 10:20:47 BE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM UNDER STATE LAW. 10:20:54 COMPANY SPOKESMEN HAVE SAID THEY WILL NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM 10:20:59 THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FROM THE OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND. 10:21:03 THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW THAT WILL PLAY OUT. 10:21:06 BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AVAILABLE IF NEED BE. 10:21:14 WHILE THOSE KORPT ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE WILL BE HELD 10:21:16 LIABILITY FOR THE ACTIONS, I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE, MR. 10:21:19 CHAIRMAN, THAT WE ANALYZE PRECISELY THE LEGAL CAUSES OF 10:21:22 ACTION THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY 10:21:24 APPROPRIATELY FIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 10:21:26 AND WE ALSO NEED TO EXAMINE, DID THE GOVERNMENT PLAY AN ADEQUATE 10:21:34 ROLE IN RESPONDING TO THE DISASTERS. 10:21:37 ACCORDING TO COAST GUARD LOGS RELEASED BY CONGRESSMAN DARRELL 10:21:41 ICE HER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 10:21:44 REFORM COMMITTEE, THE ADMINISTRATION KNEW THAT THIS 10:21:47 WAS GOING TO BE A SPILL OF, QUOTE, NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. 10:21:58 THOSE LOGS SHOWED DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE INFORMATION THEY 10:22:04 CONTAINED. WHILE THE TITLE OF THE HEARING 10:22:07 ASSUMES A LEVEL OF IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATE BEHAVIOR ON BEHALF OF 10:22:10 ENTITIES LIKE BP, WE NEED TO EXAMINE, ALSO, HOW WELL THE 10:22:13 ADMINISTRATION RESPONDED TO THIS EVENT. 10:22:17 INSTEAD OF ALLOCATING ADMINISTRATIONS IT APPEARS, 10:22:22 WE'VE HAD OTHER ACTIONS THAT ARE LESS EFFECTIVE. 10:22:29 I THINK AN APPROPRIATE EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CRIMINAL 10:22:33 ACTIVITY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED, BUT IT SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN A 10:22:39 FAIR AND JUST WAY. WE MUST BE CAREFUL IN 10:22:41 IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICIES TO ADDRESS THIS INCIDENT. 10:22:44 IN LATE MAY THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HE IS EXTENDING THE 10:22:47 MORATORIUM ON PERMITS TO DRILL NEW DEEP WATER WELLS FOR SIX 10:22:52 MORE MONTHS. I CERTAINLY THINK WE NEED TO BE 10:22:55 CAREFUL ABOUT THAT AND EXAMINE VERY CAREFULLY WHETHER OR NOT 10:22:59 AND HOW WE SHOULD GO ABOUT FURTHER DEEP WATER DRILLING. 10:23:03 WHILE THIS MORATORIUM CAN BE NECESSARY TO REVIEW SAFETY AND 10:23:09 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, IT WILL CLEARLY HAVE A NEGATIVE 10:23:13 IMPACT ON PRODUCTION, JOBS AND REVENUES TO STATES AND THE 10:23:17 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY IS 10:23:21 RESPONSIBLE FOR NEARLY 200,000 JOBS AROUND THE GULF OF MEXICO 10:23:26 AND OVER $13 BILLION A YEAR IN NONTAX REVENUES FOR THE GULF 10:23:32 COAST PRODUCING STATES. TOTAL REVENUE COLLECTED BY THE 10:23:36 GENERAL TREASURY FROM ALL FEDERAL OFFSHORE OPERATIONS 10:23:39 TOTAL $5.9 BILLION IN 2009 ALONE, DRIMG ON THE OUTER 10:23:46 CONTINENTAL SHELF IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE NOT JUST FOR THE 10:23:48 GULF STATES BUT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. 10:23:51 TLR SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE CAUSE OF THIS RIG EXPLOSION 10:23:58 AND THE ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISHED AN INDEPENDENT 10:23:59 COMMISSION TO SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE PRESIDENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS 10:24:02 PROVIDING SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT AND MITIGATE FUTURE SPILLS FROM 10:24:07 OFFSHORE DRILLING. I HOPE WE CAN COMPLETE THAT 10:24:10 RESLEW AND IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN IDENTIFYING THE DANGERS AND 10:24:14 RISK INVOLVED, BUT I DO HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE THOEN MOVE 10:24:22 FORWARDED WITH ENERGY INTO DENSE AND SELF SUFFICIENCY BY ADOPTING 10:24:26 THE KIND OF PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BE SUCCESSFUL. 10:24:30 IN GREATER OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY, THE GREATER THE 10:24:33 THREAT TO AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY. 10:24:36 OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO SUPPLIES 30% OF AMERICA'S 10:24:43 DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION. MOST PEOPLE DON'T FULLY REALIZE 10:24:46 THAT. 80% OF THE GULF'S OIL, AND I DID 10:24:49 NOT REALIZE THIS, COMES FROM OPERATION MORE THAN -- IN MORE 10:24:54 THAN 1,000 FEET OF WATER, 80%. FOR THIS REASON, WE MUST 10:25:02 CONTINUE THE SAFE AND SECURE OFFSHORE DRILLING. 10:25:05 IT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR ECONOMY, JOBS AND NATIONAL SECURITY. 10:25:09 MR. PRESIDENT, OUR COMMUNITIES ARE HURTING. 10:25:12 WE'VE GOT OUR SEAFOOD INDUSTRY THAT IS BASICALLY SHUT DOWN. 10:25:18 HUNDREDS OF LOW-WAGE WORKERS HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS. 10:25:23 WE'VE GOT PROBABLY ALMOST HALF OF THE RENTAL CAPACITY IN OUR 10:25:29 BEACH FRONT PROPERTIES HAS BEEN LOST -- ARE BEGINNING TO BE 10:25:33 LOST. SO IT'S A NATIONAL ISSUE. 10:25:37 BUT ALSO WE HAVE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF GOOD AMERICANS WHO 10:25:40 ARE WORKING ON THOSE RIGS EVERY DAY WHOSE LIVES ARE AT RISK AND 10:25:46 NEED TO BE ASSURES THAT THE PRODUCTION THAT'S OCCURRING IS 10:25:51 SAFELY DONE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO 10:25:52 HAVE THESE REMARKS. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN LEAHY, FOR 10:25:58 HOLDING THE HEARING AND INVITING ME TO CO-CHAIR IT. 10:26:01 LIKE YOU I BELIEVE CONGRESS MUST DO WHATEVER IT CAN TO PREVENT 10:26:04 ANOTHER FAMILY HAVE HAVING TO HEAR THAT THEIR LOVED ONE HAS 10:26:07 PERISHED ON AN OIL RIG. CONGRESS MUST ALSO TAKE EVERY 10:26:10 AVAILABLE MEASURE TO AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION THAT 10:26:13 WE'RE SEEING UNFOLD DAY AFTER DAY AFTER THE SPILL CONTINUES. 10:26:17 GORDON JONES AND TEN OTHER MEN DIED. 10:26:20 THE GULF HAS BEEN DEVASTATED. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE. 10:26:25 HOW DID IT COME TO THIS? WE ALREADY KNOW THAT BP, 10:26:29 TRANSOCEAN AND HALLIBURTON FAILED TO MEET IMPORTANT SAFETY 10:26:33 STANDARDS. THEY UNDERTOOK RISKY DRILLING 10:26:34 WITHOUT A PROPER DEGREE OF CARE 5,000 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF 10:26:39 THE GULF, 18,000 FEET TO THE OIL RES VARY AMONG METHANE HYDRATE 10:26:44 DEPOSITS THAT ARE HIGHLY DANGEROUS WHEN THEY GET INSIDE 10:26:46 THE DRILL COLUMN. THEY WERE IRRESPONSIBLE. 10:26:49 THE RESULT WAS TRAGEDY. SADLY, KEY REGULATORY AGENCIES 10:26:53 ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH, SHERKING THEIR 10:26:56 RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT OUR OCEANS AND AMERICAN WORKERS AT 10:26:59 SEA. I AM CONVINCED THAT SOMETHING 10:27:01 WAS FUNDAMENTALLY AMISS AT THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE AT 10:27:04 THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. I STRONGLILY SUSPECT THAT MMS 10:27:09 HAD LONG SINCE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE OIL INDUSTRY AND HAD CEASED 10:27:14 TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. REGULATORY AGENCIES EVEN WHEN 10:27:17 FUNCTIONING PROPERLY NEVER HAVE BEEN AMERICA'S SOLE LINE OF 10:27:22 DEFENSE AGAINST DISASTERS. WE ALSO SHOULD MAKE SURE IT IS 10:27:25 IN A CORPORATION'S CLEAR ECONOMIC INTERESTS TO ADHERE 10:27:30 SCRUPULOUSLY TO THE LAW. MEANINGFUL, CIVIL AND CAL FINES 10:27:34 AND DAMAGES ARE ONE CRUCIAL TOOL FOR ENSURING THAT A CORPORATION 10:27:38 TAKES PROPER PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID TRAGIC ERRORS. 10:27:42 IN CONTRAST, A CORPORATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR ITS 10:27:45 MISTAKES DOES NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MAKING THEM. 10:27:50 UNFORTUNATELY MANY OF OUR CURRENT LAWS WHETHER BY STATUTE 10:27:53 OR COURT DECISION CAP THE LIABILITY OF BIG OIL 10:27:57 CORPORATIONS, BOTH FOR WORKER INJURIES AN DEATHS AND FOR HARMS 10:28:00 TO THE ENVIRONMENT. RATHER THAN MAKING RESPONSIBLE 10:28:03 PARTIES PAY FOR HARM DONE, THEY FOIS THIS BURDEN ON TO THE 10:28:10 FAMILIES OF THE LOST AND ON TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. 10:28:14 AS A RESULT, CORPORATIONS LANG PROPER MARKET INCENTIVES TO ACT 10:28:19 RESPONSIBLY. THAT MUST NOT CONTINUE. 10:28:21 CONGRESS MUST ACT. THESE RESTRICTIONS ON LIABILITY 10:28:23 ARE UNFORTUNATELY CONSISTENT WITH ATTACKS UPON THE 10:28:26 INSTITUTION OF THE JURY BY POWERFUL CORPORATE INTERESTS. 10:28:30 THE FOUNDERS PUT THE JURY AND THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF 10:28:34 RIGHTS THREE TIMES, AND FOR A REASON, TO ENSURE THAT IN AT 10:28:38 LEAST ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THE POWERFUL AND THE POWERLESS 10:28:43 HAVE EQUAL STANDING. NOT FOR NOTHING DID DETOEKFUL 10:28:49 DESCRIBE THE JURY AS A MODE FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 10:28:52 THAT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT WAS AT OUR NATION'S FOUNDING. 10:28:57 THE TIDE OF CORPORATE MONEY HA INFLUENCES POLITICS STOPS AT THE 10:29:03 HARD SQUARE CORNERS OF THE JURY BOX. 10:29:06 AND THAT IS WHY CORPORATIONS FIGHT SO HARD TO ATTACK THE 10:29:09 INSTITUTION OF THE JURY. YOU KNOW THIS AS WELL AS ANYONE, 10:29:14 MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I'M PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR THE LEGISLATION 10:29:17 YOU'RE INTRODUCING TODAY. IT WILL ELIMINATE THE STRANGE 10:29:20 QUIRKS IN AMERICAN LAW THAT, LEFT UNCHANGED, WOULD RESULT IN 10:29:24 THE SURVIVE VORPS OF THE 11 MEN KILLED ON THE DEEP WATER HORIZON 10:29:27 BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. THE SENATE SHOULD PASS THAT 10:29:30 LEGISLATION PROMPTLY. I ALSO URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO 10:29:33 SUPPORT TWO BILLS THAT I HAVE INTRODUCED. 10:29:36 THE FIRST WOULD RAISE PENALTIES FOR WORKERS SAFETY AND 10:29:38 ENVIRONMENTAL VILTHSS UNDER THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS 10:29:42 ACT. THE SECOND WOULD OVERTURN THE 10:29:45 SUPREME COURT'S REGRETTABLE EXXON V BAKER DECISION, THAT 10:29:49 CAPPED MARITIME PUNITIVE DAMAGES AT THE LEVEL OF COMPENSATORY 10:29:53 DAMAGES. THE EXXON COURT BELIEVED THAT 10:29:55 PREDICTABILITY FOR CORPORATIONS WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN 10:29:59 DETERRING CORPORATE MISCONDUCT. I DISAGREE. 10:30:02 THE PEOPLE OF MY HOME STATE, RHODE ISLAND, THE OCEAN STATE, 10:30:06 WOULD PUT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL AND OUR SAFETY AHEAD OF PROFITS FOR 10:30:10 IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATIONS. IN FACT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT 10:30:14 ROAD ISLANDERS HAVE DONE. JOHN TORGAN THE BAY KEEP NER 10:30:19 RHODE ISLAND HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER WHICH I'LL INTRODUCE FOR 10:30:22 THE RECORD CATALOGUING THE REGULATORY REFORMS PUT IN PLACE 10:30:25 AFTER THE 1996 NORTH CAPE SCANNED YEAH OIL SPILL OFF SOUTH 10:30:31 KINGS TOWN. RHODE ISLANDERS KNOW WHAT AN OIL 10:30:33 SPILL CAN DO TO AN ECOSYSTEM. WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT PENALTIES 10:30:38 AND FINES ARE KEEPING SEA FARERS SAFE AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS 10:30:44 HEALTHY. I INSIST IN THE FUTURE OIL 10:30:46 COMPANIES DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN DO PREVENT NEEDLESS DEATHS AND 10:30:50 CATASTROPHIC HARM WHETHER IN THE GULF, OFF THE COAST OF NEW 10:30:53 ENGLAND OR ANYWHERE IN OUR GREAT COUNTRY. 10:30:56 TODAY'S HEARING IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARD THAT GOAL AND I 10:30:58 APPLAUD YOU FOR HOLDING IT, MR. CHAIRMAN. 10:31:01 THANK YOU VERY UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR 10:31:05 WHITEHOUSE. OUR FIRST WITNESS IS CHRISTOPHER 10:31:08 JONES, CURRENTLY THE PARTNER AT KEOUGH, COX AND WILSON IN BATON 10:31:12 ROUGE, LOUISIANA. MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIS 10:31:15 PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, HE'S THE BROTHER OF GORDON JONES, ONE 10:31:21 OF THE 11 RIG WORKERS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES THE DAY OF THE 10:31:28 EXPLOSION. GORDON JONES IS SURVIVED BY HIS 10:31:34 WIFE MICHELLE, YOUNG SONS STAFFORD MAXWELL. 10:31:37 ONE OF THE SONS I UNDERSTAND WAS BORN VERY SHORTLY AFTER THE 10:31:40 ACCIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT? 10:31:42 YES. MR. JONES, PLEASE GO ALED. 10:31:49 THE FLOOR IS YOURS. CHAIRMAN LEAHY, RANKING 10:31:54 MEMBER SESSIONS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK 10:31:56 YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. 10:31:59 MY NAME IS CHRIS JONES, SEATED BEHIND ME IS MY FATHER, KEITH 10:32:04 JONES. GORDON IS MY ONLY BROTHER. 10:32:06 HE IS SURVIVED BY HIS WIFE AND TWO SONS, STAFFORD IS TWO AND 10:32:13 MAX WAS BORN THREE WEEKS AGO. GORDON IS SURVIVED BY A MOTHER, 10:32:16 SISTER, IN-LAWS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS WHO MISS HIM 10:32:19 VERY MUCH. WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE WHAT 10:32:22 GORDON MEANT TO THIS FAMILY. I APPEAR BEFORE YOU AS A 10:32:26 REPRESENTATIVE OF ONLY ONE FAMILY AFFECTED BY THIS 10:32:28 ACCIDENT. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE MANY 10:32:31 MORE. I STOOD WITH THOSE OTHER FAMILY 10:32:33 MEMBERS AT A RECENT MEMORIAL EVENT, A SERVICE NO ONE SHOULD 10:32:36 EVER HAVE TO EXPERIENCE. ALTHOUGH WE NEVER MET BEFORE 10:32:40 THIS DISASTER, I WANT THOSE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS TO KNOW 10:32:43 THAT WE GRIEVE FOR THEM AND ARE COMMITTED TO TELLING OUR STORY 10:32:47 SO WE CAN TRY AND CORRECT THE INEQUITIES IN THE LAW AND SO NO 10:32:52 ONE ELSE WILL FIND THEMSELVES IN THAT SITUATION IN THE FUTURE. 10:32:55 OF COURSE, YOU AWARE THAT GORDON DIED ABOARD THE TRANSITION DEEP 10:33:00 WATER HORIZON OIL DRILLING RIG, HE WAS EMPLOYED BY MS SWABBING 10:33:07 CO-A CONTRACTOR ABOARD THE RIG. HE WORKED ABOARD THAT RIG FOR 10:33:11 THE PAST TWO YEARS AND WAS EXCELLING IN HIS PROFESSION. 10:33:15 AS MANY RIG WORKERS DO, GORDON EXPECTED TO GAIN EXPERIENCE ON 10:33:19 THIS RIG AND CONTINUE TO ADVANCE WITH HIS COMPANY. 10:33:21 HE NEVER GOT THAT OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE BACK 10:33:29 YARD FORT GORDON BUILT WITH STAFFORD'S HELP FOR STAFFORD AND 10:33:37 MAX. ALTHOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO 10:33:39 TELL, IT IS NOT FINISHED. GORDON PLANNED TO FINISH IT WHEN 10:33:46 HE RETURNED HOME. HE WILL NEVER GET THAT CHANCE. 10:33:51 CERTAINLY OTHERS WILL STEP IN TO MAKE SURE IT IS FINISHED AND TRY 10:33:54 TO FILL THE TREMENDOUS VOID LEFT BY GORDON'S DEATH. 10:33:57 THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF AN INCOMPLETE LIFE AND WHAT HAS 10:34:01 BEEN LOST. I AM AT LEAST COMFORTED THAT IT 10:34:03 WILL BE FINISHED AND STAFFORD AND MAX WILL ENJOY IT FOR YEARS 10:34:07 TO COME AND KNOW THEIR FATHER BUILT IT FOR THEM. 10:34:16 THE NEXT PICTURE IS TAKEN SHORTLY AFTER MAX'S BIRTH. 10:34:21 NOTABLY ABSENT IS GORDON WHOSE PRESENCE IN THE DELIVERY ROOM 10:34:24 WAS LIMITED TO A SINGLE FAMILY PHOTOGRAPH. 10:34:33 LASTLY, I SHOW YOU POSSIBLY THE LAST PICTURE TAKEN OF GORDON 10:34:37 BEFORE HIS DEATH. IT IS TAKEN JUST AFTER GORDON 10:34:42 GAVE STAFFORD HIS FIRST GOLF LESSON, AN EXPERIENCE GORDON 10:34:46 THOROUGHLY ENJOYED. YOU CAN SEE THE JOY IN THEIR 10:34:49 FACES. I'M SADDENED THAT NEITHER WILL 10:34:51 EXPERIENCE THE SAME JOY AGAIN. I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY 10:34:57 TO ADDRESS THE RECENT REMARKS MADE BY TONY HAYWARD, CEO OF BP. 10:35:03 IN PARTICULAR, HE PUBLICLY STATED HE WANTS HIS LIFE BACK. 10:35:10 MR. HAYWARD, I WANT MY BROTHER'S LIFE BACK. 10:35:17 AND I KNOW THE FAMILIES OF THE OTHER TEN MEN WANT THEIR LIVES 10:35:23 BACK. WE WILL NEVER GET GORDON'S LIFE 10:35:28 BACK, AND HIS WIFE WILL LIVE A LIFE WITHOUT A HUSBAND AND HER 10:35:34 TWO CHILDREN, A LIFE WITHOUT A FATHER. 10:35:35 AT THE TOP OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING IS THE 10:35:38 PHRASE "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW." 10:35:42 AS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND AS A LAWYER I AGREE WITH THAT 10:35:47 PRINCIPLE. UNFORTUNATELY IT DOES NOT EXIST 10:35:48 IN THE CASES OF DEATHS OCCURRING IN FEDERAL WATERS. 10:35:52 THIS IS NOT A PHRASE THAT APPLIES TO MICHELLE, STAFFORD 10:35:56 AND MAX IN THIS INSTANCE. THIS IS NOT RIGHT AND I MAKE 10:35:59 THIS REQUEST FOR CHANGE FOR MY FAMILY, THE FAMILIES OF THE 10:36:01 OTHER TEN MEN AND OTHERS WHO MAY FIND THEMSELVES IN OUR SAME 10:36:05 POSITION AND WHO WILL QUICKLY LEARN THERE ARE THAT OUR CURRENT 10:36:09 LAWS DON'T PROTECT DON'T PROTECT THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST. 10:36:13 I WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO AMEND THE 10:36:16 DEATH IN THE HIGH SEAS ABILITY TO ALLOW FOR THE RECOVERY OF 10:36:22 NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES. CURRENTLY MICHELLE AND MAX AND 10:36:26 STAFFORD CAN ONLY RECOVER PECUNIARY DAMAGES. 10:36:30 STAFFORD AND MAX WILL NEVER PLAY IN THE FATHER-SON GOLF 10:36:33 TOURNAMENT AT THE LOCAL GOLF COURSE WITH THEIR DAD OR 10:36:37 EXPERIENCE THE THRILL OF THEIR FIRST SATURDAY NIGHT IN TIGER 10:36:41 STADIUM WITH THEIR FATHER AT THEIR SIDE. 10:36:43 LIKEWISE, MICHELLE WILL NEVER AGAIN EXPERIENCE A QUIET DINNER 10:36:46 AT HOME AFTER A HARD DAY WITH HER TRUE LOVE. 10:36:51 SHE WILL NOT CELEBRATE ANOTHER WEDDING ANNIVERSARY, THE LAST 10:36:54 ONE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED ONLY THREE DAYS AFTER THIS ACCIDENT. 10:36:57 MOST RECENTLY, MICHELLE DID NOT HAVE GORDON THERE TO COMFORT HER 10:37:01 IN THE DELIVERY ROOM AND TELL HER HOW MUCH HE LOVES HER AND 10:37:05 THE BEAUTIFUL BABY WE NOW CALL MAXWELL GORDON. 10:37:09 THESE ARE ALL EXPERIENCES AMONG MANY, MANY OTHERS FOR WHICH 10:37:14 THERE IS NO COMPENSATION UNDER THE CURRENT LAW FOR MARITIME 10:37:17 VICTIMS. THE OVERWHELMING IMPRESSION I'VE 10:37:20 GOTTEN FROM THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR GORDON'S DEATH, 10:37:25 BESIDES THAT NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, IS 10:37:27 THAT THEY'RE IMMUNIZED BY THE CURRENT LAW. 10:37:30 UNDER THE YENT LAW THERE'S A FINITE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT 10:37:32 MICHELLE AND HER BOYS CAN RECOVER AND NOTHING MORE. 10:37:35 THINK OF IT AS A LIABILITY CAP. WHILE SOME, BUT CERTAINLY NOT 10:37:39 ALL, OF THESE SAME PARTIES EXPRESS THEIR SIMILAR THINKS AND 10:37:43 CLAIM TO WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, THEY CAN ALSO HIDE BEHIND 10:37:46 THE LAW AND SAY THEY'RE PROTECTED FROM DOING MORE. 10:37:50 THERE IS, OF COURSES, AN EXCEPTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF 10:37:56 NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES. IN RESPONSE TO THAT EVENT THIS 10:37:59 CONGRESS PASSED A RETROACTIVE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE 10:38:03 RECOVERY OF NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES. 10:38:05 CURRENTLY WHILE VICTIMS OF AIRLINE ACCIDENTS ARE ALLOWED 10:38:08 THE RECOVERY OF NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES, VICTIMS OF ALL OTHER 10:38:11 ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN FEDERAL WATERS ARE NOT, INCLUDING ABOARD 10:38:15 CRUISE SHIPS, FERRY BOATS AND, IN THIS INSTANCE, OIL RIGS WHERE 10:38:20 HARD WORKING MEN MAKE THEIR LIVING TO SUPPOSED THEIR 10:38:27 FAMILIES. DURING THIS PAST MONTH AND A 10:38:30 HALF I'VE GAINED TREMENDOUS PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS, CERTAIN 10:38:33 THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT BEFORE APRIL 20th ARE 10:38:36 JUST NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE. THIS IS IMPORTANT. 10:38:39 THIS IS IMPORTANT TO MICHELLE, STAFFORD AND MAX AND ALL THE 10:38:42 OTHER FAMILIES AFFECTED BY THIS TRAGIC EVENT. 10:38:45 YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS RIGHT AND CREATE EQUAL JUSTICE 10:38:50 UNDER LAW FOR THESE FAMILIES. THANK YOU. 10:38:53 MY FATHER AND I ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS 10:38:56 YOU MAY HAVE. OUR NEXT WITNESS -- I'LL GO 10:39:07 THROUGH ALL THREE WITNESSES AND GO TO QUESTIONS. 10:39:09 JAFK COLEMAN, MR. COLEMAN IS A MANAGING PARTNER FOR THE ENERGY 10:39:13 CONSULTING FIRM ENERGY NORTH AMERICA. 10:39:16 HE HAS SERVED AS COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 10:39:20 RESOURCES, THE FORMER SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR ROYALTY AND 10:39:25 OFFSHORE MINERALS, FOR MMS, MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 10:39:31 UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE H.W. BUSH AND BILL CLINTON. 10:39:34 MR. COLEMAN, PLEASE GO AHEAD, SIR. 10:39:39 THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN LEAHY, RANKING MEMBER SESSIONS AND 10:39:42 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE. 10:39:45 I RETIRED ABOUT A YEAR AGO AFTER 27 YEARS WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL 10:39:52 GOVERNMENT, THE LAST SIX YEARS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 10:39:58 DURING THAT TIME, MOST OF MY WORK HAS BEEN IN THE AREA OF 10:40:03 OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS. BUT HERE ON THE HILL, IT WAS 10:40:06 ALSO MORE ENERGY AND MINERALS GENERALLY. 10:40:11 PRIOR TO WORKING AS SENIOR ATTORNEY FOR ROYALTY AND 10:40:15 OFFSHORE MINERALS, I ALSO SERVED FOR 3 1/2 YEARS AS THE SENIOR 10:40:18 ATTORNEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 10:40:22 INTERIOR. PRIOR TO THAT I WAS SPECIAL 10:40:25 ASSISTANT TO THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF NOAA FOR 3 1/2 10:40:29 YEARS. AND I SERVED FOUR YEARS ON 10:40:31 ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMY, ACTIVE DUTY AS A JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL 10:40:36 CORPS OFFICER. NATIVE OF MISSISSIPPI. 10:40:38 WENT TO OLE MISS, UNDERGRADUATE IN LAW SCHOOL. 10:40:41 THE FOCUS OF THE HEARING IS, OF COURSE, ON A VARIETY OF 10:40:45 LIABILITY ISSUES RELATED TO OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION. 10:40:49 IF ON GOING TRAGIC OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO AND TRAGIC 10:40:52 FOR THE FAMILIES OF THOSE KILLED AND INJURED INCLUDING THE JONES 10:40:56 FAMILY REPRESENTED HERE TODAY, ALL OF WHOM I EXTEND MY DEEP 10:41:01 CONDOLENCES. BUT ALSO TRAGIC FOR THE 10:41:03 ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENERGY SECURITY ASPIRATIONS OF THE 10:41:06 AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS UNEQUALLED IN SIZE IN 10:41:08 OUR NATION'S HISTORY AND HAS RESULTED IN NUMEROUS LEGISLATIVE 10:41:12 PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 AND OTHER 10:41:16 APPLICABLE LAWS AND IN ACTIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO 10:41:20 OFFSHORE OIL AN GAS OPERATIONS. I WILL FOCUS MY TESTIMONY 10:41:23 PRIMARILY ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE LAW FOR FEDERAL 10:41:26 OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES AND THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF THE 10:41:30 UNITED STATES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AS A RESULT OF A FEW OF 10:41:33 THESE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIONS. 10:41:37 FIRST, I'D LIKE TO G OVER A FEW FACTS. 10:41:41 SENATOR SESSIONS HAS MENTIONED SOME OF THEM, ABOUT THE 10:41:43 IMPORTANCE OF OFFSHORE ENERGY TO THE NATION. 10:41:46 CURRENTLY THE UNITED STATES CONSUMES ABOUT 20 MILLION 10:41:50 BARRELS A DAY, 20 MILLION. ABOUT 60% OF THAT OR 12 MILLION 10:41:55 BARRELS OF OIL COME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES, OUR LARGEST SOURCE IS 10:42:00 CANADA, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE REST COME FROM OVERSEAS. 10:42:06 SO OUR YEARLY AMOUNT OF IMPORTED OIL TOTALS ABOUT 4.2 BILLION 10:42:11 BARRELS. MANY TIMES I'VE HEARD STATEMENTS 10:42:15 THAT THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T HAVE MUCH OIL, DOESN'T HAVE MUCH 10:42:17 NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE PUT INTO 10:42:22 CONTEXT OF OUR USE, AND THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO 10:42:25 US TO PRODUCE. CERTAINLY WE DON'T HAVE THE 10:42:28 RESOURCES THAT SAUDI ARABIA HAS, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE 10:42:33 RESOURCES THAT SAUDI ARABIA HAS TO MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT 10:42:36 CONTRIBUTION TO OUR ENERGY SECURITY. 10:42:40 AS OF THE TIME OF THE LAST DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR OFFSHORE 10:42:45 OIL AND GAS NATURAL ASSESSMENT IN 2006, OVER 14 BILLION BARRELS 10:42:55 HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM THE FEDERAL OFFSHORE. 10:42:56 ANOTHER 15 BILLION BARRELS HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED AND WERE 10:43:02 RESERVES AVAILABLE FOR PRODUCTION. 10:43:03 F FURTHER, THERE ARE WERE ANOTHER 10:43:05 86 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL BELIEVED TO BE ECONOMICALLY AND 10:43:08 TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE IN THE OFFSHORE THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN 10:43:13 DRILLED. THAT'S JUST FOR THE OIL. 10:43:15 SO A TOTAL OF 101 BILLION BARRELS IN THE OFFSHORE IF THESE 10:43:20 ARE MADE REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR 10:43:23 PRODUCTION. ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO 10:43:26 EMPHASIZE IS THIS OIL BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 10:43:28 THE BOUNTY AND THE VALUE OF THIS OIL CANNOT BE MADE AND ACCESSED 10:43:33 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IF IT'S NOT MADE 10:43:37 AVAILABLE. AND THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT, 10:43:39 JUST IN THE OFFSHORE, SUFFICIENT TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE IMPORTED 10:43:44 OIL NEEDS AT THE CURRENT RATES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ABOUT 10:43:48 25 YEARS. SO THAT'S NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL 10:43:51 AMOUNT OF OIL. IT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL OF US, 10:43:54 LIKE I SAID, INCLUDING DISPLACING ALL THE CANADIAN OIL. 10:43:58 SIMILARLY WE HAVE SIMILAR NUMBERS FOR NATURAL GAS. 10:44:01 ENOUGH NATURAL GAS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF TO AT LEAST 10:44:07 TAKE CARE OF ALL THE NATURAL GAS NEEDS FOR THE NATION AT THE 10:44:09 CURRENT RATE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. 10:44:12 ONE MIGHT ASK, SOMEWHAT THE VALUE OF THESE RESERVES AND 10:44:15 RESOURCES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND, FRANKLY, IF YOU USE 10:44:21 STANDARD PRICING, BASED ON JUST THE RESERVES AND RESOURCES THAT 10:44:26 WE HAVE, WITHOUT ANY OTHER BENEFITS, ECONOMIC BENEFITS, 10:44:31 JUST THE ROYALTIES AND THE CORPORATE TAXES WOULD BRING IN 10:44:34 ABOUT $4.5 TRILLION FROM PRODUCTION OF THAT, MORE THAN 10:44:38 ENOUGH TO PAY OFF ABOUT A THIRD OF THE NATIONAL DEBT WITHOUT ANY 10:44:42 TAX INCREASES. WHEN YOU ADD IN THE ABILITY TO 10:44:46 PRODUCE METHANE HYDRATES WHICH NOW INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH HAS 10:44:50 SHOWN IN LIKELY, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER $7.5 TRILLION. 10:44:57 ALL OF THOSE METHANE HYDRATES, BY THE WAY, 99% OF THEM ARE IN 10:45:00 THE DEEP WATER, CERTAINLY DEEPER THAN 2500 FEET. 10:45:03 SO IF WE DON'T ALLOW DEEP WATER DRILLING, THAT WHOLE VALUE OF 10:45:07 THAT WILL BE UNAVAILABLE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THAT'S $7.5 10:45:14 TRILLION IN CORPORATE INCOME TAX AND ROYALTIES. 10:45:17 SO THOSE TWO TOGETHER, ABOUT $12 TRILLION. 10:45:20 GETTING TO THE LIABILITY QUESTION, I HAD THE HONOR OF 10:45:24 BEING THE LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT ON A CASE 10:45:30 WHICH BECAME MOBILE VEUS DECIDED IN THE YEAR 2000, THIS WAS 10:45:38 DECIDED, A RIDER, THE OUTER BANKS PROTECTION ACT WAS ADDED 10:45:44 WHICH PROHIBITED THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR FROM GRANTING ANY 10:45:49 PERMITS TO DRILL OFF OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR MORE THAN 13 10:45:52 MONTHS. THE SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE BRIER 10:45:55 WRITING THE OPINION DECIDED THAT WAS A MATERIAL BREACH OF THE 10:45:59 LEASES. THAT THE LESSEES HAD A RIGHT TO 10:46:02 RELY ON THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME THE LEASES WERE ISSUED 10:46:07 AND, THEREFORE, THE LESSEES RECOVERED ALL OF THEIR EXPENSES. 10:46:11 SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE 10:46:15 COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN MAKING CHANGES FOR THE OIL 10:46:19 POLLUTION ACT LIABILITY DAMAGES. AND I SHOULD NOTE TO ALL 10:46:22 WITNESSES, OF COURSE, YOUR FULL STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE PART OF 10:46:25 THE RECORD. IF YOU HAVE -- FOLLOWING THE 10:46:28 QUESTIONS OF THE PANEL, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU FEEL 10:46:30 YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, WE'LL KEEP THE RECORD OPEN FOR 10:46:34 THAT. THANK YOU. 10:46:35 PROFESSOR TOM GAL GA IS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF COLBY 10:46:41 SAWYER COLLEGE IN LONDON, NEW HAMPSHIRE, A NEIGHBOR OF SORTS. 10:46:50 I'VE BEEN MANY TIMES TO KOBE SAWYER AND NEW LONDON, OF 10:46:54 COURSE, A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. PRIOR TO JOINING KOBE SAWYER 10:46:59 COLLEGE HE SERVED AS DEAN OF THE LAW SCHOOL AT UNIVERSITY OF 10:47:03 TENNESSEE. AS I RECALL YOU TAUGHT ADMIRALTY 10:47:06 LAW. IS THAT CORRECT? 10:47:08 CORRECT. PROFESSOR, PLEASE GO AHEAD, SIR. 10:47:11 CHAIRMAN LEAHY, RANKING MEMBERS SESSIONS, SENATOR 10:47:15 WHITEHOUSE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR 10:47:17 INVITING ME TO APPEAR HERE TODAY. 10:47:19 MY NAME IS TOM GALLIGAN AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF COLBY SAWYER 10:47:24 COLLEGE IN NEW LONDON, NEW HAMPSHIRE. 10:47:26 THE STAGGERING CONSEQUENCES OF THE OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF 10:47:28 MEXICO FORCE US TO ASK WHETHER OUR LAWS ARE FAIR, CONSISTENT 10:47:31 AND UP TO DATE. DO THEY PROVIDE ADEQUATE 10:47:34 COMPENSATION? DO THEY PROVIDE PROPER 10:47:37 INCENTIVES TO ENSURE EFFICIENT INVESTMENTS IN SAFETY? 10:47:40 SADLY, AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT LAWS REVEALS A CLIMATE 10:47:45 OF LIMITED LIABILITY, UNDERCOMPENSATION AND THE 10:47:49 POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED RISK. LET ME BEGIN WITH A DISCUSSION 10:47:52 OF WRONGFUL DEATH RECOVERY FOR SEE MEN UNDER THE JONES ACT AND 10:47:57 ANYONE KILLED ON THE HIGH SEAS UNDER THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS 10:48:01 ACT. BOTH OF THOSE STATUTES WERE 10:48:03 PASSED IN 1920, ANOTHER ERA. AS YOU SAID, AND AS CHRIS JONES 10:48:08 SAID, NEITHER OF THEM AS INTERPRETED ALLOWS RECOVERY FOR 10:48:11 LOSS OF SOCIETY DAMAGES TO THE SURVIVORS OF THOSE KILLED IN 10:48:15 MARITIME DISASTERS. LOSS OF SOCIETY OR DAMAGES FOR 10:48:21 COMPANIONSHIP FOR THE LOSS OF CARE, COMFORT AND COMPANIONSHIP 10:48:24 CAUSED BY THE DEATH OF A LOVED ONE. 10:48:26 THE MA JORT OF AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS TODAY DO RECOGNIZE 10:48:30 SOME RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR LOSS OF SOCIETY DAMAGES IN WRONGFUL 10:48:34 DEATH, BUT NOT THE JONES ACTED AND NOT DOSA. 10:48:37 A SPOUSE, CHILD, PARENT OR SIBLING WHO LOSES A LOVED ONE 10:48:44 SUFFERS A VERY REAL LOSS AND THE LAW SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT LOSS. 10:48:48 AS CHRIS JONES ALSO NOTED, THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE 10:48:52 BARRING RECOVERY OF LOSS OF SOCIETY DAMAGES UNDER DOSA. 10:48:56 IN 2000 ACH THE KOREAN AIRLINE AND TWA AIR DISASTERS YOU 10:49:00 RETROACTIVELY AMENDED DOSA TO PROVIDE RECOVERY OF LOSS OF 10:49:06 SOCIETY DAMAGES TO THE SURVIVORS OF THOSE KILLED IN HIGH SEAS 10:49:09 COMMERCIAL AVIATION DISASTERS. BUT FOR ANYONE ELSE KILLED ON 10:49:13 THE HIGH SEAS, ON A CRUISE SHIP, ON A FERRY, ON A SEMI 10:49:20 SUBMERSIBLE FLOATING RIG OR HELICOPTER, THE SURVIVORS DO NOT 10:49:23 RECOVER LOSS OF SOCIETY. THE LAW SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR 10:49:26 ALL. AND YOU CAN MAKE THE LAW THE 10:49:29 SAME FOR ALL BY AMENDMENTING THE RELEVANT STATUTES TO PROVIDE 10:49:32 RECOVERY FOR LOSS OF SOCIETY. AS I UNDERSTAND, SENATOR LEAHY, 10:49:38 YOUR PROPOSED SURVIVORS EQUALITY ACT O OF 2010 WOULD REMEDY THAT 10:49:45 I INEQUITY. 10:49:46 IN FACT, THE CLIMATE OF LIMITATION FOS CENTERED BY THE . 10:49:51 BECAUSE SOME PORTS HAVE EXTENDED THE NO RECOVERY RULES TO OTHER 10:49:57 MARRY TIME CONTEXTS AND OTHER TYPES OF DAMAGES. 10:50:14 AND THEIR RELATIVES FOR VERY REAL LOSSES AND THEY AS VERSELY 10:50:20 IMPACT. AMENDING THE JONES ACT WOULD 10:50:24 REVERSE THAT TREND. TORT LAW IS CONCERNED WITH 10:50:29 CORRECTIVE JUSTICE WITH FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY AND 10:50:34 COMPENSATION. BUT IT IS ALSO CONCERNED WITH 10:50:37 DETERRING UNSAFE BEHAVIOR TO PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND 10:50:41 ENVIRONMENT. TORT LAW CAN ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT 10:50:45 INVESTMENTS IN SAFETY SO THAT IT FAESS AN OPTIMAL LEVEL. 10:50:51 IF TORT LAW UNDER COMPENSATES IT UNDER DETERSMENT WHEN DECIDING 10:50:56 WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT, PEOPLE WILL CONSIDER THE REAL 10:51:01 ANTICIPATED COSTS OF THEIR ACTIONS. 10:51:09 HE OR SHE MAY WELL UNDERINVEST IN SAFETY AND THEREFORE INCREASE 10:51:14 RISK TO PEOPLE, TO PROPERTY, TO BUSINESSES AND TO NATURAL 10:51:21 RESOURCES. UNDER COMPENSATION AND UNDER 10:51:26 DETERRENCE BY THE SHIP OWNERS LIMITATION LIABILITY ABLGT 10:51:30 ORIGINALLY PASSED IN 1851. THE ACT WAS PASSED BEFORE THE 10:51:42 MODERN DEVELOPMENT AND BEFORE THE EVOLUTION OF BANKRUPTCY LAW. 10:51:46 AND IT'S OPERATION TODAY CAN LEAD TO DRASTIC 10:51:51 UNDERCOMPENSATION FOR THE VICTIMS OF DISASTERS. 10:52:07 RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO RECOVER PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 10:52:11 HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE RECOVERY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES 10:52:15 TO A ONE TO ONE RATIO BETWEEN THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDED AND 10:52:20 THE KPENS TORY DAMAGES AWARDED. THE RATIO CAP DEPRIVES A JUDGE 10:52:25 OR A JURY OF THE TRADITIONALLY AVAILABLE ABILITY TO TAYLOR A 10:52:31 PUNITIVE AWARD WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS 10:52:36 LIMITS TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE THE HARM SUFFERED, 10:52:44 HARM THREATENED AND MORE. TRADITIONAL ABILITY TO A 10:52:54 PUNITIVE AWARD. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY 10:52:57 QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH 10:52:59 PROFESSOR. LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU I THANK 10:53:09 YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU SAY YOU ARE REPRESENTING ONE 10:53:12 FAMILY BUT YOU ARE STANDING UP FOR ALL THE FAMILIES THAT WERE 10:53:16 AFFECTED BY THE DISASTER. WE TALK ABOUT THE DEATH ON THE 10:53:22 HIGH SEAS ACT, ONE OF THE FEW REMEDIES FOR THE FAMILIES WHO 10:53:26 LOST THEIR LIVES IN THE DEEP WATER RISING. 10:53:44 IF THIS HAD BEEN AN ACCIDENT ON LAND, IF IT HAD BEEN AT A 10:53:52 REFINERY. THE WAY THE CURRENT LAW IS 10:54:11 NOW, IF IT WERE TO REMAIN IN EFFECT, IS THAT THESE COMPANIES 10:54:16 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH, THEY WANT TO GO OUT AND GET AN 10:54:20 ECONOMIST, CALCULATE WHAT HIS EARNINGS WOULD BE, SUBTRACT OUT 10:54:24 THE INCOME TAXES DURING HIS WORK LIFE EXPECTANCY. 10:54:29 SUBTRACT OUT WHAT HE WOULD HAVE CONSUMED HIMSELF. 10:54:33 AND THEY WANT TO WRITE A CHECK AND WALK AWAY. 10:54:37 ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THAT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT 10:54:41 MICHELLE, MAX, AND STAFF FORD, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RECOVERY 10:54:48 LIKE MANY OTHER LAWS FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO RECOVER FOR 10:54:52 LIFE EXPERIENCES FOR THE COMFORT AND CARE THAT GORDON WOULD HAVE 10:54:56 PROVIDED HIS SONS AND THE SUPPORT HE WOULD HAVE PROVIDED 10:54:59 TO HIS WIFE OVER THE YEARS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY 10:55:04 COULD HAVE SOUGHT HAD IT BEEN ON EXXON LAND. 10:55:09 CAN YOU TELL ME ANY LOGICAL REASON WHY IT SHOULD BE 10:55:15 DIFFERENT WHETHER IT WAS ON THE OPEN SEA OR ON LAND? 10:55:18 ABSOLUTELY NOT. I BELIEVE THE BP PAID $1.6 10:55:31 BILLION TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS FROM THAT EXPLOSION. 10:55:35 I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE WHAT COULD BE RECOVERED BY THE 10:55:41 FAMILIES BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THAT AMOWN. 10:55:51 GO BACK TO WHAT THE PROFESSOR TALKED ABOUT SIT A DIRECT 10:56:04 COROLLARY. MY WORDS BASICALLY. 10:56:06 A DIRECT COROLLARY OF THE TWO WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT. 10:56:16 YOU THOUGHT YOU ARE REALLY GOING HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY SCREW UP YOU 10:56:21 DO, ARE YOU GOING BE A LOT MORE CAREFUL? 10:56:23 OF COURSE. AND I WILL KNOW -- I KNOW THIS. 10:56:28 HAVING HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS THAT THEY WANT 10:56:32 TO PAIR WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY UNDER THE LAW. 10:56:36 THEY WANT TO PAY IT AND MOVE ON. A FAMILY OF ANOTHER VICTIM IN 10:56:42 THIS ACCIDENT HE HAD NO DEPENDENTS. 10:56:49 NO CHILDREN, NO SPOUSE. THEY COULD WRITE A CHECK FOR 10:57:01 1,000 DOLLARS AND RIGHT AWAY. THEY WANT TO USE THE 10:57:07 LIMITATION LIABILITY ACT AND SAY WE ARE ONLY LIMITED TO THE VALUE 10:57:11 OF OUR RIG. THEY REPRESENTED TO THE 10:57:28 COURT. SO THEY WANT TO LIMIT THEIR 10:57:40 LIABILITY. NOT JUST THE FAMILIES OF THESE 10:57:43 VICTIMS BUT ALL THE ECONOMIC DAMAGES. 10:57:48 AND REALISTICALLY, THE IMPACT ON THE COAST AND BUSINESSES IS 10:58:00 GOING DWRAF ANYTHING BY THE FAMILY. 10:58:08 NOBODY CAN CALL THAT FAIR. ABSOLUTELY NOT. 10:58:11 WE HEAR THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE INCREASED LABLT OR INCREASED 10:58:16 REGULATION IS GOING MAKE PRODUCTION LET'S BE SERIOUS 10:58:30 ABOUT THIS. DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR 10:58:33 MIND THAT BP SHOULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF 10:58:36 THE PEOPLE ON THE RIG? WHAT I AM SHOCKED AT IS THEIR 10:58:41 PROFITS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BILLIONS OF 10:58:43 DOLLARS HERE. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROFIT. 10:58:45 FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN AND CAUSE SUCH A DRAMATIC 10:58:50 IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF SO MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING THE FAMILIES OF 10:58:54 THE VICTIMS AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED ALONG THE GULF COAST 10:59:56 I AGREE WITH YOU. THE SIZE AND FINANCIAL SCOPE OF
OBAMA SPEECH AT COOPER UNION STIX
President Barack Obama Remarks on Wall Street Reform at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art College in Lower Manhattan OBAMA: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Hello. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much. Well, thank you. It is good to be back. (APPLAUSE) It is good to be back in New York. It's is good to be back in the Great Hall at Cooper Union. (APPLAUSE) We've got some special guests here that I want to acknowledge. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is here in the house. (APPLAUSE) Governor David Paterson is here. (APPLAUSE) Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. (APPLAUSE) State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is here. (APPLAUSE) The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg. (APPLAUSE) Dr. George Campbell Jr., president of Cooper Union. (APPLAUSE) And to all the -- all the citywide elected officials who are here, thank you very much for your attendance. It is wonderful to be back in Cooper Union, where generations of leaders and citizens have come to defend their ideas and contest their differences. 11:52:45 It's also good to be back in Lower Manhattan, a few blocks from Wall Street. (LAUGHTER) It really is good to be back... (LAUGHTER) ... because Wall Street's the heart of our nation's financial sector. Now, since I last spoke here two years ago, our country has been through a terrible trial; more than 8 million people have lost their jobs. Countless small businesses have had to shut their doors; trillions of dollars in savings has been lost, forcing seniors to put off retirement, young people to postpone college, entrepreneurs to give up on the dream of starting a company. 11:53:25 And as a nation we were forced to take unprecedented steps to rescue the financial system and the broader economy. And as a result of the decisions we made -- some of which, let's face it, were very unpopular -- we are seeing hopeful signs. 11:53:52 A little more than one year ago, we were losing an average of 750,000 jobs each month. Today, America is adding jobs again. One year ago, the economy was shrinking rapidly. Today, the economy is growing. In fact, we've seen the fastest turnaround in growth in nearly three decades. But you're here and I'm here because we've got more work to do. 11:54:15 Until this progress is felt not just on Wall Street but on Main Street we can't be satisfied. Until the millions of our neighbors who are looking for work can find a job, and wages are growing at a meaningful pace, we may be able to claim a technical recovery, but we will not have truly recovered. And even as we seek to revive this economy, it's also incumbent on us to rebuild it stronger than before. We don't want an economy that has the same weaknesses that led to this crisis, and that means addressing some of the underlying problems that led to this turmoil and devastation in the first place. Now, one of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we've known in generations, at least since the '30s. And that crisis was born of a failure of responsibility -- from Wall Street all the way to Washington -- that brought down many of the world's largest financial firms and nearly dragged our economy into a second Great Depression. It was that failure of responsibility that I spoke about when I came to New York more than two years ago, before the worst of the crisis had unfolded. It was back in 2007. And I take no satisfaction in noting that my comments then have largely been borne out by the events that followed. But I repeat what I said then, because it is essential that we learn the lessons from this crisis, so we don't doom ourselves to repeat it. 11:56:00 And make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass. And that's an outcome that is unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to you, the American people. (APPLAUSE) 11:56:18 As I said on this stage two years ago, I believe in the power of the free market. I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings. That's part of what has made America what it is. But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. 11:56:47 That's what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some -- and let me be clear, not all, but some -- on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there's family looking to buy a house, or pay for an education, open a business, save for retirement. What happens on Wall Street has real consequences across the country -- across our economy. I've also spoken before about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth in the 21st century. 11:57:21 And, given the importance of the financial sector, Wall Street reform is an absolutely essential part of that foundation. Without it, our house will continue to sit on shifting sands, and our families, businesses and the global economy will be vulnerable to future crises. That's why I feel so strongly that we need to enact a set of updated, common-sense rules to ensure accountability on Wall Street and to protect consumers in our financial system. 11:58:05 Now -- now here's the good news. A comprehensive plan to achieve these reforms has already passed the House of Representatives. (APPLAUSE) A Senate version is currently being debated, drawing on ideas from Democrats and Republicans. Both bills represent significant improvement on the flawed rules that we have in place today, despite the furious effort of industry lobbyists to shape this legislation to their special interests. And for those of you in the financial sector, I'm sure that some of these lobbyists worked for you, and they're doing what they are being paid to do. But I'm here today specifically, when I speak to the titans of industry here, because I want to urge you to join us instead of fighting us in this effort. (APPLAUSE) I am here... (APPLAUSE) I'm here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interests of our country but in the best interests of the financial sector. And I'm here to explain what reform will look like and why it matters. 11:59:22 Now, first, the bill being considered in the Senate would create what we did not have before, and that is a way to protect the financial system and the broader economy and American taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. If there's a Lehman's or an AIG, how can we respond in a way that doesn't force taxpayers to pick up the tab, or alternatively, could bring down the whole system? In an ordinary local bank, when it approaches insolvency, we've got a process -- an orderly process through the FDIC, that ensures that depositors are protected, maintains confidence in the banking system; and it works. Customers and taxpayers are protected and owners and management lose their equity. But we don't have that kind of process designed to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country. 12:00:25 That's why when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world's biggest companies -- companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding hundreds of billions of dollars in assets -- had to take placed in hurried discussions in the middle of the night. And that's why, to save the entire economy from an even worse catastrophe, we had to deploy taxpayer dollars. Now, much of that money has now been paid back, and my administration has proposed a fee to be paid by large financial firms to recovery all the money, every dime, because the American people should never have been put in that position in the first place. (APPLAUSE) But this is why we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and innocent businesses. And from the start, I've insisted that the financial industry, not taxpayers, shoulder the costs in the event that a large financial company should falter. The goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed too big to fail. Now, there's a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. And that's a legitimate debate and I encourage that debate. But what's not legitimate is to suggest that somehow the legislation being proposed is going to encourage future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That makes for a good sound bite, but it's not factually accurate. It is not true. 12:02:20 In fact, the system as it stands... (APPLAUSE) ... the system as it -- as it stands is what led to a series of massive cosive (ph) -- costly taxpayer bailouts and it's only with reform that we can avoid a similar outcome in the future. In other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That's the truth. End of story. (Applause.) And nobody should be fooled in this debate. 12:02:44 By the way, these changes have the added benefit of creating incentives within the industry to ensure that no one company can ever threaten to bring down the whole economy. To that end, the bill would also enact what's known as the Volcker rule -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah! PRESIDENT OBAMA: -- and there's a tall guy sitting in the front row here, Paul Volcker -- (cheers, applause) -- who's -- who -- (chuckles) -- who we named it after. And it -- it does something very simple. It places some limits on the size of banks and the kinds of risks that banking institutions can take. This will not only safeguard our system against crises; this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home and across the globe. Markets depend on that confidence. Part of what led to the turmoil of the past two years was that, in the absence of clear rules and sound practices, people didn't trust that our system was one in which it was safe to invest or lend. And as we've seen, that harms all of us. 12:03:45 So by enacting these reforms, we'll help ensure that our financial system, and our economy, continues to be the envy of the world. So that's the first thing: making sure that we can wind down one firm if it gets into trouble, without bringing the whole system down or forcing taxpayers to fund a bailout. 12:04:04 Number two, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets. As you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others who were making huge and risky bets, using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense. In fact, many practices were so opaque, so confusing, so complex, that the people inside the firms didn't understand them; much less, those who were charged with overseeing them. They weren't fully aware of the massive bets that were being placed. That's what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as financial weapons of mass destruction. 12:05:12 Now, there's been a great deal of concern about these changes, so I want to reiterate: there is a legitimate role for these financial instruments in our economy. They can help allay risk and spur investment. And there are a lot of companies that use these instruments to that legitimate end. They are managing exposure to fluctuating prices or currencies, fluctuating markets. For example, a business might hedge against rising oil prices by buying a financial product to secure stable fuel costs. So -- and airlines might have an interest in locking in a decent price. That's how markets are supposed to work. The problem is, these markets operated in the shadows of our economy, invisible to regulators, invisible to the public. 12:05:57 So reckless practices were rampant. Risks accrued until they threatened our entire financial system. 12:06:08 And that's why these reforms are designed to respect legitimate activities but prevent reckless risk-taking. That's why we want to ensure that financial products like standardized derivatives are traded out in the open, in the full view of businesses, investors and those charged with oversight. And I was encouraged to see a Republican senator join with Democrats this week in moving forward on this issue. (Applause.) That's a good sign. That's a good sign. For without action, we'll continue to see what amounts to highly leveraged, loosely monitored gambling in our financial system, putting taxpayers and the economy in jeopardy. 12:06:51 And the only people who ought to fear the kind of oversight and transparency that we're proposing are those whose conduct will fail this scrutiny. Third, this plan would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever, and that's absolutely necessary, because -- (applause) -- because this financial crisis wasn't just the result of decisions made in the executive streets -- suites on Wall Street; it was also the result of decisions made around kitchen tables across America, by folks who took on mortgages and credit cards and auto loans. And while it's true that many Americans took on financial obligations that they knew or should have known they could not have afforded, millions of others were, frankly, duped. 12:07:40 They were misled by deceptive terms and conditions buried deep in the fine print. And while a few companies made out like bandits by exploiting their customers, our entire economy was made more vulnerable. Millions of people have now lost their homes. Tens of millions more have lost value in their homes. Just about every sector of our economy has felt the pain, whether you're paving driveways in Arizona or selling houses in Ohio, or you're doing home repairs in California or you're using your home equity to start a small business in Florida. 12:08:13 That's why we need to give consumers more protection and more power in our financial system. This is not about stifing -- stifling competition, stifling innovation. It's just the opposite. With a dedicated agency setting ground rules and looking out for ordinary people in our financial system, we will empower consumers with clear and concise information when they're making financial decisions. So instead of competing to offer confusing products, companies will compete the old-fashioned way, by offering better products. And that will mean more choices for consumers, more opportunities for businesses, and more stability in our financial system. And unless your business model depends on bilking people, there is little -- little to fear from these new rules. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. Yes. PRESIDENT OBAMA: So -- (applause). 12:09:15 Number four, last key component of reform. These Wall Street reforms will give shareholders new power in the financial system. They will get what we call a say on pay: a voice with respect to the salaries and bonuses awarded to top executives. And the SEC will have the authority to give shareholders more say in corporate elections, so that investors and pension holders have a stronger role in determining who manages the company in which they place their savings. 12:09:55 Now, Americans don't begrudge anybody for success when that success is earned. But when we read in the past and sometimes in the present about enormous executive bonuses at firms -- even as they're relying on assistance from taxpayers, or they're taking huge risks that threaten the system as a whole, or their company is doing badly -- it offends our fundamental values. Not only that, some of the salaries and bonuses that we've seen create perverse incentives to take reckless risks that contributed to the crisis. It's what helped lead to a relentless focus on a company's next quarter, to the detriment of its next year or its next decade. And it led to a situation in which folks with the most to lose, stock and pension holders, had the least to say in the process. And that has to change. (Applause.) 12:11:03 Let me close by saying this. I have laid out a set of Wall Street reforms. These are reforms that would put an end to taxpayer bailouts, that would bring complex financial dealings out of the shadows, that would protect consumers and that would give shareholders more power in the financial system. But let's face it. We also need reform in Washington. And the debate over these changes -- (applause) -- the debate over these changes is a perfect example. 12:11:50 I mean, we have seen battalions of financial industry lobbyists descending on Capitol Hill, firms spending millions to influence the outcome of this debate. We've seen misleading arguments and attacks that are designed not to improve the bill but to weaken or to kill it. We've seen a bipartisan process buckle under the weight of these withering forces, even as we've produced a proposal that, by all accounts, is a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological approach to target the root problems that led to the turmoil in our financial sector and ultimately in our entire economy. So -- so we -- we've seen business as usual in Washington. But I believe we can and must put this kind of cynical politics aside. We've got to put an end to it. That's why I'm here today. (Applause.) That's why I'm here today. 12:12:49 And to those of you who are in the financial sector, let me say this. We will not always see eye to eye. We will not always agree. But that doesn't mean that we've got to choose between two extremes. We do not have to choose between markets that are unfettered by even modest protections against crisis or markets that are stymied by onerous rules that suppress enterprise and innovation. That is a false choice. We need no more proof than the crisis that we've just been through. You see, there has always been a tension between the desire to allow markets to function without interference and the absolute necessity of rules to prevent markets from falling out of kilter. But managing that tension, one that we've debated since the founding of this nation, is what has allowed our country to keep up with a changing world, for in taking up this debate, in figuring out how to apply well-worn principles with each new age, we ensure that we don't tip too far one way or the other, that our democracy remains as dynamic and our economy remains as dynamic as it has in the past. So yes, this debate can be contentious. It can be heated. But in the end it serves only to make our country stronger. It has allowed us to adapt and to thrive. And I -- I read a report recently that I think fairly illustrates this point. It's from Time magazine. I'm going to quote: "Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment. "A bill just passed -- would rivet upon their institutions what they considered a monstrous system -- such a system, they felt, would not only rob them of their pride of profession but would reduce all U.S. banking to its lowest level." That appeared in Time magazine in June of 1933. (Laughter, applause.) (Chuckles.) The system that caused so much consternation, so much concern was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation -- (laughter) -- also known as the FDIC -- (applause) -- an institution that has successfully secured the deposits of generations of Americans. Look, in the end, our system only works, our markets are only free when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excesses, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what the reforms we've been proposing are designed to achieve -- no more, no less -- because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors and that it works for financial institutions -- in other words, that it works for all of us. That's why we're working so hard to get this stuff passed. 12:16:13 This is the central lesson not only of this crisis, but of our history. It's what I said when I spoke here two years ago. Because ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We will rise or we will fall together, as one nation. (Applause.) And that is why I urge all of you to join me. I urge all of you to join me, to join those who are seeking to pass these common-sense reforms. And for those of you in the financial industry, I urge you to join me not only because it is in the interest of your industry, but also because it's in the interest of our country. (Applause.) 12:17:01 Thank you so much. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Cheers, applause.) END
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN RAPE KIT EVENT - REFEED & LAB TOUR
Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Barbara Mikulski, along with Senator Ben Cardin and Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, will visit the Maryland State Police Forensic Science Laboratory and deliver remarks on funding that will help to reduce rape kit backlogs, prevent future backlogs, and provide training and technical assistance for communities in need *** REFEED FROM # DCU003862 WITH BIDEN REMARKS ONLY ( SEE OTHER RECORD FOR MIKULSI ET AL REMARKS ). FOLLOWED BY BROLL OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB TOUR WITH BIDEN, RUPPERSBERGER, CARDIN, AND MIKULSKI Vice President Joe Biden remarks on rape kit backlogs at Maryland State Police Forensic Science Laboratory with Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Sen Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - pool TVU SLUG: 1545 BIDEN RAPE KIT REFEED DISC# 15:45:51 BIDEN: Well, let me say that it's a privilege to be here and it's a privilege to be here with so many faces I recognize in the audience. Over all these years, so many of you have worked so hard to focus on violence against women and this issue in particular. If you excuse -- as we used to say, I think they still say in the Senate -- a point of personal privilege, I would like to introduce you to my daughter. She's actually my daughter-in-law but she's my daughter -- Kathleen Buhle Biden, who is co-chair of D.C. Volunteer Lawyers Project, which provides counsel to women who are in need, who have been abused or taken advantage of -- and she's with me today. Thanks for being here, Kathleen, and thanks for all the work you do. (APPLAUSE) Ben, you've been a great friend and a great partner for as long as I've served in the Congress. And -- and -- and Dutch, you and I have worked together a lot on a whole range of issues, particularly in the intelligence field. And I know of two -- I don't know any two people who are more competent in what they undertake and do. You guys are OK, but you ain't Barbara. (LAUGHTER) You guys are all right. But I tell you what, you know, if you excuse the sports metaphor, if I get the draft pick and I only get one, I pick Barbara; that's who I want on my team. There's a reason I call Barbara early on. I wanted to get this done and I knew there was literally -- this is not hyperbole -- there was no one, no one, no one, man or woman in the Congress you could -- would have your back better or more thoroughly than Barbara. 15:47:34 And it was -- I was flattered that she -- I won't say work with me because she was way ahead on this way before I introduced the Violence Against Women Act back in the late '80s. But it's an honor to work alongside my friend; she's always been there and her ambition has always been about other people. With Barbara, it's always about the other person. It's from the days of her social work, which I got to learn; I met some of her family over the years. This is a -- this is a senator who has been fighting for the health and safety of women from the time she got out of school and my guess is before that. 15:48:14 And back when battered women shelters were called -- remember, Barb, when we wrote the Violence Against Women Act, battered -- they referred to battered women shelters as indoctrination centers that -- this was all about indoctrinating women; that's what we were about. Back then, the system blamed the victim and the culture hid the most repugnant of all violence in the shadows. So, I won't go through it all, but working with Barbara, I've learned a lot; I've learned a lot. And it's been a great privilege, Barbara. The good news is we have two more full years of you in the Senate and that's -- as Ben reminded me that I said spontaneously when you announced you're retiring, that's worth six years from anybody else I've worked with. But it's an honor to be with you. 15:49:06 And Helena, thank you for the introduction. It takes an awful lot of courage. Some of you -- and I look out in the audience -- some of you were victimized, as well, because I've met you. And I -- the truth of the matter is when you bring up something as searing and as -- as -- how can I say it -- as horrible as what happened to you, you can't help but relive it again for the moment just by talking about it. 15:49:37 Lynn Rosenthal, one of my great friends -- and when the president asked me what I wanted to do, what portfolio I wanted as vice president, I said I didn't want any (ph), I just wanted to be the last guy in the room in every important decision. And he's kept that commitment; I have been. But then I thought about it and said, "Well, there's two things I want." If it's all right with you and Attorney General Eric -- I want to bring the violence against women office inside the vice president's office and I want to bring the COPS office inside the vice president's office. And because of the great cooperation from the attorney general, Eric, that's what we've done. 15:50:13 And there was no question in my mind who I'd ask to head that office -- it was Lynn Rosenthal who recently retired almost -- only a week or 10 days ago. She's not retired but she's retired from the vice president's office. Good to see you here, Lynn; it doesn't surprise me you're here. 15:50:30 You know, we just toured this -- this crime lab and we saw how DNA is processed, the DNA in rape kits -- and not just rape kits; from other crime scenes. It's a vital step that is more important than I think the vast majority of Americans who have spared being victimized would understand because it brings closure for victims and -- and it brings rapists to justice. That's because DNA is the guilty person's worst enemy and it is the innocent person's greatest and best friend. 15:51:05 The rape kits are an essential tool in modern crime fighting, not only for the victim but quite frankly for the entire community. And this is a point I want to make that Helena made reference to. Had there been immediate follow-up in her case instead of 14 years, it is probable that other women would not have been raped by that particular rapist who was in prison at the time. It is probable other women would have been spared the ignominy and the -- and -- and the pain of having to go through what was inflicted upon them. 15:51:40 And so, there are a number of women, innocent women, who would have been protected if such heinous rape and sexual assault had been investigated by use of the rape kits that are available. 15:51:55 And like -- folks, look, we have the technology and we have the certitude of science on our side. When we passed the so-called Biden crime bill back in 1994 where I was able to, with the help of a Republican named Senator Specter and Democrats like Ted Kennedy, get it included in the crime bill, otherwise it wouldn't have passed; we -- we didn't have the votes absent being part of that crime bill -- what we did in that -- in that legislation is we provided funding to train law enforcement how to handle evidence at crime scenes. You know, law enforcement has an incredible job. We expect them to be able to do everything -- and I mean that sincerely; we expect them to be able to do everything. And as the county executive knows with his law enforcement arm, it takes an awful lot to know exactly how to respond -- not just at the moment of deciding how to react, but also follow-up in crime scenes. And so, we provided the money to begin to train law enforcement officers and forensic nurses. The federal government made critical investments in forensic -- in training forensic nurses, teaching them, as well, nurses that at emergency rooms how to handle evidence. Because in the thousand of hours of hearings I held on this, we found out that all the well-trained nurses -- it takes a special understanding to know exactly what to do because the victim is the crime scene; the victim is the crime scene as she walks into that emergency room -- those who make it into the emergency room. 15:53:33 We also provided funding for E.R. docs in particular to physically and emotionally -- teach them how to physically and emotionally treat victims as they were brought in. You know, on -- about 70 percent of the women who walk into an emergency room with a broken bone or a cut on their body are there as a consequence of a man's hand. And many would walk in and say, "I ran into a door jamb," "I -- I slipped down the steps" when the -- when the docs know it was more than that. And they're reluctant to get engaged, understandably, because it takes a lot of their time and they have to testify (inaudible). So, we spent a lot of time working with emergency rooms all across the country, providing advocates in those emergency rooms to help these women who, in fact, have been victimized. 15:54:20 And in many ways, law enforcement and health professionals are now in a much, much better position to handle these cases. There are several reasons why I think this is so important. Because studies show that rape kits -- if rape kits were tested -- just testing every rape kit, if we were able to do that now -- and there's estimated 400,000 or more that have not been tested -- and we tested every rape kit, based on statistical analysis we could probably, just by doing that and matching them to existing DNA database, solve 50 percent of the rapes that are now unsolved. 15:54:59 Studies also show that repeat offenders commit over 90 percent of all the rapes that are committed in the country -- repeat offenders. Think of the rapes that could be prevented if these -- if these kits were tested. Think of the many repeat offenders who are held behind bars who could -- as in the case of yours, Helena, stayed another 25 years behind bars because of -- instead of being able to be out there looking for their next victim. And we know that rape kits bring closure and affirm the victim's story. Again, I had hundreds of hours of -- of testimony from psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists testifying before my committee and drafting this legislation. And what all of you know out there but the general public doesn't know -- the single most important thing for healing is closure; being able to identify and for the world to know it's no longer he said, she said -- but the world to be able to know that this actually happened because women continue to be -- continue to be victimized by the process. There are still circumstances where police and jurisdictions and occasionally judges around America say, "What were you wearing, how short was your skirt" -- totally thoroughly inappropriate, irrelevant questions to ask. But this brings closure; it brings closure in a way that -- that literally frees, as Helena and I were talking with Senator Mikulski back there -- that it changed her life. It's changed her life. The studies show that a significant step to survivors who are recovering from this trauma is finding the peace of mind, knowing they are no longer in the position of he said, she said or looking over their shoulder -- will he come back? Testing rape kits should be an absolute priority for the United States of America. It works, it matters, it brings closure, it brings justice; and that's why we're here. 15:57:14 I've been working on these issues going back to my days and as a young kid in the United States Senate. In the early -- late '80s, early '90s when we wrote the Violence Against Women Act and it was incorporated into the crime bill, it was a struggle. It was a struggle to include rape kits back then. And the reason was, ironically like all complicated matters, we got -- had great trouble from the left as well as the right. Because for these rape kits to make a significant difference, those who are convicted of felonies and later those who are indicted for felonies, there has to have a DNA sample that's available in one spot against which this particular rape kit can be tested. Otherwise the ability to solve these crimes would be almost impossible. 15:58:07 So, there were those who legitimately worried that we were giving too much power to the government, allowing the -- the DNA of a convicted felon to be put in a file in a particular place that -- controlled by the FBI. And we also had great resistance from our conservative friends who said there are much better things we should be spending our money on. You know this lab -- this is an expensive lab -- needed; this is an incredible lab -- modern, but it cost a lot of money. I'm told by the director it's about $28 million to build a lab -- the machinery and all the rest; it's extremely expensive. And so, we had a dual problem coming from the left and the right. And that's when I really turned to Barb because no one questions her -- her -- her credentials, nor do I think mine on the left, and no one doubts that she is concerned. 15:59:03 And so, we had to generate a consensus. And we provided funding in this process also to train police officers. As you know, Colonel, and you know, Chief, this is not easy; this is not easy for law enforcement. We train them how to handle evidence. And Barbara went about the business of convincing her colleagues that this was money worth investing; then it (ph) was back in the House. And in the crime bill, we had allayed concerns that the federal Combined DNA Index System, a fancy name for a place you collect all this information, would not be available for other purposes, would not be abused. The index system is a single database storing DNA from indicted and convicted felons. And Barbara thought it was ridiculous that those victims had to be -- initially, the only way you get this done is our friends on the right said, "Well, if you're going to do this, the woman should pay for this investigation." And that's when Barbara really went to work. (LAUGHTER) And so -- and made the case -- this is a community responsibility and it's the interest of the whole community this be done. And so, in 1994, in the passing (ph) of Violence Against Women Act, we went one step further. We said that unless the state pays for these forensic rape kits, then they're not going to get money that is available in the Violence Against Women Act for the many other things available to them. I suspect some would think that was coercive but we didn't think it was coercive at all. 16:00:40 These were important and hard-fought first steps. But nonetheless, in the ensuing years and decades, we saw a massive accumulation of these rape kits. I remember before a good friend of ours Republican Senator Specter died we went up to the city of Philadelphia, my neighboring city, to what they call the round house -- the police headquarters. And we saw hundreds and hundreds of these rape kits on shelves with no funds to go forward and test them. And that's when we turned to another survivor who's become my friend -- I hope she doesn't mind my saying that, but she is -- Debbie Smith. Debbie came before my committee in '04 and she told her story which again took a whole lot of courage. She shared her story before the committee and the television cameras so Americans all over the nation heard her story. And I remember vividly -- I remember it like the first time you said it, Debbie. You said you were home; it was a nice day -- it was in the middle of the day. And a guy came into -- broke into the house, a stranger wearing a mask, and he kidnapped you. And he drug you across the backyard out to a nearby woods and he brutally raped you. Now, like most rapists, he said almost every woman who's been victimized hears: "If you tell anybody, I will come back and kill you. I know where you live. I know where you live." And Debbie, I remember you telling me before you testified and then repeating it that because of the strong support of her husband, Robert, who was a law enforcement officer, he encouraged Debbie to not be intimidated and call the police and -- who took Debbie to the local hospital and got a full examination, which takes several hours. She was raped; as a consequence, a rape kit was prepared. And -- but because of what Debbie did, she ended up helping save the lives of a lot of women; but it took six years for her rape kit to be tested. And I remember, Debbie, what you told me about how you acted from the time you were raped from the time it was solved. You said, "Joe, I couldn't pull into my driveway midday and get out. I was afraid to get out and walk from my driveway to my front door. "I would ride around the neighborhood, Joe, until I saw there was a neighbor nearby -- I saw somebody in the neighborhood. Then I could pull into my driveway and I'd basically run to my front door." For six years -- for six years, getting out of your car in your own driveway was a traumatic undertaking. Thousands of women today, as I speak, live with that fear. Thousands of women right now are looking over their shoulder; thousands of them wonder will he come back -- will he come back. And thousands as a consequence of the threat never report a rape in the first place. But we can do something about this. Once Debbie's rape kit was finally tested and run against a DNA Combined Index System the FBI maintains, her attacker was immediately identified. And Debbie found out like you, Helena, that her rapist was already behind bars after -- for abducting and robbing two other women. Those women would never have gone through that indignity were it not for the fact that it took six years to test that rape kit. 16:04:34 As a consequence of Debbie's testimony with my staff and the women who were running my staff, I wrote and she helped us write -- literally helped us write it -- the Debbie Smith Act of 2004 which reauthorized spending another $151 million per year along -- allowing grants to go directly to municipalities -- not have to go to the state government, but they could apply directly to municipalities to in some cases set up crime labs in the first place, in other case to modernize what they're having -- what they already have. We're doing that so we can test DNA for all crimes -- for murder, for armed robberies, but especially for rape and assault. But since then, Senator Mikulski and I have continued this fight to get the funding. Fortunately, Barbara was on the Appropriations Committee and has a -- only thing that exceeds her courage is her mind -- her capability; I mean this sincerely. And she was relentless -- relentless in being able to help local law enforcement get additional funding so they could inventory -- think of this. There's medium-sized law enforcement agencies all over America that don't even have the capacity to inventory the rape kits that have been accumulated. They don't even have the knowledge how to do that. Maryland is way ahead of the curve and they're to be complimented, by the way. I mean that sincerely. The reason why this lab is so good -- it's run by University of Delaware graduate... (LAUGHTER) Who used to work in Delaware at the lab when my son was the attorney general up there but -- and you stole him; but you got a good one. But all kidding aside, you're way ahead of the curve. There are tens of thousands of rape kits that need to be tested which I'll get to in just a moment. 16:06:32 But as Barb and Senator Cardin and -- and Dutch all know, there's a lot more that we can do than we've already done. We know technically available -- technology available at crime scenes investigations has expanded; it's much more sophisticated, just over the last decade and a half. This allows the crime scene -- at the crime scene to gather more evidence and consequently to use DNA and other physical evidence in a whole -- solving a whole range of crime. Recently, we've made progress; DNA testing in the United States has increased 16.4 percent from 2009 to 2014. Evidence of the increased technological capability and the advocacy of all of you out there saying we should test these -- these -- these DNA samples. But testing has outpaced the resources at a local level, local police stations, and the resources of crime labs. And it had one other perverse consequence we talked about as we toured the lab for a moment. And that is that now that we're able to test and people realize this is a fool-proof test for all crimes if they have DNA samples from the crime scene, it's made it more difficult to get rape kits tested because now it's being used for a whole range of other crimes, as well. 16:07:59 I think it's important that -- and I will conclude with this -- that I walk through the process just for a moment so that the press and the public fully understand how this works. A victim is raped, sexually assaulted; her body becomes the -- part of the crime scene. She goes to the hospital. A trained doctor or nurse takes extensive evidence, including compiling the rape kit which we saw an example of and including compiling the DNA left behind by the attacker. Once there's sufficient DNA able to be salvaged to create a profile, it then can be submitted to the FBI's DNA database as I mentioned earlier. Law enforcement can then see if someone not only committed the rape but whether or not they also committed another crime -- a burglary or assault or any other crime. As I said earlier, there are thousands of rape kits that haven't been tested yet. There's a dispute among experts -- and I'm trying to -- I've been running this down for years -- as to just how many untested rape kits there are. The truth is we don't know. The consensus estimate is at least 400,000 that have not been tested. But based on the statistical analysis of previous studies done, imagine if we could test, if there were 400,000, every one of them. We would solve 200,000 of those crimes -- those rape crimes -- if we're able to test every one of those tests statistically, bringing closure for victims and keeping repeat offenders off the street and savings thousands of women from being raped again. But we have to keep working because there are other factors -- and in many cases, the same factors that contribute to the backlog. One, prior evidence protocols -- that's why you have to keep training law enforcement and health professionals. This isn't something you can train one generation and then walk away from it. It requires constant training. It cannot ever be relented. Crime is like cutting grass, folks. You cut it the first week, you let it go for a week, it looks OK. You cut it -- you don't cut it for two weeks, it still looks all right. You let it go for the summer, you've got a jungle. God ain't made a new brand of man or woman in a millennia; crime is crime is crime. There's never circumstances where you can spend less money, in my view, in fighting crime that you had the year before. State and local budgets have been cut for law enforcement, not only cutting the end strength of police forces but also cutting budgets for crime labs and available equipment. 16:10:39 Look, the bottom line is simple and straightforward. If we're able to test these rape kits, more crimes could be solved, more crimes could be prevented and more women would be given back their lives. Last year, the president and I asked for an unprecedented $430 million for programs contained within the Violence Against Women Act. We asked -- Barbara was being humble -- we asked for an additional $35,000 on top of that to create community-based sexual assault response grant program to reduce the backlog. It went to the senator's committee and she said, "Well, 35's fine but it's not enough." She raised it to $41 million. The end result is we're now able to spend $166 million on this effort on a year basis. And there's two pieces to this. Fifty percent of that money will go to reduce the backlogs of untested kits by helping police and prosecutors better coordinate these cases. And fifty percent will go to support investigations in prosecutions and services for victims like more specialized prosecutors who know how to use this evidence, more victims receiving counseling and support that they so badly need and more cold case detectives looking at old cases because there's still a need to solve those cases. And as I said, it's a grant program going to promising programs that have shown success locally to reduce the backlog. That's how the one thing that federal government can do better than the state governments. You can assess throughout the nation what programs work the best and make them a sample for the rest of the nation to follow. And let -- let me give you one example. In Detroit, there was a backlog of 11,000 cases. And there was also a well -- but -- but it was -- there was also a well-demonstrated by a team of law enforcement, prosecutors and advocates that there was something that could be done about this. So, in January 2015, they tested 2,000 of those 11,000 kits. The result was they found 760 DNA matches leading to the identification of 188 serial offenders. 16:13:02 In addition to the DNA from those 2,000 tested kits, there's also been linked to crimes committed in over 20 states, including the District of Columbia -- Columbia, affecting women far beyond Detroit. It's not a particular locus (ph) that these rapists operate in. We continued funding -- with continued funding from non-profits, foundations, state and local governments, the ability for them to -- and to compete for an additional federal grant, Detroit hopes to clear the entire backlog by the end of this year. But not only in Detroit; New York City, Mayor de Blasio is doing the same thing; other cities are stepping up their efforts. This is a national problem and we need a comprehensive federal and state approach to get every one of these rape kits off the shelf and tested. That's where the -- that's -- that's what the budget investment is all about. 16:13:54 Every year we need to make tough budget choices but there are certain problems that can't wait like violence against women. And there's few other things we can do that have the potential for the most explosive payoff as doing this. It's the single best expenditure we can initiative to prevent crime in addition to solve crime. 16:14:18 I'm confident that as we continue making progress, our colleagues in the Congress will stop asking why are we spending all of this money. I'm confident that if we explain in detail what we're doing, we'll continue to get genuine support for all that Barbara has fought so hard for. And it's about making the case; it's about showing that if we engage in wise expenditure of federal dollars and make enormous contributions in the fight against rape and assault against women, it works. And this is easy to test; they can test whether we're wasting any of this money. They can easily see whether or not there is a payoff for this investment. The good news is Senator Mikulski will be there for two more budget cycles. (LAUGHTER) And -- and that's with organizations like Joyful Heart and advocates like my good friend Mariska Hargitay and so many more are engaged in through volunteer organizations. And all of you who have been real leaders in reducing this backlog, bringing peace and closure and security to tens of thousands of our -- our daughters, our sisters, our mothers, our wives -- it's complicated, but quite frankly, it maybe is the most simplest of the problems we have to solve. We have the time; we should make the money available. We have the technology; we have the ability to run these kits and make a judgment -- balance them against the existing file. And in the process we can restore women's lives; we can prevent other women from being victimized and we can make a genuine contribution -- a genuine contribution to the welfare not of just women but of -- of all Americans. 16:16:10 So, I thank you all, particularly you advocates in the audience, and because without you, we wouldn't be here. We still have a long way to go. Thank you all so very much. (APPLAUSE) END