tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 25, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
we need share for the justice department and other state and federal regulators who would be tasked with implementing and enforcing in a regulatory framework regarding online gaming. this is an issue that warrants further review. before the subcommittee, we have jurisdiction and we need to certainly inquire into that. in his testimony, mr. whyte notes that among the groups at high risk for gambling addiction are racial and ethnic minorities. i want to talk about that for a minute. he specifically identifies african-americans among others has been a high risk. earlier this month, subcommittee held a hearing on revisions to the children's online privacy protection act rule of the testimony of one of the witnesses were inaccurate and contained reference this to us that he by the sesame workshop that included an interesting insight into the online habits of minority children. according to the study,
african-americans and hispanic children have less home internet access, but those that have access use the internet more than white children. african-american children between the ages of five then i spent 41 minutes online per session. white children in contrast to spend 27 million minutes online per session. hispanic children between the ages of eight and 14 spent almost two hours online each day, 40 minutes more than white children. the study also pointed out children from low-income and ethnic minority homes were less likely to have adult pregnant when accessing the internet. as a result, they were spending more time on lower quality websites or on activities that wouldn't help them develop school-based skills. that or romer, let me try you, sir. i know your own work is focused
on the prevalence of gambling among high school and college youth. however, i don't think it would be too much of a leap to assume that this tendency to younger minority children to use internet more and to spend more time on lower quality websites persist into high school and college. given this, i am wondering whether you can speak to at the u.s.a. have seen differences along racial and ethnic lines. >> there are racial and ethnic differences in gambling. we haven't seen it in terms of internet use. i can't really talk to it, but from what you said, there are these disparities that occur to kids who are blind. i would fully expect those kids -- >> the data suggest that. >> you have any response about whether there may be particular implications for young minorities with online gambling that should be taken into account in the discussion about whether and how to go about
recognize same some form of online gambling is legal? >> well -- >> is there anything particularly can write into the law that would try to safeguard against this? >> well, i don't know that you can read a lot that would safeguard against particular people other than people who are prone to lack of control. so i think the thing you want to prevent is people from using online gambling sites who cannot control their gambling. anything you can mourn them, remind them, keep them aware of the fact they might be spending more than a half i think would be valuable in you can explain as kurt eggert has said, that's a viable thing to tell people of any age. but we don't want kids on there at all. that's the goal. >> another important aspect is to make sure their health services available if kids do get into trouble. i think that's where the impact
on the minority community is disproportionate. we also understand there's less access to, for example, services and spanish and other cultural services for native americans and asian-americans and others. some on the health side, regulation of blood cannot adequately protect people from an addiction. as we've known from drugs, alcohol and tobacco, we must have within the cell services dedicated culture specific services available for youth and adults to prevent educate, treat and research. that's the way were going to make progress. the >> thank you. >> i think it's on it and share would remind people in five-minute time. we will have a second round of question that way. it sure is happy mr. bass for five minutes. >> i think the chair and my friend mr. barton for his courtesy. i have to preside at noon in the house is not in session now.
when you don't show up at noon, people get a type very quickly. i am also quite perplexed by some of this discussion about all the money that could be lost if internet poker. i know quite a people and not one has admitted to every losing. [laughter] will also .. out that new hampshire is with all know, first in the nation presidential primary and will remain so. it also happens to be the first state to adopt a statewide lottery in 1964. it's raised over $4 billion, provided about $1.3 billion for public education in this day. my question and the only question is for my former colleague from new york, senator d'amato. senator, representing the poker players, and your organization's opinion, what impact would the passage of legislation permitting internet gambling have on state lotteries?
secondly, what your organization has any objection to allowing or giving the state lotteries the opportunity to also compete, if you will, on the internet poker business? >> congressmen, let me answer the second question. first it's an easy one to answer. we would have no objection whatsoever. as it relates to whether or not there has been an impact, we believe that people who buy lottery tickets are generally not the same people. and we don't believe they really compete. we believe that many will continue if you look at the lottery tickets and their purchases, you will find the internet does play a role. most of it is that your commercial establishments.
a though, we don't see a conflict and we certainly have no objection to lottery tickets in the scrape off tickets that the state put out there having that ability. i would also note that in new york, you presently have a situation where the revenues from the lottery. so i am very conscious of this, play a very substantial part in our state's economy and budget. we want to protect that. i'm seriously not advocating we cut into that. i make one other point. pajama men, the ranking member brought up the there is a desperate impact and it would seem that the young minority children are addicted, so greater extent to the internet and programs which are not those kind that you would generally want to encourage them that's
going to help them in school. i hope i am paraphrasing our sentiments correctly. more reason to see to it that there is good, tight regulation as they relate to using the internet and poker in particular. there is a regulation now. there's nothing to stop these kids from getting on. if we want to eliminate those who are unfortunately becoming involved in gambling at a young age, there's no verification required type these off-site groups. there's no way to stop or prevent them. and so, i think it makes abundant sense of what to do some thing to curtail this and misuse by youngsters to have strong regulations, protecting consumers, protecting the young people, seeing to it. i would like to hear from some of mr. eggert's suggestions and
how do we get the kind of information so that players have a better playing field. i think for all of those reasons it's important that we move forward with this kind of legislation. >> thank you very much, senator. i appreciate you addressing my question as well as mr. butterfield is. i go back to the chair lady. >> thank you or the chair recognizes mr. counsel for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and of course the ranking member, mr. butterfield for having this hearing. i think this was a very important hearing. the question before this committee is what if any forms of online gaming should congress consider? over the course of the next several weeks, congress will decide on how our nation will begin to put its physical house in order. and this seems to be a way to get revenue.
what are the many proposals congress will consider his using the current restriction of online gaming. currently under the wire act, online gaming is illegal. however, that is not staffed offshore gaming. websites from profiting off of the united states. gaming industry experts have estimated that the united states spent over $16 billion. in 2010, and poker blog. some experts estimated it would bring in significant tax revenues to the federal government that currently are directed to non-us gaming companies. this additional revenue could be used to help balance the growing federal deficit without causing drastic cuts to entitle programs
for so many americans rely on. while i am sympathetic to the view that more revenue is needed to help alice the federal budget, i am concerned with the unintended consequences of this proposal. so first i want to begin by asking you, mr. stevens, you know, i am not sure in terms of your real reasons for opposing any kind of chain. what are your real reasons? could you be really specific? [inaudible] >> i understand you oppose this, right? do mention the fact there were certain agencies not involved in it. what other reasons as to why you may pose? >> again, representing the town, we had several, such as 12 plus meetings on this issue and the indian tribes proposed -- are
opposed to this discussion based on several -- six points. sovereign governments with the right to regulate texan lance must not be subordinated to any non-federal authority. internet gaming is authorized by tribes that must be available to customers in any low power any low-power internet gaming is not prohibited, persistence with long-held federal policy -- foreign policy, travel revenues must not be subject to tax. existing tribal government price get the regulatory act that must be respected. the legislation must not open any given regulatory act of federal legislation of internet gaming must provide positive economic benefits for countries. those are the six points that were developed in a series of meetings with tribal leaders from throughout the country. >> you know, this committee must ensure that all the stakeholders involved are able to benefit from any legislation that may
take shape over the coming weeks and months. you know, we are very sensitive to that as well. but you know, my concern would be that the fact that the oversight and the fact that we make certain that it's been done fairly. and of course, that would be of real concern because i think that we have to look at ways to be able to tilt the deficit. based on what everybody's saying, this is a way to attract revenue. now i am also concerned about youth and all of that, but i think that they don programs that are in place that we could sort of look at that and be able to make certain that there's dave and they are not involved in any way. anytime you have anything come you're always going to have some folks to take it to the extreme. i think what we need to do was make certain certain that they do, that there is something in
place for them. so you can name almost anything and i can tell you how someone has gone and taken it to the extreme. i think the main thing was to try to put safeguards in place. and i think that is an issue we need to talk about st safeguards we can put in place, programs we can put in place that will make it possible for people to continue to function without destroying families. >> i would rank all of you for your testimony and i'm going to respect the five minutes. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, mr. towns. i'll remember you at christmas. i am pleased to recognize i think the best poker player in congress, mr. barton for five minutes. >> well, i do know about that. i haven't got some bills passed in the senate yet. that's where you play real poker appears when you play with the senate at the end of the year
getting your bills through. >> mr. wrangle with mike that either. he considers himself world-class. first of all, madam chairwoman, i would ask unanimous can enter that into the record to you the president of the american gaming association in written testimony was prepared to give out their bedroom on the panel. i'm told this has been cleared by your staff and the minority staff and it's not a problem. >> carry no objections have ordered. >> thank you. the first question to the distinguished panel, is there any one of few who believes that millions of americans are not playing poker for money on the internet right now? let the record show that they all. is there any of you that believe it would be possible to prevent american citizens who wish to play poker for money on the internet from doing so?
the gentlelady with fairplay. >> with underage gamblers would be able to deal with, i was part of the berkman center, the harvard center age verification group, the internet safety task force. although you can't prove for purposes who is under the age of 13 pennies certainly can prove to us over the age of 21. so we would be able to rates in the place -- >> i will stipulate whatever we can do, if the bill does, to prevent underage poker players. you tell me how to do a double put it in the bill. >> we actually had a study that was done at the kennedy school at harvard with.or sparrow and it was presented last year at the hearings with barney frank and if anyone on the subcommittee would like that, i'm happy to enter that -- >> is chief sponsor a can assure you i do not want underage poker players. so we will work with you on that. i went to a switch search on him
is representing indian tribes. under the proposed legislation is introduced, a state that wishes not to allow its citizens to play poker for money simply opsahl. we give that same option to the tribes. why would that not protect your sovereignty? if you don't want your citizens in the indian nations to play, all you have to do is send a letter to the secretary of commerce that you don't want them to play. >> i'm sorry. could you restate the question, sir? >> we respect sovereignty and state sovereignty. we respect indian nation sovereignties of the bill as introduced gives the governor of this day. i have to check what it does for indian tribes. i would assume it would give the
chief or tribal council the same right we give the governor if you don't want to let your citizens within their boundaries play poker for money on the internet, you simply opt-out so they can't play. so we treat the indian tribe the same as we treat the states. that seems pretty fair to me. on the other hand, if you think it's okay to play, can you play by the same rules everyone else please by in terms of regulating poker players for money on the internet. i mean, that seems to me to be a very fair position. we are not anti-indian, not pro-indian. we are fair to all concerned. >> i think in this case on behalf of the tribes, i think that covers it. but if we want to be recognized as troubled governments are purposely under the law. >> that's beyond the scope of the poker bill i think. i play poker at the indian casino in oklahoma so i've
witnessed and i'm 132nd cherokee. i am not quite -- so i'm 132nd with the hair on that. [laughter] >> well, sir, i have a full night from wisconsin and we used to engage in new york state. you know, under the treaty, we are encouraged congress not just with other indian tribes, but other regions and even to our friends in the first nation in canada. >> that may be larger than the scope of this bill. we're not trying to read poker playing any different than anybody else. senator d'amato, do you think there's any technical issues in terms of addressing problem poker players that couldn't be addressed in this legislation?
>> we definitely have technology, mr. congressman, to deal, certainly with underage, certainly with problem gamblers, but there's nothing i restraining them. there's no impact, no one out there looking. and we can build into the system the kind of program that can identify or can be placed on the list, but they will not be about if they go over certain amount of money to participate. this is going to solve other problems? now, but it certainly will eliminate and curtail what is taking place now. no protection for the kids are the problem we have. >> my time is expiring. let me simply say to mr. eggert, this issue of these mechanical or automatic players, whatever needs to be done to prohibit that an allied, if you have got proposed language, if you gave it to a committee staff, we
absolutely don't want to set up the system for somebody in this audience can play poker online for money if their governor says it's okay and play against the computer. that is not what we're trying to do. so if you've got a program that can prevent it or language to prohibit, we'll certainly look it. without i yield back, madam chairwoman. >> the chair recognizes mr. fab five for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. good morning to you all. this is a subject that interests me greatly. last term in financial services committee and on the energy and commerce committee. louis freeh could not be here today, madam chair. he has a statement that states in part addressing the growing that they can mutate as rapidly as internet-based gambling operated outside of the
countries, challenging in and of itself or federal law enforcement. he goes on to say online poker stands apart because it became millions of americans play at home but friends and family or even charity fundraisers. unlike most games played against other players other than the house for bias on the side of practice skills. it is also not defined in other statutes. clarifying which online games are illegal also creates an opportunity to establish a strict and transparent regulatory regime for online poker that allows adult consumers to play safely and securely while ensuring accountability to tax and law enforcement authorities. madam chair, i would request unanimous consent to introduce ester free's statement into the record. >> without objections ordered. >> thank you, madam chair. ms. abfab recognized a wonderful
title can internet be effectively regulated managing the risks? will not ask the whole study be placed into the record, i would read in pertinent part that notwithstanding the current prohibitionist legal and regulatory oppression, millions of u.s. residents gamble online through offshore gambling site. the establishment of a well regulated industry under u.s. jurisdiction would offer far better protection against online gambling against social harms an outright prohibition. certainly those are reviewed can contact my office. mr. stevens, good morning to you. i certainly respect your opinions and i recognize your sovereignty and honor your soldering tray. you mentioned the tribes not be subject to tax or third-party regulation based on their sovereign status.
i respect the status of indian tribes, but isn't it true tribe gaming and other businesses can make a sovereign decision to do business in the 50 states outside of their reservation lands subject themselves to state and federal regulation permits for example, higgins sent is licensed in regulation but they can see now. and the florida seminoles purchased hard rock. if tribal gaming is to be extended beyond the borders of the reservation through the internet, isn't it inevitable that tribes will have to submit to some sort of regulation other than that of their own tribal governments? >> you know, i think that i regulation is established and prepared to do with this type of situation. i think dealing with sovereign governments doing business from their sovereign territories are different than some of the areas
where they are purposely engage in other economic endeavors to reach beyond gaming as far as our future. >> thank you. certain indian tribes have been pushing the 18th of regulating internet gaming at the state level. i think this might mean a challenge for tribes and small states. and poker, for example, where you need a critical mass of players to operate a site, how could a tribe in rhode island or south dakota or even connecticut hope to participate? it seems this would only benefit a small number of tribes in california and other larger states. >> i think that we -- i think that which i to analyze what our chats are working through coalition and working within their state organizations, so we fielded to the state tribal
authorities to handle those types of situations. >> thank you for your response. finally my time is about to expire. it's an honor for me, madam chair, to be in the same committee hearing room a senator d'amato. i was rooting for selection and 1980. a wager $10 good when your primary and another $10 good when the general election. this is not on the internet because of course it hadn't been. >> you should have gotten some good odds. >> i was confident in her public service, sir. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i recognize mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i welcome each of you here today and for taking time out of your schedule. it's been interesting to hear input from each of you and the concerns while noted at what you do about preventing or reducing the possibility of problem
gamblers? you know, that is something we would all agree that there are certain people that shouldn't gamble. there are some that gamble that may be neat to have limits on them. and it's one thing with physical location where you can do that, but to have it online with the anonymity, with all of the concerns that can go on as i have not been given any real comfort care that since it can be regulated offshore or in a legal sites, how we are going to be able to do the if this takes what appears to be an interest in another step. so i know we've heard different opinions here, some that are trying to decide that the idea of online gambling, legal or
illegal, gives a great concern. but that, he thank you for your time here. i guess one question i have for each of you is, do any of your organizations received any money from offshore casinos? does your organization receive funds or contributions from offshore casinos? i will start with ms. afton. >> fairplay u.s.a. does not accept money from offline casinos. if i could suggest just for a moment, unlike other aspects of the internet, where you are looking for anonymity, when you do it online gambling company authentication and verification of identity. i given your expertise in the subcommittee will understandable allow you to track problem gamblers and opted to programs to protect them. so this is the one area we are not looking for anonymity. fairplay u.s.a. does not accept money, to my knowledge, 21
ossuary. >> that my knowledge, sir. >> we have received donations from companies that assured. we accept no restrictions on donations, but we have received the money. >> company different entities? >> i think just one. we want tradition encouraging anyone who operate should contribute to gambling. mississippi casinos accept no restrictions on any money we receive from any source, if actually gaming industry. >> but you have received funds from offshore sources? >> s. atmosphere. >> senator d'amato. >> guess we have and i would do know though, we encourage this legislation so that we will permit on short dvds and we say it should not be just offshore. and to your question, congressman, as it relates to being able to ensure the age, right now there is nothing that restricts youngsters basically
it requires age identification. we would say we had to elegy developed that is used today in banking -- online banking is that it leads to the kind of troops necessary for people to conduct banking activities. it's the same process we utilize here. >> professor eggert. >> i work for chapman university. i have no idea who their donors are. i hope there are many though. >> so the public policy center doesn't accept money from any commercial. >> i think it's important that we just kind of know where we are on this. it doesn't appear to me there have been any real steps taken being used to block the offshore or illegal casinos is to come up with ways to block payments to those sites.
that is something i think we can develop more. we certainly have some that have argued that we should develop, legalize online gambling in this country much the same way we have heard others argue that we should legalize certain drugs. so i think this is something we need fresh were to look at. i am not confident that all we have the tools in place to do what we need to do. the question is looking back in paris was asked senator d'amato, i know september this year the u.s. attorney look that new york reporter to full tilt poker is a global ponzi scheme on the barrier were apparently thousands of online poker players at about $300 million.
ultimate bet, another organization i believe he represent those poker player alliance received, use contributions are either full tilt poker ultimate bet? >> no, we don't. began congressman, i don't mean to beat a dead horse to death, but the one way to deal with fulltilt and people like that would take advantage of the system is to provide a tough, strong, enforceable licensing bill. and i mean tough. there should be a requirement as there has been for poker stars. i mention them because they are the largest offshore. for those dollars are segregated and placed in a special account so that these kinds of things can't take place. had we had legislation, we
could've prevented players from being taken advantage of. and that's why he cries out for legislation. >> senator d'amato, perhaps it's better we not go down this road and work on ways to protect people against offshore sources. >> pajamas time is expired. the chair recognizes the spot are in for minutes. >> thank you all for being here. i have to admit this is a feisty debate and a wonderful conversation. and i think many of our members are like me. we've got friends for it and friends against it. it's good to have you all here to listen to what you have to say. mr. whyte, what to come to you. and senator d'amato, i'm glad you are sitting there in the center like these debates. i've got a few people i want to talk to right in the middle. mr. whyte, you said that you
didn't think that having online poker would expand the use. so that's curious to me. i'd like for you to talk about if there is something in the american culture that is different about our addictive behavior. and then i would like to know if it's not going to increase participation, then why are entities so anxious to offer online gambling? >> mr. whyte first. >> thank you very much. that's a great question. it does seem right now it's very low. whether or not legalization would dramatically increase that is an open question. in the u.k., it is not accept among men.
the replication surveys, there's more propensity to gamble online. >> let me interrupt you right there. mr. d'amato, i want you to weigh in on this. you mentioned the u.k. but our successes of the european jurisdictions that have licensed and regulate internet gambling and what are their mistakes? said the lesson is learned basically. >> sure convalescence we take away from the european experiences you have to have a balanced approach with regulation and public health protection. obviously in a country like the u.k. there's extensive social help your system to make sure people to get into trouble they have resources. >> so they've got a safety net. >> senator d'amato. >> i think mr. whyte has touched on it. number one, we can and should provide revenues. i think $50 million he's mentioned that should be there to teach youngsters, teach
addicted people to deal with their problem easily could be made available with the revenues that would be generated from online poker players. robust verification -- we can do that today so we know who it is that's playing and we can keep that youngster off. we have learned that. seeing to it that funds are utilized and segregated as they have in europe to keep the kind of thing that fulltilt engaged in, where they took monies that belong to the players and distributed them out. so there are those things that we have learnt that they've done well and we can expand upon them. we can build on them to bring those protections here. >> if i may interrupt you right there. i have about one and a half minutes left and i want to start and work down. looking at rick and mortar
gambling in the rules and regulations that apply in a brick-and-mortar sense, should the same rules and regulations applied in the online sense? and should those to be paired up? one right after another. >> yes plus more. because of the nature of the technology, we can do a lot more with authentication, control, verification. >> okay. mr. stevens. [inaudible] >> two completely different forms. >> okay. mr. whyte. >> yes but more. >> i think you have the opportunity to be much more vigilant with utilization of type knowledge in knowing the people, verification, et cetera. it is easier to do. >> i think you need more in the internet sense, given the problem of dots, which i think you can't just band.
if that is not dealt with, internet poker will have huge problems. >> i think i mentioned some thoughts about how you can put things online that you typically wouldn't have in the casino. clock, when losses, that kind of thing that would remind people they're going over the limit. >> thank you treatment time is expired. >> i think the gentlelady in the chair recognizes mr. stern for five minutes. >> thank you, modern chair. mr. whyte, is internet gambling allowed for bat jack, poker, roulette and other things in europe? in the european union? >> it depends on this day. regulation is quite broad. in general we see poker and sports gambling. sports can bring in particular is a big driver of gambling on the internet in europe. >> but they also poker?
>> yes, sir. if i go to 27 countries in european union, what ultimate poker? >> a lot is very complex. they're trying to harmonize that right now. it is not my understand poker is universally available. >> as blackjack universally available? >> is far less available. >> what about 11 slot machines? >> they certainly exist in the legalized regulators framework in the e.u. and also the second tier of unregulated websites that seem to flurries regardless of legality. >> ms. -- >> asked tad. >> how do you protect children? kaibito identification with children? they ask are you over 18? they say yes and away they go. how would you do this to protect the family and children are even children that are latchkey that are home and parents are there from gambling?
>> well, we don't age her five children. we h. verify adults, said that if the gauge is set at 20 older, there are many indicators we have of someone being the age of 21. they may be registered voters, have drivers licenses. they may be holding jobs. there are many other ways. >> how would you authenticate in this case if we make poker legal? >> what i would do whatever do ascetical. the goal is the authenticate they are 21 and older using the best methods available at the time i supposed to luck into technology all the time. >> you may use voter i.d., homeownership, rental records. >> would verify? >> or via third party verification system built-in and required courtly standards that are applied. the benefit is once you get
professionals who have a financial stake in us, you're going to get the best practices in the best you can get because they don't want kids on there. >> just like we haven't either a program that took a long time to get that working in in some cases it is not an accurate. so you have confidence we could set up a third party verification for children? >> not have children. of adults, absolutely. >> so for 17 euros working on i.t. girl -- >> we know they are 17 years old. so we would require whatever type elegy at the time would let us now is very friday 21 and older. not just a credit card. this is something far more that read require several levels of authentication that the person is 21 and older. there's a lot of technology out to your in the federal government is now looking at, in
addition to congress refuting the bypass in other departments looking at verification authentication methods to identify how old people are and where their friend. >> i understand you can't do internet gambling because we passed the law here in congress, but are they doing in they doing in nevada that right now you can gamble? in other words, if i am nevada today, can i gamble off my very today? >> yes, sir. it's called remote gambling. it's almost a wireless front of gambling. >> so how cannot, since the law says you can't use her credit card deposits or money transfer -- >> think of it like off-track betting for even more so like how the telephone account for state that allows horseracing, we can call them that. this is essentially the same system was regulated within a property, but you're able to use
the remote to access your account to place a way that day within the property. >> how does the authority in nevada protect children from picking up their parents bought. i gamble? >> well, it is a specific custom device available. is treated almost like a gaming device. >> lets you do parents had the device. but she indicated his identification program. do they have that in place? >> i am not an expert. you have to use enforcement prevention. >> to my knowledge they do not have an age verification system in place, which is one of the reasons we need this. we have a problem i believe only you can solve as there's nothing out there. the systems are best part says, no baseline to keep kids off to help parents deal with senior citizens and help law enforcement to do what they need to do. right now there is nothing. we need to do something.
when we look at ways to control what monies being spent, that is what it's all about. and the family kids can get around issues, a lot of the people trying to gamble can, too. they pretend to buy towels and are able to use financial systems to do this. >> thank you, not in chair. >> i now recognize dr. cassidy for five minutes. >> thank you beard i begin by wishing not to share a happy 29th birthday. >> i thank the gentleman very much. >> mr. whyte comments by her uses this law passes there would be an increase in internet gambling in the united states? >> not necessarily significant increase. >> i have to wonder what google ads are purchased. recently elected the minnesota vikings versus football team then all of a sudden on my sidebar at all sorts of things about minnesota. today let's take a vacation? do this, do that?
why is somebody buying that number one? a member to come a, my intuition is to think you're wrong. as a large settlement recently in which google is paying the federal government for running advertisements for overseas pharmacies. so that tells you that somebody thought google was the fact that the net advertiser to purchase overseas pharmacies. but would that not yield a significant increase in gambling? >> we may very well be wrong. i think that's one of the reasons why we are calling for help-based research because it's very unclear. if the experience in other jurisdictions seems to suggest that those people to gamble online and want to gamble in my perl to doing so regardless of legality, but certainly yes. we have grave concerns. >> just because i have limited time, i think i know for medical training that if the county has a blue lot come as still as alcoholics, but has fewer drinkers and fewer alcoholics.
the effect of this is the blue lot, correct? >> yes, sir. >> ms. often, do we have data on the prevalence of underage gambling and countries. i am not advocating or challenging -- prevalence of underage gambling in jurisdictions in which they do require this sort of verification are describing? >> yes. it's in the report we put together but don't or spero. so to the extent it is entered into the record, they're certain countries in the u.k. but about the capability of walking kids out by requiring age verification systems that work and they have been very, very day. so it's out there and it's getting better by the minute. >> mr. eggert, i really liked your testimony. i kept reading if we think we can restrict any sort of super bot or some smart kid from gaming come excuse the pun,
system, your testimony suggests we can. the sun kid deliver his buddy right there and he's going to be typing in all the cards are. so even if it is not resident on the computer, which is accessing the internet, it's nonetheless telling them what that took place. reasonably speaking, is there any way to restrict data mining to find weaker players, super bots to play, et cetera? >> that's an interesting question. the recent gambling association white paper addresses the very question. in the text of the paper, site can ban bots. but if you look at a footnote that says if somebody is using about to guide them so it's not playing, but if somebody is playing about giving them advice, there's no way to restrict that. i know of no way to present someone from having have any thoughts on one computer, china to play what is on the other computer.
so this is a huge problem for the industry to the extent legal industry where they go and recreational gamblers don't want to go on their poker site and get killed by someone using a bot. and that will happen more and more a bot gets smarter and smarter. this international competition to design the best poker playing sub 10. they are doing a darn good job and i just keep hitting better and better until they can beat anyone in this room are almost anybody. >> even joe barton? >> so once we put this in permit or government that this is an okay activity and therefore google can run aside for michael visited nevada to see yucca mountain is that i got a lot of places to go gamble on the internet, is there any way -- how would you address what mr. eggert spoke of how these
bot will be ripping people off legally? >> well, right now in brick-and-mortar casino cf card counters. >> the online sites if they are well done and operated correctly can watch without a slow. >> if i were designing one would win only 90% of the time. every now and then it would fold on the full house. >> once you do the dedication and though everyone is, it allows you to track patterns. what will happen as part of what we do now on the homeland security grid, we start sharing the information scrubbed of where the problem occurred at other companies across the sea you can improve skills. >> before passed a billcoming to me to a permissive legislation to allow data sharing? >> i don't think you need permissive legislation here to think of matter for privacy policies and expectations of the users. if you describe a certain thing, you look at people they like him lot in terms, that can be done
with privacy policies. >> amount of time. i love mr. eggert's opinion. >> would the gentleman yield? >> brew of the second round of questions if we can do it through that. with that, i'm happy to recognize myself for five minutes. i just say if they listen to the testimony, i am reminded a lot about what we saw with the industry of music and television that we are bowled over by it, not exclusive to this content. i believe are going to do this, the rising tide has to lift all those come including indian country. senator d'amato, do you take any issue with any of the principles of dance by mr. stephens on behalf of the national indian gaming association? is specifically coming to the great tribal government should be allowed entrance in period of
exclusivity and the tribal internet operations should be open to customers for every legal? >> madam chairman, we want a competitive marketplace for everyone for casinos, for indian brothers. the fact of the matter is it doesn't exist today. the fact of the matter is what we have is rogue operators. none of the legitimate houses that we have in this country are going to go forward and risk the loss of their licenses, et cetera until or unless we change the law. and so, we are going to continue to have all the problems we've heard about. they will be exacerbated as the release to young people, released to have a fair game so that people have a fair opportunity, whether they use the super bot or not. there'll be no opportunity to
control that. you're not going to be about to start the advertising because they will still advertise on google. they'll advertise all over. so the problem we have now is one that seems to me is very parallel to what we have in prohibition. we know that people overindulge. it was terrible. we know the cost of society was ruinous. and so, without good intent, we passed an act. and what happened? the very people who we didn't want to get an ticket distribution and sale about pot, some that was killing people god and peered government lost revenue. it didn't cut down on all of the problems in family abuse, drunkenness, et cetera. i would suggest that here we are 50 years later, well behind times to say that you shouldn't use the internet for commerce. whether you like poker or not, it is nonsense to say, did we
ever hear about parental responsibility as well? let me tell you. but mr. gambling? they did come a time when youngsters wanted to play texas hold them. congressman barton, texas hold on. why? it became famous because of talent vision. the third most watched sport, first nfl, then nascar. and then poker on the television. are we going to ban that? are we going to be ensuring that it could what do you think created this impetus? a huge surge in 19 in particular >> let me just jump in if they made because that's the note, better than anybody here, our problem is that you try advance to the logical problems at the same time as legislative
hurdles. professor eggert spoke eloquently i think about dr. cassidy in the theater that can we actually protect some people is at stake entirely new version to the wild wild west. it's entirely a buyer beware. professor eggert attacked about artificial intelligence. i feel like i could ask if you're capable of scanning. >> madam chairman, if we do not think some of that problem will grow with no prediction to enter tags, no problem of having opportunity to let the skills and wherewithal because they want to protect your business is. so is the professor indicated, one of the things they are going to be looking to do is reduce the to the system to eliminate it, but to reduce and you can identify. >> i don't know if you can all answer in have 30 seconds left. i think professor eggert's question again. how do you handle something as
simple as losing internet service in the middle of a hand? >> i didn't quite get that. >> your internet service goes out and you're in the middle of a big hand and you lose internet connectivity. what happens? >> you know, congresswoman, -- >> do i want i slip off my modem? >> i have to tell you, this legislation can't protect everybody at every time in every instance. but it can go a long way to protect the people who have no protections at all, whether it's the box, the problem gambling, whether it's the youngsters. no one can promise 100% certainty. when it comes to identification verification, certainly we should use the most robust technologies that have been developed and will continue to be developed. but there is nothing perfect about the legislation.
it will be an perfect, but a heck of a lot better than doing nothing. >> i thank you. please recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> thank you. technological advances have allowed manufacturers to create ever more enticing products. but i'm not concerned about the flashing lights and funny noises or games appearance. a moment interested in game attributes are marketing practices that have the potential to mislead, deceive or confuse. mr. eggert, i think was try you on this one. you discuss to slot machines that intentionally give the game player a large number of near misses, complete with a counter on the side of the screen, letting them know exactly how many they've had. this is a manipulation of consumers that inhibit their ability to understand how the game works and makes the game seemed easier to win than it actually is. you may agree or disagree with that, but reflate, what are the
most egregious -- what are the most bad examples -- i can't pronounce that word, the most bad examples of tactics that we should be aware of in the online gambling world? those carefully monitored or restrict it. >> in the online world we've heard about some of the worse part says online poker sites not having money at the gamblers have put have trained the money out. so the gamblers try to get the money out they can't. another byproduct is its insiders been able to see the whole card of their opponents so they can win much more easily because they know what they're playing against. that's another bad thing. another bad thing is not being able to tell what the whole percentage of the slot machine you're playing against.
i think that is an important thing for a slot player to say in my going to lose on average 2%, which is a good machine for 15% commotions a much more expensive and much worse machine? it's an incredibly bad practice and it exists in internet spot and exists only in base size. game that should be addressed. that's an important part of consumer protection. >> what kind of expertise and authority should in enforcing agency has in order to keep up with misleading or deceptive tech exurban industry is bad actors? >> is actually an interesting question. i do a lot of work in the financial services community and regulators are doing a better job now of actually experimenting to see what consumers understand and what they don't understand. so what we should have is the regulatory agents be that focuses on zoomer protection and really tries to figure out what
>> you might have some, you know, 21-year-old who's playing their first game of poker online facing, you know, somebody who with the computer algorithms is a top poker player. it's like going to the neighborhood to have a pick up game, and unbeknownst to you, you're playing against an nba player. i think the solution to this, i don't think you can prevent people from using bots because i think that's just impossible. for me, the solution would be to have a rating system where by if you want to play against people to know whether they are good or bad, everybody has a rating like the chess world. i know if i play against somebody with 1,000 point higher
rating than me, i'm going to get beat, but it might be fun. the same thing should happen in the gambling world where if you go online, play poker, you have a 1400 rating, and play someone with a 2200 rating, they might beat you, but you'll learn something. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. barton for 5 minutes. >> thank you. i was going to leave, but then heard there was a second round, so i decided to stick around. my stomach is growling so let's not do three rounds even though i asked for the hearing. [laughter] we're letting the tail wag the dog here. we're having a hearing as to whether it's acceptable, appropriate to allow those citizens of the united states that live in states that the states want them to play poker for money online to do so, and
we're getting into areas about underage and problem gambling and now we're into this issue of exciter gamblers. i will acknowledge that it's technically possible to set up some elaborate scheme using these computer bots against people, but it is very -- we can always guarantee that somebody is a live body at the table; right? even if they have a computer. that's doable. if you have that, you know, you're not going to set up an elaborate computer scheme to play in a one send, two send limit online poker game. that's just not enough money, and the higher you go in these games, now, i never played money online. i played poker online, and i've got play money like $10 million
of play money, but that and .75 sents gets you a coke. that doesn't help you a lot. when i look for money sights, most of them are less than $100. now, you can get a $1,000 or $2,000 but anybody with anybody sense at all to use your term, professor, "a recreational poker player" you are an absolute idiot to go online to get into a high poker dollar game. i mean, you go into the game knowing that everybody else at that table is really good and unless you're an hair to the rockefeller family or billgates or somebody like that, you don't in your wildest dreams want to play poker in that game. you just don't want to do it, so
if we can verify they are adults, and maybe even require people to stipulate that they are not using computer ability when they play, even though they can cheat, if they cheat, you can catch them. do you agree with that, professor? >> i don't think you can catch poker players who are using a computer to guide them. i think as long as they make sure they don't win too often, that they screw up once in awhile, that they can fly under the radar and make good money. you don't have to be paying $300 a bet game to make a decent living. people can make $60,000 -- $100,000 with bots. >> all your testimony about data
manipulation and data statistical analysis i can get myself right now if i want to take the time to do it. it doesn't mean i understand it or benefit by it, but i have the ability, if i want to really find out what's out there, i can do that without too much trouble. that information is fairly transparent. what we want to prevent is somebody using it unfairly and in the real world situation, when you walk into the casino, you can't take a pocket computer with you saying the probability on this hand is 33% that that guy over there has a pocket of aces or whatever. you have to know it. on the computer you can get access to it, but there should be ways to verify with the current technology if somebody is routinely beating the system, we can flag that, and then we
can outlaw them. we can put crimes, put penalties into the bill that if i use computer analysis routinely at all, then i can be banned from that site, i can be penalized, and if the committee wantings to, we can -- wants to, we can throw them in jail. that's not a reason not to do it. it's something we need to work on. it's something we need to be aware of, but because a computer wiz kid at mit develops a program that they think beats the system, if we're aware they have the program, eventually, we're going to catch them. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i disagree with that. i think of the chess world -- >> no, chess is perfect knowledge. everybody knows on the chess board where the pieces are. when i'm on the poker table, i know my cards, i know the cards on the table, and if i'm really, really smart, i might be able to
infer what senator has and what you have based on the way you bet, but i don't have perfect knowledge, and that's why poker is a great game. it's a game of skill, bluffing, it's probability, and it's reading people, but it's not poker knowledge -- this is not chess. >> if you have a poker program that plays as well as some of the best player in the world, and i use it, are you going to -- how do you tell if i'm -- >> within an hour everybody at the table knows that, and if you use it for a week, the people that are monitoring the site, if it's legalized and regulated are going to know it, and you're gong to be bannedded. >> how would you distinguish between me and a really good player who is not using the program? >> i'd call you up and talk to you for 15 # minutes on the phone if i'm the regulator and ask you questions. i'd find out quick. i could do that now, actually. >> i think that you're --
>> and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize mr. -- >> just -- >> just a few questions starting with ms. aftab. i apologize if you were asked this already. can you tell me how it exists today, where it most of it located at? what kind of gambling for the most part happens on the offshore sites, and what protections do the sites have for players and particularly for minors? if you just want to talk in general about it and then we'll go from there. >> thank you very much. i hate to keep referring to our report from the kennedy center at harvard, but it addresses these things. offshore, we deal with sites that are legal under the
jurisdiction where they are regulated through the u.k. and 5 lot of the foreign dorse -- jurisdictions have regulations that allow gambling under checks and balances, and the vast majority of the sites we see are unregulated there in places that have no regulations in place and no checks and balances, so when you are looking at a well regular lappeted scheme, they keep kids out by requiring adult verification, and authentication. they have trust systems that money needs to be put into trust accounts and kept distinct so that a payment is made on winnings. they have checks and balances on money laundering to know who they are dealing with and they use the web that representative barton was talking about from his perspective, it's the good side of the bots to look at certain patterns of behavior.
they have audits of who is employed, where the money came from -- >> again, this is regulated sites; correct? >> the regulated sites opposed to the other ones run by terrorist organizations or could be run by underworld criminal activity. they could be run by somebody out of their garage. you don't know, and everyone, you know, you never know who is a dog on the internet, and it's hard to figure out who you gamble with, so there are ways of doing this, and i think what we need to do is cherry pick the best out there, and then americanize it and make it even better. >> in the unragelated sites, basically, you just have -- i mean, it's anything can go? you can have 12-year-olds on there in >> you can have 12 -year-olds on it, collusion of gamblers, people not paying you on bets, take your money, it's not even real, anything that can possibly go wrong goes wrong. >> do we have any idea approximately how many american
money is bet on those sites? >> the numbers are huge. they are $4-$6 billion a year of u.s. gambling is the estimate that we're seeing offshore. that's a lot of money that people are spending, not in the united states. maybe they shouldn't be spending it, and they are not spending it fairly. it's money that could be brought back here to help us and be done better. >> ultimately, you know, if it's unregulated, it's impossible to put them out of business. >> it's really impossible, and the problem i see is consumers here don't know where to go because if they think that what they do is illegal because they are gambling online, and they are scammed, they are afraid to call the police because they think they'll be arrested. there's consumers who have no place to go, no recourse, and law enforcement that don't know what to do and how to do it effectively. >> and, just one more question for you, too. operator fraud and theft from players, you touched on that with these companies. has any of this happened in
companies regulated in e.u. member states? do you see that or just the unregulated sites 1234 >> well, every once in awhile they violate the law, but they police them carefully, and that's the difference. people break the law, but if there's laws in place and law enforcement skilled, and the tools are there, then you can put them behind bars. >> okay. great. that's all i have. thank you for the patience, and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, and mr. hopper, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. you know, there's so many things going through my mind as we listen to the different witnesses and the input on this. you know, right now, if we have offshore online internet casinos, whatever we call them, and they receive funds illegally from u.s. citizens, do you -- do
you support -- would you support legislation that would say that those companies that are knowingly right now violating our law, they would ban them from opening up of being a part of legal u.s. internet gambling? >> i will answer for myself, but not necessarily for fair play usa because i don't know the answer, but as far as i'm concerned, if you violate the law, you should not be allowed to engage in a licensed and regulated regime in the safe way you can't open a brick casino if you're a criminal, you shouldn't be able to do this either. >> mr. stevens? >> yes, sir, we'd be supportive, absolutely. >> we're neutral on legalized gambling, so no opinion on that. >> i'll ask you personally. >> personally, do you have an opinion personally whether a person conducting technically
illegal activity offshore is now going to want to come in and be licensed to do this in the united states? >> yes, if they are breaking the law, it seems that they'd be unfit to receive license under the general gaming statutes that we have. >> thank you. >> if you violated the law, you should not be permitted to have a license. >> i also agree that if a company has been intentionally violating the law, i don't see them as a fit gambling operation here. >> all of them are violating the law as far as i can tell, so i think there's been some agreements with some of these companies to acquire, you know, back taxes and so forth that might work. >> okay. >> congressman -- >> yes, sir, senator? >> they are not really all violating the lay. that's a very real question. >> okay. >> and indeed, the, i think, the
court, the 5th circuit, indicated that the wire act -- >> sure. >> which really creates the violation, has not been violated as it relates to playing poker, but rather that wire act was intended for sports gambling, so i think there's a legal distinction. now, some are still battling that out, hasn't gone up to the supreme court, but that is the highest ruling to date. >> and certainly aware of that conflict that's there. professor, if i may ask this, and i'll just read a limit something here and then get your thiewts on it. in 2007 jeff schmidt ceo of office of security and identity products testified. he is recognized as an expert on these issues of all line of
identification and authentication. he stated, and i quote, "age verification and determination of geographic callow cations cannot be done reliably over the internet. " has technology improved to the point since 2007, and do you agree with his assertion regarding age and geolocation identification? >> that's a good question, and i'm not a good person to answer that because i have not searched age verification this internet search. i don't want to give an opinion without reading more on that. >> and i know that ms. aftab, you agree it has changed or improved, would you not? >> yes, it's changing radically and quickly, and we have devices with gps capability on them all the time so that it has changed greatly, and as i was part of the task force that said you
can't awe thept kate kids, but can adults, and that needs to be asked in the right way. >> 23 you do that, can i person still not sell their information or share that -- >> they could, but -- >> or it'd be stolen? >> they could, but if you use biometrics with it that requires that when you log in, you are awe authenticated as you, and that's verified through some regimen that has been approved and i think we can get there, and we're getting there across the board on other areas. >> if we legalize internet gambling in the united states, there will be costs associated with that, so what will prevent someone from saying, realm, you know, it costs me more to use what's the legal internet gambling here. i want to go offshore. what prevents them from doing what they are doing now? >> well, now, there's a lot of big players in the fence, so right now, everybody's outside the fence, but when you get a lot of players who know what they are doing, understand the
technology, understand the patterns of play, understand all of these things, who now have a vested stake inside, they can turn around and blow the whistle on everybody else and get the outliers because they compete unfairly. you'll have good allies. >> my time is up. i yield back. >> thank you, and dr. cassidy for five minutes. >> mr. whyte. again, as i think about as we have a subset of people, i accept what you said earlier, not to challenge, but to learn, there's a possibility of those who gamble will significantly increase their gambling. >> absolutely. we cover that in the written statement. >> now, i've learned when gam ling was introduced in louisiana, the problem gambling increased dray maltically -- dramatically as well as theft from businesses as people financed their habits, if you will. have you learned in these gurs dierkss that legalized gambling
that problem gambling increases and the incidents of theft of such increases? >> that's a great question. the jurisdictions we've looked at with to date without exception, the rate of gambling has not exploded in -- >> exploded is a suggestive term. >> exactly. what we see and to the point of your question is there are subtle increases in perhaps severity of problems, especially certain groups like young men who are heavy gamblers and adopts of internet gambling. there's at-risk groups that when gambling is made legalized and acceptable, they may shift in their patterns of gaming, start gambling, or take -- >> when you say "exploded is ob jebtive," give me a percent across all jurisdictions there's a 5% increase in all problem gambling? >> no, sir, we have not seen that. >> do you have a percent?
>> oh, i apologize. yeah, in the united states, it's gone roughly from .5% to 1% over the last 30 years. >> in problem gambling? >> it's a large percentage increase. >> my local da told me the amount of theft increased significantly, not a definite number, but after gambling was legalized, they stopped investigating it because it was so much of a problem. >> that is absolutely, 60% of gamblers commit a white collar crime to support their gambling. they may be driven to more severe crimes because they chase more and more money. >> let me ask dr. romer and mr. eggert. if my goal is to limit the amount of problem gambling, to limit the amount of the number of adolescents who enter into a lifestyle that's destructive, and allow people like mr. barton
to pursue his past time, do you think this legislation is a positive in terms of pursuing that goal or a negative? >> well, first of all, i'm not a problem gamblers expert. i'm a consumer protection exert. there's good things about internet gambling where you put in harm minimizing strategies. i don't think there's a good study out there that shows whether there's a net benefit. >> do you feel the legislation is a negative or positive for consumer protection? >> i have not seen legislation yet that has what i consider strong consumer protectionment i think if we had legislation with strong consumer protection, that could be a net positive. >> and then the fact of legalization which some folks suggest allow it to be increased consumer protection. you or not convinced of?
some folks say legalize and then coming consumer protection. >> i think that you have to build in strong consumer protection. >> professor romer? do you think the legislation in particular -- i gather from your testimony you think this legislation or some legalization would be beneficial in terms of the problem of addless sent gambling? >> i think it would if certain safeguards are in place because the interpret is a place where you can alert people, cut them off, and we can examine drsh i think the law, the bill's proposed suggest we can public the records of the gambling companies to see if they make disportional profits -- >> mr. eggerts wants to see it on the front end. do you think legislation should have that transparency built into it on the front end?
>> yeah, consumers ought to know the chances of winning on a particular site, and if it's difficult, they should know that, know the odds. >> okay. so and i don't have -- i have not read the legislation so critically, but you may not be an attorney, i hope you're not. [laughter] >> congressman, we have no problem supporting legislation that clearly calls for the kind of thing that mr. eggert suggested, and that is that there be identified what percentage does the house keep? if it's 3% on a game, 2%, whatever it is, no problem in the establishment of that. that's great consumer protection and putting it out there before they pull that slot. it's not a slot, but before they deal those cards. >> yes. i'm out of time. thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and i thank the pam very much for being here today. you have been gracious with your time and helpful and
enlightening with your answers. i look forward to working with you again as we explore the issue of internet gambling. as chairman of the subcommittee, i'll be clear about two things. first, thorough in examining a wide range of issues related to internet gambling before coming to any conclusions, and secondly, at the end of the day, we do what is best for american consumers. members have 10 days to submit questions for the report, and i ask the witnesses to respond promptly to any questions they might receive. the hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> tuesday in the british house of commons, prime minister david cameron talked about the eurozone crisis. while the u.k. is not part of the 17-member euro zone, the prime minister addressed the importance of having all e u. nation participate in the meetings. this hour long date features support for greece with a possible referendum to pull britain out of the european union. >> a statement from the prime minister. >> thank you mr., mr. speaker. with a permission, i want to make statements on libya and yesterday's european counsel. yesterday in libya after 42 years of tyranny and seven months of fighting. national transitional counsel
announced the liberation of the country. everybody would have been moved by the pictures of the joy and relief on the screens last night from tripoli libyans dare look forward faith in the knowledge that the gadhafi era is behind them. this was libya's lev luges, but britain can be proud of the role we played. the aim flout has been to fulfill the terms of the u.n. security resolution, protect civilians, and give the libyan people the chance to determine their own political future. with the death of gad, they have that chance. the house joins me in paying tribute for the role they played, over 3,000 missions flown, some 2,000 strikes sorted, one-fifth of the total strikes flown by nato. as the chief has written this morning, it's been one of the most successful operations that nato's conducted.
it's something the whole country can take pride in. to place our men and women in place of fire is never an easy one. we conduct the campaign in the right way and make sure this house was provided immediately with the summary of the legal advice authorizing the action. we held a debate and vote in parliament with the earliest opportunity, made sure decisions made properly throughout the campaign with the right people present in an orderly way, the national security counsel on libya met 68 times, formulated policy, and drove forward the campaign. we took great care in ensuring targeting decisions minimized civilian casualties, and i want to pay favor to my friend for his hard work on this issue. it's the skill of pilots that the number of civilians has been
low. the military mission is coming 20 an end, and in the next few days, nato's operation unified protecter is concluded. it's for libyans to chart their destiny, and they are ready to support them as they do so. we wrote about the lessons learned in the last seven months, and the government is conducting a rapid exercise while memories are fresh, and we'll publish the key findings. i'm weary of drawing an overarching lesson that libya offers a new temperature -- template to supply the world over. we have to weigh it on merits and think about decisions to intervene in advance. it's shown this country learned the lessons of iraq, but the lessons # of bos bosnia too when it's necessary, legal, and right to act, we should be ready to do so. mr. speaker, let me turn to yesterday's european counsel. this was about three things. sorting out the problems of the
euro zone, promoting growth, and as they develop new arrangements for governance, the interest of those outside the eurozone are protected. 24 touches on the debate later in the house today, and i'll say a word later in my statement. resolving the problems is the urgent priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the e.u. as a whole and the rest of the world economy. britain is playing a positive role proposing the three vital steps needed to deal with the crisis. the establishment of the financial fire wall big enough to contain, the credible recapitalization of european banks, and a decisive solution to the problems in greece. we push these in the latter week we coordinated in the g20 between me and the president obama last week and did so again this weekend, and we'll continue
to do so on wednesday at an extra european counsel meeting. ultimately, the way to make the whole of the e.u., including the eurozone work better is promote open markets, flexible economy, and enterprise. this is an agenda that britain promoted under successive governments and prime ministers. it's an agenda the european commission is promoting too. we have differences with the european commission, but the presentation made by the commission yesterday about economic growth was exactly what we have been pushing for, driving home the importance of the a single market in services, opening up the energy markets, scrapping the rules in bureaucracy that take so long to start a new business. both coalition parties are pushing hard for the objectives. this sounds dry, but if we want the economy moving to succeed in a competitive world, then these are the steps that are absolutely necessary. these are arguments which margaret thatcher made to drive through the single market in the first place and every prime
minister since has tried to push. if the country's of the e.u. were as productive of the united states, had the same number of women participating in the economy, as fast and flexible of new businesses, we'd have the same gdp per capita of the united states, and that's the aim to adopt. the counsel was spent on safeguards needed to protect the interestings of all 27 members of the e.u.. the counsel agreed that all matters relating to the single market must remain decisions for all 27 member states, and the european commission must "safeguard a level playing field among all member states incoming those not participating in the euro." this leads me directly to the debate we're having in the house later today. members of my party for the last election committed 20 three things -- stopping the passing of further powers to the e.u., instituting a referendum lock to
require a referendum by law of any such transfers of power from the house, and bringing back powers from brussels to west minister. all three are party policy. all three, in my view, are in the national interest, and in 17 months in government, we have already achieved two of the three. the bailout power is returned and the referendum lock is in place, and i'm committed to bringing back more power from brussels. the question tonight is whether to add to that by passing legislation in the next session of this parliament to provide for a referendum including a question on whether britain should leave the e.u. all together. let me say where i continue to believe this approach would not be right, why the timing is wrong, and how britain can no best advance the national interests in europe. first, it is not right because the narnl interest is to be in the e.u. helping to determine the rules governing the single
market. our biggest export market consuming more than 50% of our exports and drives such investments in the u.k.. this is not an abstract theoretical argument, but matters for millions of jobs and millions of families and businesses in our country. that is why prime ministers advocated our membership of the e.u.. it's not the rights time in this moment of economic crisis to launch legislation that includes an in-out referendum. when your neighbor's house is on fire, your impulse is help them put out the flames, not least to stop the flames reaching your own house. this is not the time -- this is not the time to argue about walking away, not just for their sakes, but for ours. there's a danger that by raising the prospects of referendum, we miss the real opportunity to further our national interests.
fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone, and therefore, the shape of the e.u. itself. opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. we should focus on how to make the most of this, not pursue a parliamentary process for a multiple choice referendum. as yesterday's counsel's conclusions made clear, changes to the e.u. need the agreement of all 27 member states. every country can wield the veto until its needs are met, so i share the yearning for fundamental reforms, and i am determined to deliver it. those who are supporting today's motion, but don't actualliment to leave the e.. i, i say to you this, i respected your views, we disagree about ends, not about means. i support your aims. like you, i want to see fundamental reform. like you, i want to refashion our membership of the e.u. so it
better serves our nation's interests. the time for reform is coming. that is the prize. let us not be distracted from seizing it, and i commend this statement to the house. >> [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, can i start by thanking the prime minister for his statement. on libya, can i start by joining him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the british armed forces. over the last seven months, once again, our servicemen and women have been a credit to our nation. exercising our responsibility to the libyan people and to uphold the will of the united nations. that is why i supported the government in its actions. can i commend the prime minister on the role he has played in taking the right and prince. ed decisions on this issue? there are difficult days ahead, and it's for the libyan people to determine their future, but let me say i agree with him
alongside the responsibility to protect, which we exercised, is a responsibility to help rebuild. 234 particular, to help provide the expertise that the new libya will require. let me now turn to europe. here's the opening of my remarks reflecting what prime minister said. we are clear and have been consistently that getting out of the european union is not in our national interest. cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes noceps for britain, and the overwhelming majority of british business, however unhappy they are with aspects of the e.u., know that too. what's more -- what's more, at this moment of all moments. the uncertainty that would ensue over the next two years to debate an in-out referendum is something our country cannot afford. the best answer to the concerns of the british people, about the european union, 1 to reform the
way it works, not to leave it. we should make the completion of the single market, cap reform, budget reform, and reform the e.u.. that's why we vote against the motion tonight. mr. speaker, this is the context for the european counsel the prime minister went to this weekend. growth stalled in britain since autumn. growth stalling now in europe, unemployment rising, and the threat of a new banking crisis. that is why yesterday's summit was so important. now, i listened carefully, mr. speaker, to the statement. it sounds like he now believes britain should play an active role in solving this crisis. the truth is that month after month the the prime minister and chancellor grand stand on the sidelines not to help. mr. speaker, the chancellor even refused to go to the initial meetings he was invited to on the issue. they showed no will to try and find the solution. let me ask where does the prime
minister now stand on banking? does he believe that the amount of recapitalization discussed is sufficient to ensure financial state across the banking system? particularly in the right of the imf larger similar estimates of capital requirements? on greece, does he believe the lessons of previously announced greece bailouts are learned to provide a sustainable solution? on growth, does he now understand that europe won't get to grips with its debt problems until it gets to grips with a crisis of growth and the immediate lack of demand in the european economy? now, mr. speaker, i suppose we should be pleased that the government has moved from the chancellor being empty chaired in the meeting to the prime minister at least wanting to get into the meeting, but i have to say to him, you have to do better than yesterday because he was surprisingly coy about his one real achievement at this summit. that in a few short hours, he managed to write the euroowe
version of how to lose friends and alienate people. he went into the summit lecturing the german. he came out of it being shouted out by the french. apparently, apparently -- apparently -- apparently the president, in the recently his new best friend had enough of the postering, the heck toring, the know it all ways. mr. president, let me say yesterday owe spowk not just for france, but for britain as well. you know -- [laughter] you know, the prime minister was in brussels, but his mind was elsewhere. the party in europe suffering another nervous break down. pps's threatening to resign. mr. speaker, it's not just the
roses on a come back tour, because the right honorable member working him is back amongst us touring the television studios. mr. speaker, all of the prime minister's present difficulties are of his own making because what did he say in 2006? instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we were banging on about europe, but mr. speaker, he is spent the last five years that he may not be hanging on to europe, but deep down, he's really one of them, and he was warned that he might start by dabbling with euro's skepticism, but it's a slippery slope, and that's what happened. now, does the prime minister regret getting out of the european people's party in favor of the right wing fringe? well, when he says no, i don't know if he's aware there's a dinner of the epp leaders saturday night. the germman chancellor was
there, the french president was there, the president of the commission was there, mainstream center right europe. the prime minister not invited, and he's the person, and he's the person who kept telling us he was a euro skeptic who at the election promised renegotiations of the term of britain's membership of the e.u.. his party is paying the price because they believe what he told them, and the country is paying the price because we are losing influence. mr. speaker, yesterday, the prime minister was out there again, and we heard it today. locked in a room with his back benches, what do we see? the resurrection of the old classic to get out of the social chapter and withdrawal employment rights. mr. speaker, the coalition agreement is clear. that option is off the table. the deputy officer is nodding. that option, that option,ed third option in the prime minister's statement is off the table, and the foreign secretary confirmed it this morning.
at the december summit that the prime minister answered the question, what position is is he going to take for renegotiation or against? the agreement says that option is off the table. he said in a statement he's on the table. the position is totally unclear. mr. speaker, this goes to the heart of this prime minister's ability to fight in europe on behalf of this country. like his predecessors, he's caught between a party interest and the national interest. we see the rerun of the old movie, and out of touch party tearing itself apart over europe, and all the time, the british people are left to worry about their jobs and livelihoods. mr. speaker, the prime minister should stop negotiating and fight for the national interests. >> the prime minister -- >> first of all, thank you for the kind words on libya, and i agree with him as well as the responsibility to protect, we have a responsibility to rebuild, and we'll do that.
in terms of what he said on europe, well, it started well with praise for the importance of completing the single markets, something he's in favor of. something i'm in favor of. he didn't tell us all his views op europe because he didn't say yesterday he was asked repeatedly if labour would join the euro, and the answer was instructed. it was, it depends how long i'm prime minister for. [laughter] i'm not -- i'm not sure -- which prospect is more terrifying. he accused -- he accused this government of not going to meetings in europe. we have been going to meetings in europe to get out of the bailout mechanisms that they put us into. he asked what we're doing to make sure the bank recapitalization is credible, my right honorable friend, the clans lore, was in a meeting for ten hours saturday ensuring that would happen, and it would not
have happened without his intervention. in greece, we want decisive action. we are sure about that. he then said a thing about the french president saying he thought the french president speaks for britain. it is actually -- that's what he said. that is what he said. i have to say, mr. speaker, it is difficult -- it's difficult from opposition to sell out your country, but he's just done it. i then struggled -- i then struggled to -- i struggled to look for a question -- i struggled to look for a question to answer. there were not many questions. he talked about the importance of global leadership. let me just remind him one of the absolute keys is going to be the role of the imf, and let's remember, he led his back benches and all of his front benches through the division lobby to vote against the imf deal that his own former prime minister gorgeted in london. that's a complete absence of leadership like so much we see from the honorable gentleman.
>> i'm keen to accommodate them, but i remind the house we have a very hsm subscribed debate to take place after wards, therefore brevity from front and back bench is of the essence. >> i agree with the prime minister's views on the debates this afternoon, but drawing attention to the actual terms of the motion and the third option to renegotiate membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and corporations. is that not purely the situation of norway and switzerland and incompatible with the worship of the e.u. and anyone interested in renegotiation will enable us to stay within the e.u. oppose this motion? >> well, i think the vital interest for the u.k. is belonging to the single market, not just being able to trade in that single market, but having a seat at the table where you can negotiate the rules of that single market, which, of course, countries like norway are not able to do. i think one of the other problems with the motion, i completely understand the
frustrations that many of my colleagues have about europe. one of the problems is this -- if you have a three-way choice, you could find that 34% of the country voting to get out of the european union would be enough to deliver that, or, indeed, 34% to vote for the status quo which many of us think is unacceptable would be enough. i think we tried the al alternative votes and a clear decision was made. >> mike gates 1234 >> how would the prime minister characterize his relations with -- [inaudible] >> if you have good relations with someone, you can have frank discussions with them, and i can tell you exactly what happened at the european counsel yesterday on the issue of libya. britain and france worked together probably more closely than we work together any time in the last 40 years, and on defense cooperation, we'll continue to do that. i don't resile for the needs sometimes to speak clearly and frankly on behaver of britain
and stand up fnt brit euro zone national interest if it's in our interest they deal with their problems, and it's right we make that clear. >> [inaudible] >> my friend deserves credit for the determination and leadership which he showed in relation to libya. doesn't he understand my views and mine on europe are hardly io dement call, but at the very least, can we not agree that opposing president abroad and opposing the discussions here at home, he's clearly acting in the national interest? >> well, i am very grateful for that complement. he's right to make the point. this is a coalition. there's not complete agreement on european policy between the parties of the coalition, but the coalition came together in the national interest, and he's acting in the national interest, and it is right to oppose this motion tonight on the grounds he
put it forward. >> mr. speaker, i think it is a shame that we only spent 10 minutes on libya, the european counsel, and the motion. the reflection i hope the prime minister hopes he should have paid more attention to. you suggested that even if all the debts we were paid, we'd still have a problem. how do you think greece will retain competitiveness? >> well, first of all, i have given more statements on european counsels over the last 16 months than many prime ministers, and i'm always committed 20 come back and report to the house. the point the honorable lady makes is absolutely right. greece is just the most glaring problem that the euro zone has to deal with that has to be dealt with decisively, backed by a fire wall, needs to be backed by the capitalization of the banks, but the problem is the issue of competitiveness, and the very large current imbalances building up in some of the member states, particularly those in the south, and as a result, what needs to
happen above all as i said in the statement is actually a advance in competitiveness, in trade and completing a single market that hopes all the economies in the longer term. >> sir william cash. >> the prime minister has made it clear that he advocates fiscal union within the eurozone. he advocates it. can he explain to the house how it is that fiscal union of that kind is not fundamental change in our relationship with the european union, and when it is established, the constitutional position is clear that where there's fundamental change, there must be a referendum. how can he square that circle. let me be clear to the gentleman. i think fundmental changes are coming in europe in the year zone. to start with, that could lead to pressures were change, and that presents opportunities for britain, and we should respond to them. the question for the house tonight is in responding to the opportunities, is it right to go
off down the path of having a referendum including an in-out option as there's big opportunities for britain as eurozone as the e.u. is changing. >> [inaudible] >> i want to congratrate with others and the prime minister on libya, but there's other countries like yes , ma'am plen that need to be focused upon. the lisbon agenda set benchmarks for economic growth replaced by the 20-20 strategy. will the targets be achieved? >> first of all, he's right on yemen, and we are spending an increasing amount of time in the international security counsel examining how to best help that country to achieve not only a transition towards greater democracy and freedom, but also to help to tackle the real security concerns we have in yemen. in terms of -- he's right -- there's been the lisbon process, the 20-20 process, the problem is that although the agenda is
pushed forward, in too many cases, targets and measures are not met. what i would say after 16 or 17 months of going to the counsel meet, i do see in the european commission that a change of heart, not least because everyone recognizes the priority in europe now is growth, so the commission has to stop adding expensive regulations to business and has to start deregulating, exactly the agenda we put forward. >> [inaudible] >> will the prime minister agree there is not just in libya, but in egypt, real opportunity for reconstruction and a transition to democracy. to what extent is this done on a bilateral basis or in conjunction with our partners through the european exterm action? >> the first thing that we have done is to help to change the european neighborhood policy to make sure it's much more engaged with libya, tiew tunisia, egypt,
and there's conditions put in so there's progress towards rights and democracy in the countries we help. in addition to that, there's a significant bilateral program because one of the absolute essentials is helping with the billing blocks of democracy and develop political parties and understand the importance of civic society, and that's something we can help with. >> may i join in pay tribrat to the bravery of our servicemen and women over libya, the work of nato, and commend the prime minister on his leadership on the issue of libya. i'm afraid on europe, the same can want be said, and the people today in briton today ask why has he firmly decided to go against the settled will of the british people for a ref referendum on the issue of europe? >> well, first of all, thank you for what you say about libya, and i think as i said, the country should be proud of what the armed service personnel have
done. in the position of europe and referendum, i'm clear what parliament should do about a referendum. we don't come to give away powers that belong to the people and not to us. it's wrong we didn't have a referendum on other treaties, so the absolutely clear view i have is what when it comes to this parliament proposing to give up powers, that's when there should be a referendum. that's the guarantee written into the law of the land. >> mr. phillip davis? >> thank you, mr. speaker. our prosperity lies with china, india, south america, and economies in africa, not being part of the back ward inward faces preace racket which is what the e.u. is propping up. given the prime minister's objective is about timing, can he give us a timetable of us getting power back from the european union? >> first of all, where i have some disagreement with my
honorable friend is, of course, we want to export more to china, india, brazil, russia, turkey, the fast growing countries of the future. we want to do that. we have to recognize that today 50% of our trade is with european union countries, so it's in our interest not just to keep the markets open and have a say about the regulation of those markets, but to further open them up, and that's what we should be pushing in the european union and what we are pushing. as i say, there's a case for referendum if ever this parliament proposes giving away more powers, otherwise, it's clear what the country wants us to do, and that is to stay in the european union, but to retrieve some powers and to make sure we have a better relationship with europe. that is the commitment that we have. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. mr. speaker, the prime minister must recognize when talking about greece, italy, spain, portugal, ireland, its only growth making a difference to the financial crisis -- why does
he not advocate those policies ever growth within the half of the debate? in that way, give a lead to the british people about why europe's so important? >> well, we have been doing exactly that, but what i say to him is i think one of the reasons why some of these countries have got into these difficulties is not just the shortage of growth and competitiveness, although that's been key, but also building up very large budget deficits as the lessons across europe that you have to cut the clothe according to what you can afford, a lesson we are tragically learning in this country too. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents were pleased and heartened to see the prime minister standing up to the french, and -- and when it comes to the national interest, is it not the key points that we need action on budget, action on getting us out of the bailout fund, not sailing down the river, selling out the euro and the rebate we
used to have? >> i think my honorable friend makes the point that what the british peoplemented to do with respect to europe is the sense of getting dragged into further bailouts. that's why in the treaty change come forward, that's the price we exacted to get out of the e.u. bailout fund by 2013 so we return that power, 23 you like, to the u.k.. we should be taking action on european budget, and we secured agreement with the large countries in europe for a real term freeze this year. those priorities, plus the referendum law is what we delivered in this government already. ..
to the taxpayer going forward and if his honorable friend hadn't negotiated to get written out of the bailout mechanism? >> the point i would make is we were exposed by the last government because of the existence. what we have secured is that while we are still at risk between now and 2013 we've ended it from 2013. that is an achievement. we also stayed out of the second greek bailout. these things have saved real money and that's important to understand the government has been focused on delivering
something concrete and important for the british people at this time. >> the implementation security council resolution 1973 and who as the foreign secretary refused to meet ghadaffi to accept blood money for the family of w. fletcher. may i state my discussed and revulsion with murder and the nature of the killing of ghadaffi and ask him to emphasize the council that the future democracy in libya lies and reconciliation, not revenge? >> i think he makes an important point and i can announce the chairman, the leader of the national transitional council has announced today there will be an inquiry into the circumstances of the colonel's
death. clearly we wanted him to face justice that is what should have happened in its imports and the sangree goes ahead but i don't stand back for one side and from what i said in my statement that because the era is over because he is gone that does give the people who genuinely feared as long as there was a prospect of him coming back that there was a difficulty in building the future they can now get on with the future. spinks before mr. speaker welcome the prime minister's leadership on libya and its inspiration is a success only for the libyan people but also that the international community can act together to implement a responsibility to protect. will the prime minister agree we must exercise caution and intervention must be used sparingly in cases to meet the criteria such as the human life being a proportionate response and clear support for action internationally, regionally and within the country? >> i very much agree with my friend the way she puts the
question. i would add something important which is you should only intervene if you believe you are capable of doing so and can actually bring back the effect unique and i think there's a very important issue not just seeing what is as i put legal and necessary but also what you can do to use to make the prime minister must know of the division between the public and politicians. does he not have any concern at all what is happening at 10:00 tonight all three party leaders are putting their back on the decision that wasn't even binding it was talking about a referendum in the future, legislation in 2013. does that mean once again the public will say when 75% this parliament is not listening? >> i think the honorable lady asks a very important question. i absolutely believe it's right
to have public petitions in the way we now do and it's right to have the time given over to the mention its this government that brought that reform about but i would just say the issue of europe isn't a one side issue with this and a important issue for political parties and the government to make their views known and i don't accept this idea so that an honor thursday and hope that it will go unnoticed. this is an important issue i believe in the importance of parliament. i don't believe you can believe in a sovereign parliament on the one hand that says some of it is votes and some decisions don't matter. i think that is consistent. >> the prime minister tells today that if there is any change to shore up the year ago we would use that to get power over employment and social policy. on the 25th of march the treaty change didn't ask for anything
in return. >> i have to take issue with my honorable friend. the limited treaty change that is about to be debated on the house of commons and i hope to be the house of commons is out of the bailout mechanism that the last government got us into i thought i was the most important price we could except for that change. the point i made yesterday and will meet again today i do believe it's true to place in the european union and in the year autozone and to maximize the national interest that is something we should be talking about and debating both as a party and within the coalition and the house of commons as a whole. i don't think we will further that by having a referendum that includes the adoption as i say walking away from the burning house when should we be dealing with that issuant talking about the future. >> the assessment of the prime
minister the consequences of the crisis at the export economic growth. >> as i said yesterday the heroes on crisis has had a chilling effect will only on the year goes on the economy with our own economy as well and also the american economy and elsewhere in the world it is a huge market for the world's goods and clearly there has been a slowdown partly because of the lack confidence there is in the year ozone and also we have to be clear if we were to see a breakup of the year autozone of a very severe consequences for neighboring countries and severe consequences for neighboring banks that's why i think it's important that we work with the partners to try to sort this issue out. can i join none of the lead to others in commending the considerable credits to support
does he understand our in society so many parties have been promised a referendum again and again and again at is clearly something the british people want to have a say over the future relationship with the european union it is ironic the house of commons is devoted against what they want. estimate by thank the founder for his remarks which i will tie it to keep constructive. i completely understand people's frustrations because they were promised a referendum on the lisbon treaty and they didn't get that referendum because it was put in place by the last government and it isn't possible to hold the referendum but like the answer to the frustration in the country about not having a referendum about the last state is not to offer a referendum on the next idea. the most important is to deliver what people want which is to make for sure we get the best of the european union and where there are opportunities we take
those opportunities. that is the focus we should have >> the prime minister rightly said that the 27 nations states will decide on the single market is not told the house the president of the council has been elected president of the 17 nation states within the year autozone with france on one shoulder and germany on the other. the president would say prior to any summit meetings and inform the results to read that to be informed as to be consulted. >> i think the gentleman makes an important point which is as the year goes on comes together and the government's arrangements to change it's very important those countries that are not in the year rose own and in our case don't want to join a have their interests protected and that is why in the council conclusions ai secure specific language making sure there's a level playing field and countries outside of the
eurozone are protected. you're right this is a journey. the eurozone is on one journey where they seek closer collaboration and cooperation and outside bigger autozone i believe they will be looking for further protection to make sure that some of the national interests, things like financial services are properly protected and not put at risk of what is happening in the eurozone. >> to deliver at the joy of the victory to despair. how we're going to destabilize. >> we work closely with the stabilization reconstruction plan for libya. a lot of work has gone into that. i have to say i'm optimistic on this basis it and we've seen with a national transitional council that it is genuinely national bringing the country together and not wanting to see
a division between been gauzy and tripoli. the clock is now checking for them to set up a transitional government within 30 days and everything i've seen in the libyan leadership shows the ought to get on with rebuilding the country and because of that wealth in the sovereign welfare funds they have the means by which to do it. >> in the prime minister's statement the economy could be as productive as the u.s. if we have the same portion of women in the work force. but with unemployment around 2 million in the united kingdom been higher than any point since 1988 could the prime minister tell us three things he has done to increase the proportion of women in the work force? >> we've increased the allure is available. 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds and 2-year-olds. that's what we've done. islamic whether the president of
switzerland and the prime minister or on the table or giving with his friend or unsuspected answer is no because their relationship is very different to hours absolutely right they are not in the e.u. and that is why the option is seen in this motion is actually completely the wrong option for a country. >> a part of the national interest when it comes to the european union is not only access to that single market but to make sure that we are sitting around the table of the market determining the rules that the exporters have to follow is the national interest and we must lose that. >> which situation does the prime minister hope we will a right at first? that the eurozone can pass a break without teetering on it or that the skeptics will pass a top?
>> that obviously took a long time to construct that one. what i believe will happen is i believe the year rose own countries are coming together, they are seeing the need for a big and bold solution that needs to happen that will solve the problem because there are still major stresses and strains that need to be dealt with in the long term but i believe that will happen over the course of this week and in terms of this house of commons it's up to the house of commons how it votes tonight but i'm very clear our interest is to be in the european union but seek the national advantage and interest at all times. >> mark pritchard. >> can i congratulate the prime minister on his leadership in libya. [laughter] what part of the siskel union he believes could trigger the act of 2011? >> the key point about the european acted that we've put in
place, the referendum locke is that in the passage of power from britain to brussels results in a referendum. that is the key thing that we've delivered which means never again can you have a situation like lisbon where you have a treaty passed through this house to somewhere else without asking the british people first. we've lost the ability to make a significant change. that is the key thing of the referendum delivers and i think everyone on this side of the house can be very proud of it. >> calling on on that question, just a few minutes ago, this house spent 42 and a half hours debating the bill on the basis of the e.u. enact it allows the referendum. is there any chance in the future not all of the referendum on the e.u.? >> if a government proposes passing power from this house to brussels, it should ask the british people first.
that is a simple principle that we put into the law. i think it's a very important that we try to establish the rules for the use of referendums in the parliamentary democracy and i believe that the rule one is if you are giving up the power that belongs to the british people you should ask them first. >> i would like to commend the prime minister not least because it would reassure the thousands of constituents who work for the european companies or the european headquarters are based but i would ask him to reassure me things my constituents don't like about europe which is comfortable, the bureaucracy grows over spending and too much regulation would be dealt with to the best of its ability during the course of the government. >> i can absolutely give that assurance. if he looks at what we have achieved in a relatively short time, getting out of the bailout, the agreement among the big countries in the european budget this year and getting the european commission to focus on the deregulation rather than
regulation are all important points. but i would agree with his first point. one of the reasons why a lot of companies invest in britain is not just because the economic strength and labor markets and all the rest of it. it's also because of the access to the world's biggest single market. that is important for investment by american, japanese and other firms creating the jobs and wealth that we need. >> thank you mr. speaker. with some saying the banks who hold a sovereign debt have to look at 25 to 60%. could the prime minister follow what he means by if the financial can continue and can this be solved in europe? >> there are two issues if we are going to see the resolution of the greek situation you need the recapitalization of the year up so they have sufficient capital to withstand the losses
that would otherwise affect them coming and what has been absolutely crucial is the credible stress tests. there have been round after round where they haven't been a robust and credible enough. i believe that has now been secured of my honorable friend. the second thing you need, the fire wall, what i call the big bazooka the point of the chancellor referred to the other day is to make sure that you've got a mechanism big enough to help stop the contagion to other countries. there will be discussions within the year goes on and outside about how big it needs to be. but the answer is bigger than it is currently proposed and the need to keep working on it. still experimenting. >> -- the possibility that there will need to be changes in the next few months. will the prime minister assure me that he will use that opportunity to make sure we get rid of ridiculous paving growth and job creation in the country?
>> i agree with the approach we should use these opportunities as the european union changes and the year rose known to maximize the national advantage. we have to be we don't yet know how much of the change will be proposed by the germans and others, how extensive it will be. we have to look carefully at that to see what is right for in the response. but i can say is so far in the government there has been one a treaty change proposed and have an important price which was to get us out of the bailout was a clear and present danger to the united kingdom telling them -- >> the tragedy is as a leader of the proposition we underestimated the crisis and as a result of that what is the next going to be for the postponement of the referendum?
>> i haven't for one minute underestimated the scale of the crisis that we face in europe and across the world economy. there are crisis that has been made worse by the overspending that took place under the government of which he was a member. estimate the prime minister confirms the last general election the conservative manifesto committed ourselves to seeking through the term power from europe on economic and social policy. but nowhere within the manifesto was there a commitment to seek the memorandum and now we're in the manifesto was there to renegotiate the terms of the amendment to the european union. spec he makes an important and we did have a manifesto to seek the important powers from the european union like the social and employment legislation. i remain, we are in a collision, i remain committed to achieving that. it's in the british national
interest to achieve that but he makes an important point which it wasn't part of our manifesto, wasn't part of the policy to seek a referendum that included in the adoption. i completely respect there are members not just on this side of the hospital the labor side of the house as well who have long wanted in the referendum not least because some of them would like to get out of the european union altogether but that is not our policy and that is the reason why we are having this debate on monday on the proper motion in the proper way because it is not some slight issue, it's an important issue yet as i said before, i believe in the sovereignty of parliament to read to me all the decisions by parliament member and the idea that we could squeak this off to a sort of debate on thursday and no one would notice is wrong. with parliament decides matters and that is why the government is taking the notion seriously. >> he explained the difficulty is that it has and also explains
the desire to get back to working and in avoiding a the infrastructure project as soon as possible and here's how we are going to vote and make sure that happens. >> i completely understand why he raises this issue. it's important to that business and frankly it's important for british investment into libya. i can tell him that steven green has already held a libyan investment conference and already has plans to travel to libya and i recommend that he contact the minister and make sure that happens so that we can help with the important work they do. >> thank you, mr. speaker. to the context of the last few days say that they've lost their trust in politics because of the last government refusing to give a referendum on the -- what message to my friend give me
that i can take back to the constituents? >> we understand the concern but because the last government failed to give a referendum on the treaty doesn't mean that we should vote tonight on the referendum for in the adoption that wasn't in any of our manifesto. the reassurance i would give to his constituents is things people care about most in europe, constraining the european budget, getting out of the bailout fund, cutting the unnecessary regulation, the government is doing all of those things and there will be more to come. >> a year the prime minister correctly when he says he believed there should have been a referendum on the matrix treaty and the foreign secretary's opposition to that can he say when he changed his mind? >> i've always felt that our bill was cleared under our bill any of those would have to referred to beat richard the referendum. i hope that labor will commit -- i hope labour will commit to the legislation so that it will mean
if any government tries to give away power from this house to have to ask the british public first. >> has the prime minister noted will this government ruled out joining the euro it is the continued policy of the opportunity of meeting its? >> it was interesting in the series of interviews over the weekend by the leader of the opposition and as well as saying if he was a minister for long enough he would get us back into the hero again he was asked whether brussels had gotten too much power. no i don't think brussels has gotten too much power. that is the addition of the labor party. wrong about the euro, wrong about brussels and about britain and about everything >> i should run minister's optimism and i would pay tribute to the rule of the forces to play in that process even a
balanced currency such as eurozone delete the ghadaffi and does he share my view there is the need to reestablish the rules law and proper democracy in that country? that is not what should happen. it should have ended in a trial and in ghadaffi fees' injustice and as i said earlier the chairman has announced the will be unclear and i think it's important though the libyans keep this. the lesson from libya which could be applied to your gup is what message is not what you what to do but how you do it with who and when.
>> i didn't say that there are no lessons to learn. i think there are lessons to learn. the government is carrying out the lessons learned process and we will be announcing the results in that to get the point he makes about what you are able to do and how you build alliances to do what you want to do absolutely by this case. you can read this across to every single the proposed intervention you can. >> the prime minister's position for the substantial changes to the lisbon treaty requiring the referendum he promised the british people.
for the moving powers from this house of commons to brussels there is a referendum guaranty. that is absolutely vital that people understand that. that is the promise that we make. we don't yet know whether the treaty change will be proposed. we don't know what it will consist of and how big it will be. the pledge your i can make is we will use that opportunity to further the national interest, something that didn't happen under the years of the labor government. >> the fiscal policy coordination within the eurozone marks to different degrees of political integration among the member states. does the prime minister consider that unlike the recent referendum in the other countries this development alongside the passage of the act this year the british public a more meaningful resource than ever before on the changes as a result of the treaty changes and their impact on our own country. >> i think my friend is absolutely right. that is the assurance that people seek that you shouldn't
change the rules of the game. you shouldn't give away powers that are not yours to give away and the people should have a block on that. that is what we've put into place. certainly no government i think should rule out forever putting questions in a referendum after all this government have a referendum on the alternative vote. that's not why saying. i am saying the bedrock on the views of the parliamentary democracy is you shouldn't give them away from the parliament without asking people first. >> thank you mr. speaker. tonight's vote with the rebellion apparently looming can the prime minister tell us what advice he has taken from john major? >> plenty of advice because he is to work for him. that appears or not. my advice would believe it off probably. [laughter] >> thank you. >> with large and sycophant the important supply change stringing across europe with
five under million does the prime minister agree with me across this country we need to see the further strengthen the capacity of the single market to deliver more trade? >> my honorable point to the to member makes an important point because the years after the single market was started we still haven't completed the single market services and in this country the service is one of our strongest industries and is the countries like germany that haven't yet completed the symbol market. the people that have borrowed the agenda of completing the single market service liberalizing the energy markets deregulating in europe but if we want to raise the growth rate in europe and in our game in europe it is squarely in our british national interest to the estimate i want to congratulate my friend on the leadership of the situation when there were doubts that it was unequivocally wrong can you assure me he will continue to work with the president and others on the u.n. security council to address the situation in syria?
>> i can assure you whenever the disagreements on the economic policy, and by and large were united on it. we will work very closely together on the foreign affairs and defense issues but there is a coming together of the french and british national interest as i said earlier where we do we shouldn't be frightened as good friends of airing the that and discussing. >> if china does not meet its economic goals. speaking today at johns hopkins school of international studies, mr. paulson noted china is not immune to the debt crisis saying that its leaders should pay attention in order to avoid the same fate. >> what's happening in europe is the second morning bill and its many years. it's too big of an economy and
still too dependent on exports to ignore what is happening in the markets of the demand of the growth for so long. frankly it should make financial reform more, not less urgent for china. china has been able to wall off its financial system in the past during the asian financial system in the past and again more recently. but can a 6 trillion-dollar chinese economy deeply integrated into the global system remain forever immune to what is happening in the 30 trillion-dollar economies of europe or the united states? it cannot.
president obama unveiled a new program is ready to help homeowners and senator john e. isaacs and co-sponsored two bills to help homeowners with their mortgage payments to it next the georgia republican speaks to a group at a housing conference in d.c.. he cited unemployment as the main reason behind foreclosure and criticized the government for the over regulation. this is 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much for the generous introduction. by the way, i have to thank both
sponsoring this and i would commend all of you to go to the website. one of the things i do mine invited to speak somewhere is a check out who the group is, and i wasn't familiar with a.r.m.. b21 to read you what you all to be looked at it. that's a good one. i want to commend the previous panel. i couldn't disagree with things said. the experts in the field that know what they're talking about the crisis in america is going to be long if we don't get a national housing policy. i'm going to try to talk about some of the specific things i would do in the short run, but also talk about some of the impacts in the long run on housing in the united states of america. first and foremost if you don't remember anything i said in the speech remember this, the solution to the current housing crisis is called jobs. until we get jobs back in this country, we are going to have a low-level intensity in the housing market, the longest we've my point to in my state, 10.4 unemployment you're going to have housing values declining
and foreclosures and lots of problems. interestingly enough, one of the solutions to reducing the unemployment level was getting construction back. in a land of georgia where you have 10.4% unemployment in a big contributor to that little was because the construction stopped in the single-family housing and for all intensive purposes in the private sector only construction we have going on right now is the midfield airport which is a government job to be needed private sector beckett began creating those jobs and when that house and the housing market will come back but there are some things we can do on the short run but i would do and i going to take these off quickly and then i want to get to the bigger picture in just a second to reply was sorry we didn't extend the limits two weeks ago we left washington i thought there would be important to have stability and a predicted that the financing in the country there was a mistake. we did extend flood insurance but was a mistake only through to november 18th. the program ought to have a degree of longevity or if it needs to be replaced we ought to have the political courage to replace it in a way that it can count on.
keillor and was discussed by the panel and sheila bair has since become in the last 18 months and i really don't blame her but i've taken as a personal crusade they saw the 5% risk retention in the way that was being drawn was fraught with problems in the housing industry. so we wrote the qrm language will discover the panelists to crawled with a real loan that was well underwritten was it should be exit from the risk retention. we only went back to what we did this country from 1950 to 2006 before we got a little crazy on the lending we have it verified by this third-party required their income ratio to be substantial in terms of being able to reduce the debt and a fifth down payment less than 20% toward the the credit enhancement to protect the down payment level which was under arrest. but somehow the six regulators came together and decided it wasn't 20% down by the bar or it
wasn't going to be a qrm for the risk retention to read that is a dangerous role if it ever goes into effect. would probably impact at a minimum 40% of the housing market i think more like 60% of the housing market. i live with 90 come 95% as a realtor in my lifetime and to give you a little background i went into the business in 1968 and that was my first recession. i'm glad i started in the recession because it made me appreciate better. 90 per cent loans for a product of the 1968 housing slump piggyback loans or the savings a 70% first mortgage and a 15% piggyback with a quarter% differential and that became the loan. a 2% discount on the full amount of the 90% loan for the bmi the performing perform well because they were underwritten by the bar was, by the lenders, not one. in the 1980's or later on in the 1970's, 95% financing can along
and had stripped difficulties in terms of requirements and the benefit of the 5% down and they performed well we got into the sub primm financing priced at a premium of the combat borrowers and security and sold it around the world to get into the debt problems. the housing slump is not a problem of downpayment it's a problem of underwriting. they've gotten the loose reduce underwriting that destroyed the housing market and we now have a pendulum swing back so far that the underwriting standards is almost impossible to meet the average american home buyer and the long term in hat on our country is going to be devastating. i've told a number of audiences and i will tell you that in my 33 years of the real-estate business it was generally accepted the average family of five houses during their lifetime. a move of house, statement house, second home and the last house. in my judgment because of the draconian effect of the financing today that is being applied because of the flight in
the marketplace for owning a home that was under water in terms of the long-term value to the average american family right now was removed to of those purchases from their plans the family and the next 50 years boys to this house than the average family in the last 50 years that's authority% reduction in the demand for housing in the united states of america. housing is the key to the economic prosperity in the poor housing market is the key to what we have today. that is a protracted recession. there are some things that have been proposed in washington that would help and some have been talked about today i was pleased to join barbara boxer from california and that is the odd couple if you ever had one. [laughter] senator georgia and senator boxer we're great friends and she had a great idea. she came to me and i was glad to be part of it in terms of the program. if you have an underwater bar were who is performing the your time the in their payments but they are under water. if it is a gse sponsored loan
with them refine into the current rates without the payment adjustment or fees on the closing. it only makes sense of the panelists deutsch. the obligation is already there. you've got the debt on the books to read why not give them a chance to get out and perform rather than to cite to be the foreclosure which i absolutely a port. it's going on more and more and is making things worse and worse. so number one that is something that we can do. number two, we have got to understand the you've got to give more flexibility for people within the law to use their own money in whatever way possible to reduce their indebtedness and give their realistic back to some degree of the common sense. one of them is a bill that in the house and i sponsored. it's a bold allows you to withdraw up to 50000.50% of your 401k balance which ever is left and apply to your home mortgages a primary residence and first mortgage allowing people to recover in some ways they're under water and if they had difficulty of making those payments because keeping people in the house they are in
particularly those people that are performing is going to be essential in helping that plateau we begin to build in terms of some value. we also need to be sure, and i think that richard smith said this when i was walking in the room and i commend precisely what he said you've got the investor is there in the market place to observe the inventory. we need to do everything we can to promote absorption because the best, the house is vacant goes to depreciate half% each month and at times it is an accelerated amount. we get a good investor behind the house and putting a good tenant in that house that helps the economy stabilize the housing values and helps that neighborhood and that is where we need to be creative. i want to talk about the long run for just a second. i wasn't around in the depression but i've read a lot about it because i think we are as close to one as i've ever seen. housing is particularly about the same shape it was at that time and in the 1920's you could borrow 50% of the value of the house and debated at on a 20 year amortization with the five-year bull let that was
basic financing and that went away with the housing market dropped in the depression that can that decreed mechanisms for people to buy houses and and one of them is known as the fha and it served as well for a century. we've developed private capital going into boreman on the housing called the savings and loan association and the government the snl on the deposit of 40% of the deposits for $10,000 or less and they are for the people to their long-term savings and that is the capitol base because the only place they could put their money is the first mortgage real estate loans. unfortunately the government took away the quarter% preference on the deposit and the banks went after the money and all the sudden the savings and loan had to go into the creative ways to stay in business and form the service corporations and got into the development and the ultimately collapsed. we can get the housing market after the 1990, '91 recession because the gse kimmage problem,
securitization became the capitol of the basis for the financing mortgage and served the country well until we got into the loose goose underwriting and the standard and poor's and fitch which never made the investment to start with and we have a collapse fallen on itself in the domino. getting rid of the bad parts of fannie and freddie as much as anybody else but let me tell you something. for the long-term future of the country if it is not a mechanism of the finance single-family residence we are going to have a dramatically that impact on the country for a long period of time. we are going to have to be creative and politicians are going to have to the honorable. and the public is going to have to be creative and a mechanism to have the backstop for the single-family residential mortgages. the fha cannot stand the pressure is on today. because it is exempt from all of the dodd-frank rules and because there isn't a down payment requirement of more than less than three half% you have to put 3.5% down everybody is going to the fha.
they've gone from 2% of the market 15 years ago to 40 or more per cent of the market today and can't stand the pressure. we have to create a way in the conventional financing on government insurance financing but miti government-backed financing so that market place to come back into the 95, might become a 80% level or whatever loan to the value they have as long as its minimum 5% down payment. we took all the agencies that deal with the fha cassini, friday, roll them all together and get the consolidation in the economies of scale and have the government entity that is a single one stop shop for backing for secure rising or insuring loans that's one. second you can take the declining balance sinking fund where you actually charge fees as was said by the early panelists and return to the government sponsorship you let those build up in a sinking fund and build up the cash reserves to back of the insurance overtime the insurance on the paper dissipates at 10% a year
down to zero and after ten years you have the sinking fund large enough to and absorbed the shock waves for the decline in the marketplace that didn't exist in the last time we had the implied guarantee of the government which was the burden of the government really needed to find accretive refer that not to happen again but we have to bridge our way from where we are, where that is that we have to be creative and giving it. my remarks today are very simple. we need to do in the short run what we can to keep people in the house is that they are in particularly those that are performing in their payments, servicing their loans but they are under water and i think that the part of the program i think the 401k program goes far too good ways to do that. second, we need to get this overhang of what is the qrm going to be like over with. i have heard that the regulators are thinking about waiting until after the 2012 election to finally published a qrm rule. that tells me they are waiting until the political pressure is over to pass the rule they are trying to pass right now. if they do you are going to have
another housing conference in 2013 about the subject we are talking out today because the housing market cannot stand the qrm rule as it is written and it is time for the administration and the regulators to understand the government's job is to mitigate risk but you cannot eliminate risks that if you eliminate risky late capitalism and private investment into a the rules are being written so strictly that the private sector is going to go to other forms of making money and get out of the realistic business for the financing business which would be a disaster for this country because home ownership has always been an american dream and single-family residence has been what every body shop for and was the best investment you could ever make until we did a bad job of underwriting loans for about five years and cost ourselves a dramatic decline in terms of the value of american housing. we need a national housing policy, republicans and democrats to recognize the solution to our unemployment problem as the housing and construction today. the way you solve the consumer
confidence problem in this country, which is dramatic is by having people with equity in their home and confidence they will live there and raise their children and be happy. it's the american dream but it's also the underwriting and a burden of the american economy and foundation of the future of the country. this meeting today called by the private sector is the type of meeting the ought to be going on in pennsylvania avenue and the capitol of the united states of america. there is no single greater problem than the uncertainty in the housing and there is no single better solution for housing in the future than to give a certainty of what is going to be there so that we know the market knows what to do, capital flow in the united states housing market over time and is going to take a while probably five to seven years but the recovery has to begin somewhere and begins with stability and regulation, dealing with our problems, missing forward and giving american people over time the confidence they need to go back to home ownership and back to investing in what has always been a great goal, the american dream and single-family housing. with that said i will be trying to answer a question or two.
>> wasn't that good a speech. [laughter] >> i thought was an insightful speech. thank you, center. i want to become a conversation from the previous panel. i am a layperson, not a realistic or housing expert, but it seems to me that you have to look at both sides of the equation whether it is financing and equity. if you are going to be the lead could deal with the underwater problem, so you have an idea for how to bring people's interest rates down and the cash flow better that doesn't really get to the loan balance issue of which they still low. what do you think about these kinds of debt for equity arrangements to bring down the loan balance to kind of get to the court of the problem?
>> i think first of all the 401k withdraw would waive the penalty for the withdrawal of housing principal reduction in the first mortgage loan on the primary residence and that would be very much addressed that problem. i think richard was referring to the contest that's been floated around whether the homeowner and the lender become a partner. the lender rights dhaka alone and in the return for that the borrower gives them a percentage of the upside in the future of the market returns; is that not correct? that is an outstanding concept if i'm not smart enough to know i can figure all the details on way or another but it's the type of creative you that you are going to have because housing will come backed and you can mitigate your future losses by stopping the bleeding that we've got going on right now. one of the ways to do that is keep people in the houses they are in to be able to perform and give them the incentive to do that rather than right now the incentive is to be for closing and say look i'm taking my payments but the house on the street in the market is 50% less than what i paid for my and i
think in going to let the lender have mine and by the house on the street and reduce my obligation by 50%. that is a bad incentive for america and a bad habit to get into and the idea of getting the lender and the borrower both scan in the game for the current rates or the current value makes a whole lot of sense. >> [inaudible] even though we hear that a lot, how to achieve it -- >> i said at the beginning my speech could have been short a four letter word called jobbers. if you're breadwinner is employed in your making your payments and able to afford to go on a vacation and can buy school clothes for your kids you could give consumer confidence but if you don't have equity in your house, if you're not sure you're going to keep your jobs, you don't have a lot of
confidence. right now there's not much confidence in the united states. i am a proud father of three kids and my grandkids and all of us were at my daughter's house for my wife's 60 -- 53rd birthday sunday night and i never dreamed of a million years i would be sitting down over a birthday cake with my kids talking about some of the things we talked about in terms of the struggles they are having to read the roll three unrealistic by the way. they have the same bad habit i have which i loved every minute of what these rescissions will dampen. we sat there have been discussions about the future plans, paying for college for those grand children and about what we are going to do given the current situation and their ibm as a father wanting to do what you always do that is to be honest but also to show them the rainbow. show them where you are going to be so they can get past the bad times for the good times and quite frankly if we continue in washington to kick the can down the road which we are doing right now on so many things we are protracting the that
uncertainty and the number of discussions families are having around the kitchen table, so my message to all, yet on a bipartisan critic by the way i've criticized my side as well as the letter cited is time that we did in washington with every american family has had to do including most everybody in this room that is sitting around the kitchen table comer we prioritize how they spend their money but just to the current economic times keep their books in line. america has to do the same thing. we shouldn't exempt ourselves as a government what we require everybody else in the country to do. the day we do that is the day we will bring back the consumer confidence americans to have. did you have a question? >> as you know the unemployment rate that's 9-1-9-2 it's not relieve the unemployment rate we should be focused on.
the u.s. bureau of labor statistics underemployed and unemployed currently stands at 16.2%. with respect to housing that's the number we focus on. in the context of the broad economy six house and the site for a moment, how do you view the current efforts to create jobs, and what would you in the broad context what do you think the right solution is to create jobs more broadly and not just in the context of housing? right now most of the capitol investment by the private sector and their company is in compliance with federal regulations, not investing money in the future anticipation of future returns. one of the reasons you have high unemployment -- would you hand me that water down there. i have a frog in my throat somewhere. one of the reasons we have that
high level of uncertainty right now is you don't know when the next -- you look at the qrm. qrm is just one of a plethora of potential regulations coming from dodd-frank not yet imposed. we talk to any banker and the bankers are struggling as bad as anybody come they don't know when the next -- the thought sarbanes oxley was that that was a pygmy compared to dodd-frank and dodd-frank is about 15% implemented. the first thing i would do is make regulation predictable and i think the best way to do that would be to say we are going to have the across-the-board moratorium and take the next two years trying to of sort and i just the regulations we already imposed on the american people and see those making sense and those not making sense. as i said in my remarks, i think it is government responsibility to mitigate risk on the american people but if you get into the business of trying to eliminate risk, people aren't even going to get out of bed in the morning and much less invested their
capital. number 1i would stop the overly impressive flow of regulation and number 2i would do the hard things you can't put everything off until january 1st, 2013. we've got 16 months before we get to that point or 15 more months we ought to be having housing summit in the united states of america. the government ought to be coming up with precise recommendations to things they can do, some of which i think i outlined in my remarks. that's number one. member to read the agencies are focused in on analyzing the regulations the past, rather than dreaming of the new regulations to come that will make them have a major bill. they're coming to the president's everlasting credit yesterday he said the free trade agreements to the united states senate. we talked about that for three years. those free trade agreements are going to be important to the economic a look of the united states of america. i come from an agricultural state. the free trade agreement with south korea is $1.5 billion boom for the cattle industry. those are the type of things with europe and canada have been eating a lunch and trade the
last 18 months because the got aggressive in the free trade agreements and we remain stagnant. we need to do those pro-active things, which is a long answer but you asked for it so you are going to get it. and then probably fourth, we really do have to put our tax code on the table and i am not one of these told your arms people i'm not going to talk about tax the. i'm one of these people would recognize is 25 years since the united states tax code was put on the table in the reagan administration and was reformed. they removed a number of marginal rates from elastin to three, the top rate from 70% to 28. the economy came back and we have prosperity. they made a terrible mistake because they apply some of the treatment retroactively which destroyed the savings loan that was the last on the snl and the commercial real-estate industry but if you realize tax reform should be opposed to that it applies in the futures of the business knows what the code is going to be in the future of investing money and not retroactively to go back to validate the decision that was made you would have a much more
robust investment of money, and i think that you have a combination of the lower revenue at the top marginal rate and the corporate rate and all the way down the marginal rate but a higher revenue system the house to take all of those tax benefits which have been financed into the system and repealed an awful lot. some of them were a lot of them that you would. the solydra deal and have made investments what were considered to be good public policies at the time i think ethanol was a good public policy to try to reduce the imports of foreign oil but what has happened is the increased foreign oil and ethanol doesn't work on the two cycle engines and costs $6 billion a year to subsidize the production and media this time we had the ethanol mandate in place to stop them from subsidizing the development decision. those are the type of things we need to do. yes?
>> i started this morning saying do no harm, so i would ask what you think is going to happen in the next two months and the next 18? >> first all you have to be true to your word and i and equal opportunity critic and also a bipartisan solution guy and i want to can talk about reforming the tax code and say but and then start ticking off all these things you won't do what i think you let everything rice to the top. the greenup will rise to the top and there's a lot of tax treatment that have served the country very well and good social policies and good government policy. but let's let everything on that basis. i think the mortgage interest deduction competes favorably if you compare to the subsidy for solar panels or at all or compared to these other types of things but it shouldn't be taken off the table because the problem right now was republicans will say they don't want to talk about the tax code and democrats will say they don't want to talk about entitlement. you can't solve the deficit problem if you don't talk about
those things. so we've got -- i'm not going to see -- i'm not going to talk about any subject. what i am going to say is if it is a fair debate, if it is a fair discussion, if it is a fair comparison there are parts of our tax code that exist today that will be perpetuated because they made good sense for america and there's a lot of them that today will not get the lead to make good sense that would give the opportunity to raise the revenue and lower the rates which is the idea of the combination of the possible. i am not going to take anything off the table from the discussion purposes but i'm willing to let those things i believe in compete in a favorable environment and survive because they make sense. >> is their anything that can be done to call a truce with regard to political attacks on dhaka lenders? both the president and the majority whip observe and
specifically singled out bank of america raising the monthly fees on that cards and essentially adc almost bloodless light with political coverage with senator durbin essentially telling americans to vote with their feet and adc supported that frankly they had a bit of an almost irrational bank of america website salles four to 5% this morning. i don't see how anybody could think that that is constructive for the flow of credit and i don't want to put you on the spot and certainly i don't -- >> i think you just did. [laughter] >> i'm sorry. that is a problem that in the body of the hill worries about. >> i'm trying to get off this spot so that the answer the question about doing this tactic. people in public life particularly members of the united states house and senate
and the united nations for that matter understand words have consequences indymac field because of the politicians and has serious problems with the run on indy mac which started the war when the decline of a lot of financial institutions which also is wachovia start with an ill-timed inappropriate statement by an american politician that its lawyers on a slow news day and caused an adverse reaction in the business. so i think everybody has to be very careful in my line of work of understanding the impact you can have as a public figure on the private sector. your statement biggs a good time going to a policy meeting at lunch after this speech and i will bring that subject up with my colleagues we have to be careful because we always want to tell the public the truth, you always want to make sure that you are doing the right thing but you never want to take
liberal views of the first amendment and this microphone as a politician trying to demonize somebody that's producing and contributing to the united states of america. it's tough enough to run a business without having to deal with somebody who is unaccountable to you but trying to get of the election based on making you a demon and then a hero. i don't believe in doing that no matter who the individual is or what party you come from. words have meaning of consequence and those of us that live on words for a living have to use temper our judgment when it comes to the effect words may have all the confidence of the american people to have either in their country, their government, or the private sector that does business. ..