'Do You Think Most Cops Are Racist?': John Kennedy Grills Biden Admin. Officials | 2022 Rewind

thank you Senator Kennedy of Louisiana is recognized Mr chairman congratulations I think it's fair to say that you are and once you're confirmed will continue to be one of the most powerful people in the world so I want to begin today I have some questions but first I have a plea um Above All Else above everything else on your plate I ask that you please Preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve the last thing that America needs right now is to have the Federal Reserve politicized it's the last thing the world needs right now and believe me the whole world is watching and uh including our enemies now I I get it our politics is polarized I hope you'll remain um blissfully ignorant of that and I I get it I'm not telling you not to listen to elected officials public officials I get it I mean I can only speak for the Senate we have some very smart people in the Senate they have strong opinions and strong personalities uh we've got a few Senators that uh to paraphrase Dave Berry think they out of Mecca Hamilton style musical about their lives I get all that um but you've got to remain independent the dollar and political fads come and go but the dollar doesn't I hope not the dollar underpins the entire world economy politicizing at your own risk let me shift gears question uh Professor Keynes about whom I I know you know more than I do but Professor Keynes has seen a resurgence um in the last few decades in uh in his uh number of followers and of course we both know Professor Kane said one way to get out of a recession is to have the government spend money it doesn't have the deficit spin stimulate the economy but Professor Kane said something else that the media doesn't usually quote he also said when you get out of the recession pay the damn money back didn't he didn't he say that yeah I was gonna I was gonna add that it was he's what he said was you should be it's okay to do deficit spending but you should be doing Surplus uh you know in Good Times to sort of keep it yeah now behind me is a is a chart of our public debt going all the way back to I think 1990. you don't have to be Euclid to see that the direction is up and it's been up under Republican Administrations and it's been up under Democratic administrations it's been up under Democratic or republican sentence and housing and and houses it's up so here's my question to you at what point how much is is too much at what point in your judgment are we going to hit the point where you have to say no that's it we can't do anymore it's hurting the world it's hurting our country so we don't know when that is um and as the world's Reserve currency demand for our paper is is very strong uh if if you if you had shown that and then asked somebody 15 years ago to predict what interest rates would be they wouldn't be predicting that that the 10-year would be at 175. no right so it there's been a lot of demand but they would have predicted that the debt was going to go up it would they would have looked at that picture and said well you must be experiencing difficulty borrowing but we're not at all so now we're on an unsustainable path debt is not at an unsustainable level but the path is unsustainable meaning it's growing faster than the economy meaningfully faster than the economy we have to address that over time we will address it over time and the better way to do it is soon and to do it in Good Times start when the economy is strong and the taxes are rolling in and that's that's you know I since we don't do fiscal policy but I will say that the sustainability of the debt is uh is something we need to get back to and focus on again good luck Mr chairman thank you sir uh Senator Van Hollen if Maryland is recognized ah thank you Mr chairman welcome um Mr chairman we all recognize we've got continuing economic challenges but I think it's important to look at some critical areas where we're much better off Louisiana thank you Mr chairman um Mr chairman the president has requested uh that Congress appropriate additional money to fight covet Senator Van Hollen just referred to it do we have that money I feel like I'm getting into fiscal policy here I really want to leave this to uh to yes sir but do we have that money do we have that money well in the sense of uh we even have five percent of that money I know what you mean by have the money you know we have to borrow the money I think yeah I think we're running deficits so I think a lot of spending is is on the basis of borrowing right okay let me ask you about uh about the sanctions on Russia's Central Bank uh the West is sanctions its bank it's and and you say it is some say that it has basically prevented from Russia from using those foreign Reserves because they're foreign reserves they're not in Russia they're in other Banks and other countries has China joined in that sanction uh no I don't believe so so if China wants to it could support the Rupal could it not in theory yes okay now does that sanction on this on the foreign reserves of Russia by the West does that stop dollars in euros from coming into Russia I think other sanctions do we're they're not getting any hard currency and um uh I think a lot of the of that of payment in Dollars into Russia is is coming to a grinding halt by the way I should say we we're really uh not the not responsible for sanctions obviously no you're not responsible for climate change either but that doesn't stop the Federal Reserve or for elementary and secondary education but that hasn't stopped the Federal Reserve from having an opinion not you but some of your colleagues now the West has said the president has said we're going to throw Russia out of the International Community and we're going to throw Russia out of the international marketplace and obviously we all agree with that and he sanctioned everything but he hasn't sanctioned Russia's energy Europe is going to continue to buy Russia oil and gas despite the fact that Europe has 1 000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that it refuses to produce and America right now we're continuing to buy Russian oil so how are we going how how are we going to throw Russia out of the International Community and Global markets if we don't attack their oil and that that really is a question for the elected government by the administration and particularly the treasury Department no but I'm asking your opinion because you're a smart man I appreciate that very much but my my opinion is that it's not something I would have an opinion on as as Fed chair it's just we don't do energy policy we don't do sanctions we're we're technical support we're not the policy maker so I would I would be it would be like the the Secretary of the Treasury coming in and talking about monetary policy okay let me take you back to uh the spring of 2020 um governments shut down the private sector in virtually every country a markets are panicking um everybody's looking at you to calm things down you did you did and one of the things you did aside from the currency swap line that you established well played um you said we have to we're going to we meaning the Federal Reserve are going to provide capital to American businesses okay and you did and you kept us going and I thank you for that suppose though the Federal Reserve had said at that time we're going to keep American businesses going and we're going to supply the capital except we're going to use this opportunity to bankrupt the oil and gas community the oil and gas sector where would we be today if we'd done that you'd be very unhappy with me inappropriately so um why is that well because because some some of your possible new colleagues think we should have done that because Raskin has talked about that said we should have taken the opportunity to at that point to bankrupt oil and gas so I I don't want to I don't know I just thought I'd slip that in I'm not asking you to comment on Ms Raskin our Reserve Trust are the other things that we need to get to the bottom of I'm asking you to tell me what would have happened if we use that opportunity to bankrupt the fossil fuel industry as Miss Raskin suggested we should well strike the Raskin part that makes you nervous I can tell no I I just you know we're we're a creature of law you passed the cares act it didn't say anything about picking and choosing and we weren't going to do that we didn't do it he's like picking and choosing is a bad idea I I think uh you know we actually have a document I have right here from 2009 where we it's sort of our document where we negotiated with the treasury Department who does what and it talks about our the fact that we don't get into allocating credit we try to affect broad credit conditions we don't allocate credit to particular Industries and that's that's a document that we think is sort of one we live with thank you Mr Speaker Senator I saw from George is recognized I think thank you Mr chairman thank you general for being here could you pull that mic closer to you please I'm sorry um is that better yep yes sure uh General um I think the justice department is losing I think you're losing on crime I think you're losing on drugs I think you're losing on immigration I think you're losing on uh Chinese espionage let me start with crime what percentage of cops in America do you think are bad cops very small percentage like how small I don't I don't have a number I think than you know most countries Chief one of the country's chief law enforcement officers is it less than 10 percent yes let me just be clear we believe that most police officers follow the constitution in their in their practices most police departments do and all police officers I believe want to work in police departments that follow constitutional policing requirements is it less than five percent I don't have the numbers I think it probably is but again I don't have any numbers for you okay do you think most cops are racist no I do not um what percentage of cops do you think in your judgment I know you can't give me an exact figure do you think a racist sorry I'm not um resisting because I have a number and that I can't give you I just really there I don't have any way of making that evaluation what's Your Gut tell you less than five percent one thing I've learned is to not give answers from my gut right well you think it's less than five percent don't know the answer I'm sorry you don't know I don't know no okay um why why doesn't the justice department support stop question and frisk I'm not sure what style you you mean stop and frisk is that what you mean some college stopping the Ohio yeah we I don't know that the justice department has a position these this is a state and local um uh role normally um works I'm sorry do you think stop questioning Frisk works I think in some circumstances it can work but of course it can be abused right yeah um what but why doesn't the justice department aggressively encourage law enforcement officials to use that technique it's been declared constitutional as you know yeah if the Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of stop and frisk that's in the Terry case that's exactly right but we don't do that the federal government doesn't do patrolling this is work for patrol no you don't but you're one of the country's chief law enforcement officials may be the chief and what you say matters and suppose here's what I'm I'm asking let's take Chicago where you haven't we haven't made any inroads in stopping The Killing I mean Chicago is now the world's largest outdoor shooting range we know that a lot of the shootings come from gangs why wouldn't you want to call the police chief and the mayor in Chicago and say look you know who these gang members are when you have a reasonable suspicion under Terry V Ohio and objective standard more than just a hunch why don't you aggressively stop question and frisk these gang members you get guns off the street you'll get drugs off the street and you'll get a lot of gang members off the street and you'll stop people killing each other why won't you do that look um the best way for the federal government to stop violent crime is to work at each local level and determine and let the local the state and locals determine what the best use of their own children but I'm trying to get some answers you're I'm sorry why won't you do that just tell me why you won't do this because your opinion matters because there is no one solution fits all that the federal government can suggest to State and local law enforcement We Believe state and local law enforcement knows best as to what to do there we provide we provide our technical expertise we put lots of resources into Joint Task forces I know I've got to shut this down I've only got 15 seconds is that why you're asking in the middle of a raging inflation for seven percent more money 2.63 billion dollars to provide technical increase or technical advice I mean we're going backwards here on crime General you're the states of the country's chief law enforcement officer and you won't even answer my question about how you feel about stop questioning Frisk I think it's a resource allocation issue for each local police department I believe that the justice department does the best by putting the money that we're asking for is increase in law enforcement that can be assisting the state and local General is that what we're supposed to tell the mothers of those kids getting killed in Chicago you don't understand it's a resource allocation issue no what you're supposed to tell the mothers in Chicago in what I told them when I was there was the justice department was there to provide all the resources that this subcommittee will give us to stop violent crime but yet more resources question and frisk that is a question for the state and the local I'm sorry for the state and the local law enforcement I didn't go over as much as manchin did Madam chairman that's not the standard by which we judge Behavior thank you Jennifer you're welcome now Senator Van Hollen I'm sorry I was late I was in another committee welcome Madam Secretary um I've still got a lot of work to do on your proposed budget but I just wanted to offer a few um top-line comments after 15 months I think we we any fair-minded person who's paid attention would have a a general idea of the principles of the abiding Administration and it it seems to me that the body Administration believes in in bigger government it believes in higher taxes it believes in more regulation it believes in more debt um based on the president's proposed budget it believes in a weaker military um not by its words but by its actions I think it believes in higher energy prices I think that the Biden Administration hates fossil fuels on which at the moment the greatest economy in all of human history depends I think the bite Administration thinks that's a mistake and I think the bad Administration thinks that higher energy prices will somehow wean the American people off of fossil fuels the attitude seems to be not in words but In Deed that we can see the future better than the American people because we're experts and the American people just need to take their medicine with these higher energy prices and in the long run they'll be better off because we'll use them to get rid of fossil fuels now let me talk about your budget it's not going to pass in its current form I think you know that um I support I support wind and Power but I'm in all of the above energy type guy I think eventually we should and and I don't mean sometime in The Next Century we should realistically ask ourselves when when are wind and Power going to be able to to uh stand on their own feet without subsidies I also believe in nuclear power I can tell from your budget that that it at least some of your woke colleagues at the department don't um I also believe in thermo or in in hydroelectric power I believe in hydrogen um I said it but I'm going to say it again I believe in nuclear and I think you should ignore the world voices I think it's it's it's clean energy and the new technology with these small modular nuclear reactors uh has great potential you shortchange them in your proposed budget that tells me a lot but I also believe in fossil fuels and uh I think it's it's wholly unrealistic certainly now certainly for the foreseeable future and maybe forever to think that this world can run without fossil fuels I'm very disappointed in your budget at its lack of emphasis on geoengineering I know your woke colleagues don't like geoengineering because they think it it takes our eye off the ball of climate change but I think that's a mistake I think climate change is real but I think it will be solved or lessened by American Ingenuity it won't be done by the federal government I'm also disappointed in the fact that the department and that's why I say it's clear to me The Bite Administration believes in a weaker military you your decision not to fund one of the major weapons that the United States has at a time when our security is clearly threatened now I've given you a mouthful it is good to see you madam chair I am sorry I'm late please don't construe it as a sign of disrespect I'd like to hear what you have to say great thank you um let me focus on a couple of things I think we can agree on one is the importance of nuclear power and how it is a an essential part of our clean base load power and we ought to be keeping the existing Fleet uh afloat and we just issued six million dollars in civilian six billion dollars in civilian nuclear credits to be able to do that um and to hopefully have as many of them stay operating as possible but we've also got a two and a half billion dollar commitment in advance nuclear reactors as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law column of our of our budget that's number one so we agree on that and we want to continue funding uh the advanced nuclear reactors number two um we agree on hydro hydroelectric power and we want to see more dams and we want to make sure that we are we are taking advantage of a form of energy that is clean dispatchable base load power I would also throw geothermal in there in that same sort of category with respect to wind and solar your question about when they become essentially reliable base load power is all contingent upon making sure that technology of batteries becomes uh cheaper we have a goal a earth shot of getting down the price of long duration storage by 90 percent and when we get down the price of long duration storage essentially wind and power become clean dispatchable base load power here's what we don't agree the this Administration believes in the importance of decarbonizing the fossil fuel industry we know that we've gotten here for the past 120 years based upon fossil fuels we acknowledge that and we also know that technology for the next hundred years can power us going forward decarbonizing is really important so we agree on hydrogen for example and that bipartisan infrastructure law envos invests nine billion dollars in hydrogen hubs and I think one of them that's going to Vie for it is in your region but we make sure that we can decarbonize natural gas for example and couple it with carbon capture and sequestration we're also believed big Believers in the technology associated with direct air capture and other carbon dioxide removal strategies that's another three and a half billion dollars ask you a question about LNG I saw the president's statement I want you to correct me if I if I'm wrong president about a month ago maybe a few weeks ago time runs runs together said I want to expand LNG exports but then I looked at the fine print of a statement he said but I want the plants that produce the LNG to be powered only with clean energy and he then he said but I am not going to change the regulatory environment for oil and gas and shortly after that he came out with new proposed rules for NEPA that will make it impossible to build a pipeline don't you think that's misleading I'm not sure exactly what statement you're referring to but he did go to Europe and said that we will provide another 15 billion cubic meters per year we will increase our partnership with them so as a result the department of energy has permitted four additional LNG terminals allowing their volumes to go to non-free trade agreement countries in a way to fulfill that the department of energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have both permitted another 30 billion cubic feet of export but don't you rise the impact that the proposed changes in Napa are going to have on the oil and gas industry the proposed changes in NEPA are to make sure I'm I'm not in the EPA it's not my no no but it's sure going to impacted the intent there is to continue to use technology to clean up fossil fuel emissions like methane and so making sure that we've got facilities that are not contributing to the problem but that are using technology which they are in excited to do I mean many in the natural gas world really do want to be able to deploy the technology that button-down pipelines and make sure that they aren't contributing further to methane leakage but but but we we tried to to make NEPA a little more palatable not get rid of it just say you've got to give us a decision in a couple of years in the infrastructure bill which the president is very proud of and he has talked about it uh and and taken for credit for it that's not a pejorative statement every chance he's got but then you turn right around and undo everything that was done in the infrastructure bill with these new proposed rules for NEPA and I know it's coming from EPA but Madam Secretary you're extraordinarily intelligent I've watched your career for years you know as well as I do the impact this is going to have on LNG plants on pipelines on fossil fuel infrastructure it's gonna it's going to slow it down to the pace of an amoeba with respect I fully disagree okay I think that you can have I think you can accelerate permitting and still respect the environment and not slow down the pace of energy production thank you madam it's nice to see you again nice to see you too I'm going to call you about Mexico okay they're confiscating our assets we need to stop them all right we're on it I hear you um Dr tayback um what the National Institutes of Health has done is and and continues to do is is nothing short of extraordinaire I mean it's really breathtaking and I I want to thank you and your colleagues for doing that um we've all been to pandemic School for the last several years and I I want to use the few minutes I have to explore what we have learned um Dr fauci whether you asked for it or not you've sort of been the the government's face on a response to the pandemic looking back and I recognize that that hindsight is crystal clear but but looking back do you think it was worth it do you think the the benefits were greater than the costs um of closing down our our elementary and secondary schools I think that's very difficult to give a definitive answer to that I know in the very beginning when we had really no other protection prior to vaccinations that were available to contain somewhat the spread of the virus one of the things that was felt to be important would be to protect children as well as the rest of the population right now um we have felt more than just recently that it's very important to keep the children in school for the simple reason that we know of the deleterious effects both psychologically mentally and developmentally in children to keep them out of school but you have to have a delicate balance between protecting the children from getting infected and perhaps bringing strike the proper balance you know I believe that we have it's it's very tough to tell I think only only time will tell whether that's the case because there is indication that has been deleterious effects on children but we believe from a public health standpoint that at the time it was the right decision well can I ask you this doctor um and I realize I'm not asking I'm not I'm not saying are offering a judgment of what was done at the time I'm asking what we've learned let's suppose we had a substantial increase in prevalence of the coronavirus next week God forbid right would CDC recommend shutting down the elementary and secondary schools um it's very difficult for me to speak for the CDC but knowing the fact that we recommended right now I would do everything we can to keep the children in school and not shut down the school and that has always been my strong recommendation to the extent possible not to keep the children out of school but yet but to keep them just but to keep them safely in school by a getting children that are available to be vaccinated vaccinated to get the children who are eligible to be boosted vaccinated and to surround the children with teachers and Personnel in the school who are vaccinated that is the best way to protect the children while keeping them in school okay let me ask you this in hindsight knowing what you know now had you known it then did we do the right thing in shutting down society would we have been better off saying no we're going to protect the vulnerable the elderly the people who are who are immunocompromised and we're going to to uh isolate them but have the rest of American society churches businesses universities schools go on about their business while at the same time providing them guidance about how to protect themselves well it's a complicated question I'll try and give as simple as answer as possible I think there's a misperception about who the vulnerable are there are many many more vulnerables in society and there's a misperception that the only bone I'm about to run out of time let's assume that we can agree on a definition I don't think you can I think that Society is very heterogeneous and it isn't a question of shutting down completely Senator because we never shut down completely if you do shut down a society you do it for a purpose and the purpose is at that period of time when you're protecting people from interaction that you get as many people vaccinated as you possibly can the shutdown I want to run out of time let me ask you one last question what would you do differently today right now I would hope that we would get many more people vaccinated no but what would you do when you did it in hindsight if you knew then what you know today it depends on when we got the vaccine do you mean before the availability of vaccine before the ability of vaccine when we had no other situation I would try to protect people by making sure that they masked and they kept themselves separated from this congregate indoor settings that's what I would do in the absence of a vaccine but right now I think it's important looking forward we still only have 66 percent of the total population vaccinated and less than half of those are boosted I think we can approach what we are likely going to be seeing on our seeing now with an increase in surges with the possibility of a surge in the fall and winter one of the real things we can all do as a nation is pull together and try to get our people vaccinated and those who are eligible to be boosted boosted that would solve a lot of the problems that you're referring to thank you Senator Baldwin Madam chair um welcome to uh Dr tayback I am posing the first question to you for an update on uh true that Michael Sussman a partner at Perkins Cove counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the source of this information about the allegations regarding the Trump campaign is it true that he had a special he had a a badge that gave an FBI headquarters badge that gave him uh special privileges in entering the FBI building well I uh Senator what I would say to you is much in keeping with the gracious comments you made at the beginning uh about my commitment to trying to make sure I do this job the right way that includes making sure that with a case that is currently in the middle of trial and an investigation being run by Mr Durham that we are actively helping him with I just I don't think I can really get into a discussion of those topics at the moment when when the FBI opened a file to investigate Mr sussman's allegations um is it true that the FBI concealed Mr sussman's identity again I completely understand your interest in the question and I respect it and I'm just hope you will respect the fact that because I've got agents working with Mr Durham on the case and we're there in the middle of trial right now I just don't think I can get into a discussion of that here when when the FBI opened its file to investigate the allegations that Mr Sussman on behalf of the Clinton campaign made now known to be untrue about these back Channel Communications between the Trump campaign and Russia when that we opened the file is it true that the file said the source of this information was not was not Mr Sussman but the Department of Justice again the same response these are the very kinds of questions that are being litigated in front of the jury uh and judge Cooper right now Senator Kennedy I would just urge you to follow a separate line of questioning as director Reyes said he's not going to answer Washington's relative to the space that's being litigated I appreciate that Madam chair and you know how much I respect you I want my time back by the way you can have those three seconds oh you you talked for about 10 seconds I'm happy to give you those 10 seconds thank you madam chair and I appreciate your help with my questions but I can handle it myself Chris at some point you're going to have to address this and I understand you don't want to address it in the middle of the price of a prosecution but there are millions of Americans that look at this and think I'm not saying they're correct that the FBI has become a political organization and at some point you're going to have to address that the institution is just too important and some of my colleagues may not want to talk about this but we're going to have to talk about it at some point well I I so first off I totally appreciate your concern about our institution um and I will tell you that what I can speak to now is that I have implemented all sorts of reforms that I've spoken about quite publicly over 40 plus corrective measures that deal with a lot of the same issues that are at the heart of the underlying investigation I completely turned over the entire leadership team in the FBI we've taken disciplinary action where we could but we've also been in close cooperation and coordination with Mr Durham who is the special counsel and I think that's the best thing I can do to help address the concerns you're talking about as to the FBI's reputation uh I will tell you having been to all 56 of our field offices now almost all of them twice haven't been to New Orleans just earlier this month in Baton Rouge just shortly before that uh that the what I find in talking to Americans out in the field law enforcement Partners Business Leaders Community leaders victims prosecutors families is a widespread even resounding appreciation and respect for the men women of the FBI and you will be I hope uh relieved to know uh that in Louisiana over the last three years last two two and a half years the number of people in Louisiana applying to be special agents of the FBI has doubled what it was in the first few years when I took over and so I think that speaks very well of the good citizens of Louisiana and their appreciation and view of the FBI's credit and I thank you for coming Chris and I thank you for all the hard work you've done but I'm going to stand by myself [Music] um Mr chairman inflation is uh is just an imbalance of supply and demand can we agree on that yes generally and uh to put a little finer point on it our inflation at this time and this is the case with respect to most cases of inflation demand is greater than Supply so prices go up in some parts of the economy yes right now you're trying to lower so so we've got a situation where demands up here supplies down here you're trying to lower demand is that correct yes while also giving the supply side time to recover there's there's some ground to be covered on that side yes but you're you're you've talked about your roll scope and Mission and your job is monetary you're trying to lower demand well I'm trying to lower well I would say lower demand growth we don't know that it has to the demand has to actually go down which would be a recession well well 70 percent of our economy is is uh is uh driven by consumer demand and you're trying to lower demand to and slow the economy down am I correct slowly I guess I just say we're slowing down growth right if that's what the economy is the growth yeah okay all right there's another way the two aren't exclusive you alluded to that you can also lower demand but you can increase Supply can you not yes and that would solve inflation yes it would now congress's job is not to deal with with uh demand per se a lot of the bills we pass impact demand but but that's the fed's job okay now I'm not going to ask you to comment on any specific bill but tell me the things that Congress could do right now while you're lowering demand not you literally the Federal Reserve what we can do right now to increase Supply so I think the things you can do are important over the medium and longer term but but probably not so much in the in the short term but it's things things that like investing in people so that they can remain in the labor market longer things like that and uh you know in infrastructure things again things that things that will make that will increase the productive capacity well how about well in the long run as Keynes said we're all dead I'm interested right now in the short run um what about re if if we reduce the regulatory burden let's say on refineries when that incent refineries to start refining more and help on the supply side I would say anything that could increase capacity on that front could could have yeah but would that help I'm not trying to get you to endorse legislation look Mr chairman we got a hell of a mess here okay we we inflation is hitting my people so hard they're coughing up bones I I don't care what the inflation is in other parts of the country of the world I'm sorry they're having inflation in other parts of the world but them in misery doesn't make my people feel better they're still miserable inflation is hitting people so hard they're coughing up bones it's the highest in 40 years our national national debt is greater than our national output um crimes up the borders open respect for institutions uh is way down and seventy percent of the American people think we're headed in the wrong direction now we got a hell of a mess and right now you're you're the most powerful man in the United States maybe in the world we've got to get I mean President Biden I don't blame him I understand politics he keeps saying well um your 401k has crashed and gas has gone from two bucks to five bucks a Gavin because the economy's so good and the American people know that's not true now other than relieving regulatory burden might put a form of question what if the United States Congress said look we've got a budget we're going to freeze spending we're going to stop injecting more money into the economy we're going to freeze for in spending until Powell can get control on the demand side would that help you know I feel like giving you advice on on what to do when I'm asking we're not getting our own job done I feel like maybe a better better thing to do would be for us to get our get our house in order and do the job you've assigned us well let me put it another way let's suppose forget about Congress let's suppose that every governor in every state and every legislature and every state got together tomorrow and said I know it's not like it happened and said we are going to freeze our budgets we're not going to spend a penny more than is already budgeted would that help would it help sir would it help with would it help uh uh reduce inflation it would depend on it might it might but I mean it would take again again I've given you I'm scoring fiscal policy well I understand but Mr chairman we we the the United States Congress in addition to its regular budget has spent seven trillion dollars I'm not saying all of it was was unnecessary on top of that the feds increased its balance sheet from one and a half trillion dollars to nine trillion dollars nine trillion dollars I know you're cutting it back but we've injected all of this money into the economy and then people go well we have inflation duh give me some help here tell me what we can do yeah I'm really focused on what we can do uh which is shrink our balance sheet and raise interest rates and and get supply and demand back into alignment and get inflation back down to two percent thank you Senator Kennedy uh Senator thank you Mr chairman uh thank you Mr chairman for being here today I want to also thank you for you and your good your colleagues good work on implementing uh the holding foreign companies accountable Act um can you give us a quick overview about where we are trying to understand has come to the negotiating table and you've negotiated a statement of protocol um could you give us an update on the status of your good efforts uh yes and again I want to thank you because Senator Van Halen just came in and you you shepherded that through and I think that the holding foreign companies accountable Act gave us the additional leverage uh to work uh with uh with chair Williams down at the pcob and we had numerous meetings with the Chinese we said to the Chinese last August a year plus ago that we wouldn't uh be willing to send the inspectors over to China to look at the audit work papers and the like unless we could get a very detailed prescriptive uh statement of protocol to effectuate the will of Congress and in its core it's that how can you trust the numbers in these Chinese companies unless there's somebody in the U.S who's auditing the auditor so to speak technically inspecting and investigating they did sign that we thought it was important to get that signed uh um the pcob is sending inspectors over I think they're on flights tomorrow because I think it starts Monday the 19th um and it takes about eight to ten weeks to get through so we'll probably know somewhere around Thanksgiving or early December uh and I don't know if the Chinese are going to comply I I they've told me I mean the Ministry of Finance have told me directly on on WebEx cause and uh the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission has said they will comply and and it's it's it's pretty clear no redactions in the work papers take testimony from whomever the pcob needs to take testimony from uh they can onward share the information us and they can pick whichever companies they want to look at um I'm not sure they'll comply either but they're um they're they've moved further toward compliance than at any point in the past uh Senator Van Hollen and I have a bill that's passed the Senate as you know uh being considered by the house to move the deadline from three years to two years with respect to which if they don't comply we we tell them to leave our exchanges and I think that might help if we can get that passed and I appreciate your good efforts there in my last two minutes I wanted to shift gears um on on the climate risk disclosure and I'm I don't mean to be critical I'm trying to understand because I thought Senator tester raised very good questions what's your best guess of the cost of compliance with your climate risk disclosure rules so uh one I do support your accelerating holding foreign companies accountable act in two years versus three because I think it will continue to have the right leverage even if the Chinese authorities in the Chinese Regulators allow for compliance this year what about next year what about next year so I do support that thank you um in terms of the climate role we we lay out in this in this uh proposal all the economic analysis and I don't mean to speak for the numbers and that but by company what's your best guess if you could I'm sorry to interrupt your gear but I've only got a minute left what's your best guess of of the cost of it to comply so so per company we lay that out and depending on the size and I I just don't want to misspeak it's you know from a couple hundred thousand to I apologize and the total cost I think uh Senator Toomey accurately quoted it you weren't maybe in the room it was it's measured in the single digit billions across the entire economy but what we benefit from is also people are coming in and crit you know giving us critical analysis for whether we're accurate I'm sorry to interrupt but I'm gonna run out of time here's my question it it'll cost billions of dollars to comply um those are scarce resources to the extent that people like Senator Chester has to spend the money to comply they can't spend the money on something else presumably the purpose of the rule is to focus investors attention on the risk of climate change so that they will demand that companies do a better job the purpose of which is low to lower the world's temperatures actually it's but that's not the purpose the the purpose I mean I can I can speak for the five-member commission but also for myself we're not a merit regulator so the purpose actually is not to do what you said just for investors to get the information I think the people supporting rule the rule that's their that's that's not why I support it okay fair enough but I think that's what most people expect you you put pressure on the companies to disclose uh shareholders put pressure people do better job but I'd like to see why you're asking Senator tester and the other people to to estimate I would like to see some sort of estimate of how much all this money spent on compliance is going to lower World temperatures I mean we're spending I believe in clean air and Bright Water I you know I want to be able to eat and live indoors but what bothers me is while we're spending these trillions of dollars of scarce resources uh India and China China gets six sixty percent of its energy from coal China has 3 500 coal fuel power plants we've got less than a hundred we don't have any kind of agreement with India or China for them to reduce emissions so we spend all of this money and World temperatures are not reduced and you give me your guess I'll answer the question briefly in um the good news is is that's not what the our authorities are and our or or what motivates this one commissioner it's it's about actually helping investors get more consistent information even if they want to invest in uh what might be a brown assets rather than green assets they will get a more consistent information and will probably lower some of the green washing that's out there and other things like that thank you for your Indulgence Mr Speaker

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 543,131

Keywords: Sen. John Kennedy, President Biden, Senate

Id: c2_fiWSmcDU

Length: 56min 14sec (3374 seconds)

Published: Mon Dec 19 2022