Oct. 14, 2010: The 4th Congressional race

;;;; GREATER BOSTON

>> THE FIGHT FOR THE FOURTH.
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN
BARNEY FRANK AND GOP
CHALLENGER SEAN BIELAT ARE
IN THE STUDIO TOOKING IT OUT
ON THE ECONOMY, SOCIAL
POLICY AND THE BEST WAYS TO
SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS.
NOW ON "GREATER BOSTON."
 Closed Captioning
 brought to you by AFLAC:
 Ask about it at work.
>> GOOD EVENING, TWO MONTHS
OKAY THE FOURTH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE
WAS JUST ANOTHER HO-HU GIVEN
RAISE FORINCUMBENT BARNEY
FRANK.
NOW IT'S THE CONTESTSEARCH
TALKING ABOUT.
GOP CHALLENGER SEAN BIELAT
SAYS CONGRESSMAN BARNEY
FRANK HELPED BRING ABOUT THE
SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRIESS
THAT WRECKED THE ECONOMY.
THE DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT
SAYS BIELAT'S VIEWS ARE TOO
EXTREME FOR THE DISTRICT AND
THE COUNTRY.
JOINING ME NOW ARE
REPUBLICAN SEAN BIELAT AND
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN
BARNEY FRANK WHO HAS SERVED
IN CONGRESS SINCE 1980.
GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO BOTH
OF YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> Rooney: STARTING RIGHT
OFF THE BAT WITH THE ISSUE
THAT SEEMS TO BE GALVANIZING
THE RACE.
BEFORE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS,
YOU WERE A LEADING VOICE IN
ADVOCATING FOR SUB-- FOR
MORTGAGES FOR-- LET ME
FINISH, THAT FANNIE MAE AND
PRED FREDDIE MAC BE ALLOWED
TO EXTEND THE MORTGAGES FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN RED
LINED, PEOPLE WHO WOULDN'T
NORMALLY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
GET A MORTGAGE.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH TAKING
THAT POSITION, THIS IS
BEFORE THE MELTDOWN.
NOW YOU SWITCH, YOU SAID YOU
WERE ALL ADVOCATING FOR
RENTAL HOUSING BUT THAT'S
NOT WHAT THEY DO.
>> EMILY THAT IS NOT WHAT I
WAS GOING TO-- FIRST IT IS
PROBABLY WHAT FREDDIE MAC
AND FANNIE MAE HAVE DONE
THEY WERE MAJOR SUPPORTERS
OF RENTAL HOUSING BUT YOU
HAVE TO DIFFER
DENT-- DIFFERENTIATE.
RED LINE MEAN CUTTING OUT A
GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BUT AS TO
MAKING LOANS TO PEOPLE
WITHOUT CAN'T AFFORD THEM, I
HAVE BEEN A LEAD OG UPON ENT
OF THAT.
GEORGE BUSH "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" RECENTLY HAD THIS
ARTICLE ABOUT GEORGE BUSH A
COUPLE YEARS AGO PUSHING
THIS.
THERE IS A MAN NAMED LARRY
LINDSAY WHO WAS THE LEADING
ECONOMIC ADVISOR TO
REAGAN-BUSH AND BUSH WHO
SAID I'M WITHIN OF THE FEW
POLITICIANS HE HAS EVER MET
WHO IS SKEPTICAL ABOUT HOME
OWNERSHIP.
I HAVE HAD A CONSISTENT
POSITION TO HOME OWNERSHIP
FOR PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T
AFFORD IT BUT MOST
IMPORTANTLY-- .
>> Rooney: IT IS NOT PEOPLE
THAT COULDN'T AFFORD T BUT
IT IS GETTING OTHER PEOPLE
NOT HOUSE MARKET AND THIS
WAS A WAY TO DO THAT YOU
SEEM TO BE STEPPING BACK
FROM THAT,.
>> I AM, ARE YOU CONFUSING A
COUPLE OF ISSUES.
YES, PEOPLE WHO WERE IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS RED
LINED SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
EXCLUDED BUT THEN YOU THEN
WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
SAID YES TO PEOPLE WHO COULD
AFFORD IT BUT NO TO PEOPLE
WHO COULDN'T AFFORD IT I
HAVE BEEN AGAINST THAT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BEGAN
TO TRY TO LEGISLATE GUESS
PREDATORY SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
IN 2004.
NOTHING HAPPENED UNTIL I
BECAME THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE IN 2007.
AND BEGINNING IN 2007 UNDER
THE CHAIRMANSHIP I HAD WE
REGULATED FAHD FAHD FRED
FEDERAL RESERVE AND FANNIE
MAE AND PUT THEM UNDER
CONSERVATIVESHIP, WE WENT
AFTER BUSES AND OUTLINED
PREDATORY-- A BIG PART OF
THE BILL THAT THE PRESIDENT
SIGNED IN JULY OUTLAWS
MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE THAT
COULDN'T AFFORD IT
MR. BIELAT HAS BEEN AGAINST
THAT BILL.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE IS
AGAINST THAT PROVISION OR
NOT.
YOU DIFFERENTIATE.
YOU DON'T TAKE A WHOLE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY NO.
BUT WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
DOW NOBODY A FAVOR WHEN I
GIVE LOANS TO PEOPLE WHO
CAN'T AFFORD THEM.
>> Rooney: YOU HAVE REALLY
BLAMED THIS ENTIRE SUBPRIME
MORTGAGE MELTDOWN ON BARNEY
FRANK.
>> TO BE CLEAR I HAVE NOT
BLAMED THE WHOLE THING
ON-- .
>> Rooney: YOU PUT A LOT OF
THE BURDEN ON HIM.
SU HAVE CERTAINLY MADE THAT
A TOUCHSTONE IN THIS RACE.
THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE WHO HAD THEIR HAND IN
THIS.
INCLUDING, YOU KNOW,
PREDATORY LENDERS AND BANKERS.
IF YOU READ MICHAEL LEWIS A
BOOK YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS A
DEVIOUS PLOT TO ESSENTIALLY
BET THAT THE HOUSING MARKET
WAS GOING TO FAULT.
>> SURE.
AND WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS
I'M CONSISTENT IN MAKING
CLEAR I DON'T THINK
CONGRESSMAN FRANK WAS SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE BY ANY STRETCH
OF THE IMAGINATION THERE
WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
MESS.
I THINK THERE ARE A FEW
INDIVIDUALS MORE RESPONSIBLE
THAN CONGRESSMAN FRANK BUT
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE,
REPUBLICANSING DEMOCRATS,
BANKERS, WALL STREET PEOPLE
WHO HAD A PART IN THIS FEE
AS CO.
>> I DO WANT-- FIASCO.
>> I DO WANT TO STRESS THERE
WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE
MISTAKEN WHO DIDN'T SEE IT
COMING.
I DIDN'T SEE THE PROBLEM IN
THE GENERAL HOUSING MARKET.
I DID FROM THE BEGINNING SEE
THE PROBLEM OF LENDING
PEOPLE MONEY WHO COULDN'T
AFFORD IT.
THE THING I WOULD STRESS IS
THIS, ONCE I BECAME CHAIRMAN,
THINGS BEGAN TO HAPPEN.
AND I WILL SAY THIS, A LOT
OF US WILL SHARE THE BLAME
IN VARIOUS ASPECTS BUT I
WILL ASSERT A GOOD PART OF
THE CREDIT.
BECAUSE IT WASN'T UNTIL
FRANKLY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK
OVER.
WHAT WE HAVE IS THIS
DEREGULATORY PHILOSOPHY SO
THAT WHEN WE TRY TO CUT OUT
MORTGAGES TO PEOPLE WHO
COULDN'T AFFORD IT, THE BUSH
AND THE CONSERVATIVE
DEREGULATORY PHILOSOPHY WAS
DON'T DO IT.
DON'T HAVE REGULATION.
MR. BIELAT AND I DISAGREE ON
THAT.
HE HAS BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF
REGULATION AND I THINK YOU
DON'T HAVE APPROPRIATE
REGULATION WHETHER IT IS
SUBPRIME MINISTER MORTGAGES
OR AIG OR B.P. YOU HAVE
DISASTER.
>> BARNEY FRANK WAS
SKEPTICAL ABOUT SOME OF THE
REGULATIONS THAT WERE GOING
TO BE PUT ON FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC BECAUSE WE
THOUGHT IT WAS POLITICAL.
WAS THAT NOT A FAIR
ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME.
>> I DON'T THINK IT WAS A
FAIR ASSESSMENT THERE WAS
ALL SORTS OF EVIDENCE
MOUNTING THAT THEY WERE IN A
STATE OF NOT COLLAPSE BUT
CERTAINLY THERE WAS A LOT OF
DANGER OF EVENTUAL COLLAPSE.
MANY PEOPLE IN CONGRESS SAW
IT WHICH WAS WHY IN 220 THE
BILL WAS INTRODUCED.
>> IN THAT WOULD HAVE
REIGNED IN SOME OF THE
LENDING PRACTICES.
I WOULD OBJECT JECT TO
MR. FRANK'S NOTION THAT HE
HAS NOT CHAMPIONED THE CAUSE
OF EXTENDING HOME OWNERSHIP
DESPITE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO
PAY.
AFTER HE BECAME CHAIRMAN IN
2007 HE INTRODUED HR 15,
1852 ALONG WITH MAXINE
WATERS THAT WAS THE AMERICAN
HOME OWNERSHIP EXPANSION
ACT.
AND IT HAD A NUMBER OF
PROVISIONS BUT AMONG WHICH
WERE THAT PEOPLE EVEN WITH
SUBPAR CREDIT SCORES SHOULD
RECEIVE LOANS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE REDUCED, THAT
THERE SHOULD BE ZERO DOWN
LOANS MADE AVAILABLE, ET
CETERA, ET CETERA.
IT'S CLEAR EVEN FROM THE
TITLE OF THE ACT THAT THERE
WAS AN EFFORT TO EXPAND HOME
OWNERSHIP.
>> NASS'S MISTAKEN.
IF YOU LOOKED CAREFULLY
WOULD YOU HAVE SEEN THAT FOR
EXAMPLE ONE OF THE THINGS I
TRIED TO DO WAS SAY THAT WE
SHOULD INCREASE MANUFACTURED
HOUSING WHICH IS MUCH LESS
EXPENSIVE.
I SAID IF YOU WANT TO GIVE
IT TO LOWER INCOME PEOPLE
THAT WANTED TO GET THE BARS
DOWN, BEGIN WITH
MANUFACTURED HOUSING.
SO AS FAR AS THE ISSUE IS
CONCERNED, THE 2005, YES, I
ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED THAT
BILL, BY 2005 I AGREED AND
WORKED WITH MIKE OXLEY TO
GET IT THROUGH.
WHEN IT WENT TO THE FLOOR
THEY BRUNED A POSITION
UNRELATED TO FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
I VOTED FOR THE BILL IN 2005
BUT WHAT MR. BIELAT DOESN'T
TELL YOU WAS THE BILL WHEN
INTRODUCED TO THE HOUSE IT
PASSED THE HOUSE.
>> AND YOU VOTED AGAINST.
>> IT PASSED THE HOUSE.
>> BUT YOU VOTED AGAINST IT.
>> EXPLAIN, I VOTED FOR IT
IN COMMITTEE.
I VOTED AGAINST IT BECAUSE
IT WEAKENED IN UNRELATED
PROVISION.
BUT YOU CAN'T BLAME ME FOR
STOPPING SOMETHING WHEN I
WAS IN THE MINORITY.
>> YOU VOTED AGAINST T I
THINK YOU CAN.
>> BUT I DIDN'T STOP IT.
THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE
WHICH SERVED.
IT WAS KILLED IN THE SENATE
BY THE REPUBLICAN SENATE AND
GEORGE BUSH.
THE PROBLEM WAS THE
REPUBLICANS FELL OUT ABOUT
IT.
SO IN 2005.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU
STILL VOTED AGAINST THE
BILL.
>> I VOTED AGAINST THE BILL
BECAUSE IT WEAKENED AFFORDSABLE
RENTAL HOUSING.
THE POINT, HOWEVER, IS THAT
IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS WHO
FAILED TO PUT IT THROUGH, IN
2007 WHEN I BECAME THE
CHAIRMAN, WE PASSED A
TOUGHER BILL.
BECAUSE I BECAME THE
CHAIRMAN.
COY WORK WITH SECRETARY
PAULSON.
THE BILL FAILED NOT BECAUSE
I VOTED AGAINST IT, IN THE
END, OVER RENTAL HOUSING,
BUT BECAUSE IT WAS ITS
REPUBLICANS WHO FELL OUT
AMONG THEMSELVES.
THE POINT IS STILL NOTHING
HAPPENED UNDER ALL OF THE
BUSH REPUBLICAN RULE UNTIL
2007.
I BECAME THE CHAIRMAN.
WE PUT A TOUGH REGULATORY
BILL THROUGH ON FANNIE MAE
AND FREDDIE MAC WITH THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
WE WENT AFTER SUBPRIME
LOANS.
AND YES, I WAS FOR INCREASED
HOME OWNERSHIP AT THE SAME
TIME WE PASSED A BILL THAT
YEAR TO BLOCK THE PREDATORY
LENDING.
MR. BIELAT STILL HASN'T TOLD
ME WHETHER HE IS AGAINST THE
PROVISIONS IN THE 2010 BILL
THAT BECAME LAW THAT HE IS
AGAINST, THAT BLOCK
PREDATORY LENDING.
>> Rooney: ARE YOU AGAINST
IT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RETURN
JUST FOR A MOMENT --
>> HE WON'T ANSWER ARE.
YOU AGAINST PREDATORY
LENDING PRO VISIONS OF THE
REFORM BILL.
>> YOU VOTED AGAINST THAT
BILL THERE 2004 YOU
CO-AUTHORED A LETTER TO THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLING
FOR LESS RESTRICTIONS.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
>> I WANT TO MOVE ON HERE.
>> YES, THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED
THE CONGRESS IN 2005.
I VOTED FOR BILLING
COMMITTEE, IT PASSED THE
HOUSE AGAINST MY OBJECTION
BECAUSE THEY KILLED --
>> ARE YOU UP SET THE
REPUBLICANS VOTED THE SAME
WAY YOU DID, IS THAT THE
ARGUMENT ARE YOU MAKING.
>> I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT
TO YOU.
>> Rooney: WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON.
>> I'M SORRY, BUT I DO HAVE
TO MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR IT
WAS THE REPUBLICANS
INABILITY TO GET THE BILL
THROUGH IN 2007.
BUT I DO WANT TO STRESS ONE
THING P MR. BIELAT WITH THIS
DEREGULATORY PHILOSOPHY HE
HAS BROUGHT TO OUR DISTRICT
DOES NOT TELL US YET FINALLY
IN 2010, WE BLOCKED SAID
PREDATORY LENDING.
DOES HE FAVOR THAT OR NOT.
>> Rooney: I WILL MOVE ON
HERE.
YOU WHAT NOT HAVE SUPPORTED
THE BAILOUT OF GENERAL
MOTORS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> Rooney: IT'S POSSIBLE,
JUST VERY POSSIBLE THAT IF
THAT HAD NOT GONE THROUGH
THE ENTIRE AUTO INDUSTRY
WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED FROM
AMERICA COMPLETELY.
WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN --
>> IT SEEMS UNLIKELY.
THERE WASN'T ANY REAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT
CONTENTION.
THERE IS FOREIGN
MANUFACTURERS THAT OCCUR IN
THE UNITED STATES.
BMW HAS A PLAN.
>> BUT THE AMERICAN CAR
MARKET.
>> THOSE ARE AMERICAN JOBS.
SO-- .
>> Rooney: BUT NOT AMERICAN
CARS.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE HOW
IMPORTANT THAT DISTINCTION
IS, THEY ARE MADE HERE BY
AMERICANS DRIVEN BY
AMERICANS, THEY MAY BE
CONSIDERED PRETTY AMERICAN
EVEN IF THE COMPANY
OWNERSHIP IS THE
CORPORATE --
>> YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND TO
THAT.
>> I WASN'T QUITE FINISHED.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> WAY WOULD HAVE LET THEM
COLLAPSE.
I THINK THE REASON FOR THAT
IS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T
PROP UP FAILING
BASES-- BUSINESSES.
IT DOESN'T PROP UP
BUSINESSES IN OTHER
INDUSTRIES THAT FAIL.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
HERE IN THIS DISTRICT WHO
ARE HURTING BECAUSE THEY
LOST THEIR HOMES.
>> Rooney: YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
PROPPED UP ANY OF THE BANKS.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT THERE
WAS SOME VALUE IN TARP.
FALL 26008 WAS A SCARY TIME
AS WAS EARLY JANUARY,
FEBRUARY OF 2009.
AND SO I CAN UNDERSTAND
WHY-- .
>> Rooney: ONE WAS AN
INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH
WOULD YOU HAVE PROPPED THEM
UP.
>> AIG, I THINK THE ISSUE
WITH THE TARP WAS LESS
WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD
HAVE HAPPENED CONTINUATION
IS HOW IT HAPPENED.
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
MONEY WAS SPREAD AROUND,
WHETHER THERE WAS PROPER
SCREENING.
>> Rooney: SO YOU WOULD
SEPARATE A BUSINESS FROM A
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> FIRST OF ALL, AIG WAS NOT
PART OF THE TARP.
THAT WAS A UNILATERAL
INITIATIVE BY THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION.
WE DID NOT IN CONGRESS VOTE
ON THE TARP.
WE DID HAVE THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION DOUMS AND SAY
THE WORLD IS COLLAPSING SO
YOU HAVE TO DO SOME THINGS.
I INSISTED ON INCLUDING
PROVISIONS FROM A PAYBACK
FROM THE BANKS THAT BORROWED
AND IN FACT THE BANKS THAT
BORROWED HAVE PAID US BACK
WAY PROFIT SO WE MADE MONEY.
SECONDLY WE INSTITUTED
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T
ENFORCE BUT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION DID ENFORCE.
BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
AUTOS.
I VERY MUCH DISAGREE HERE.
WE TALK A LOT ABOUT AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING.
BUT BACK IN THE 70 EASE
BEFORE I WAS IN CONGRESS,
CHRYSLER WAS BAILED OUT AND
THAT WORKED WELL BECAUSE IT
WAS A TEMPORARY BAILOUT AND
THEN IT THRIVED, 30 YEARS
LATER THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
IF GENERAL MOTORS AND
CHRYSLER HAD FAILED WHAT
WOULD HAVE FAILED WAS NOT
JUST THOSE TWO COMPANIES.
AND I DO DIFFER WITH
MR. BIELAT.
I DON'T WANT ALL THE
MANUFACTURING IN AMERICA FOR
AUTOMOBILES TO BE RUN BY
FOREIGNERS.
>> I DIDN'T SAY I WANT ALL
MANUFACTURERS OF
AUTOMOBILES.
>> I KNOW YOU WISH YOU
DIDN'T SAY T BUT YOU SAID
IT.
>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
>> YOU SAID --
>> WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THE
TRANSCRIPTS.
>> Rooney: YOU SAID AS LONG
AS THEY WERE AMERICAN JOBS.
>> I DIDN'T SAY ALL
MANUFACTURING WERE AMERICAN
JOBS.
>> YOU SAID EMILY SAID IF
WOULD HAVE BEEN A COLLAPSE.
>> BUT YOU SAID BUT THERE
STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN
AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTERED IN
AMERICA.
MR. BIELAT I KNOW YOU WISH
YOU HADN'T SAID IT BUT CAN I
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> WE'LL LET THE VIE ERRS A
HOME SEE THE TAPE.
>> DO I GET TO SAY --
>> DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY
MOUTH.
>> YOU WHAT YOU SAID WAS IT
WASN'T IMPORTANT WHO OWNED
IT AS LONG AS THEY WERE
AMERICAN JOBS.
AND I THINK THAT'S A
MISTAKE.
I THINK VERY IMPORTANT THAT
THERE BE SOME AMERICAN
OWNERSHIP.
I DON'T WANT THE DECISIONS
BEING MADE ENTIRELY IN OTHER
COUNTRIES.
IF THERE IS A CUTBACK I
DON'T WANT PEOPLE IN GERMANY
OR JAPAN OR ELSEWHERE
DECIDES WHETHER THE CUTBACKS
ARE HERE OR NOT.
AND FORD WHICH WAS NOT
THREATENED WITH COLLAPSE
STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE
INTERVENTION FOR GENERAL
MOTORS AND CHRYSLER BECAUSE
THEY UNDERSTOOD IN GENERAL
MOTORS AND CHRYSLER WENT
UNDER AS YOU WERE WILLING TO
HAVE THEM DO WITHOUT ANY
INTERVENTION, THE SUPPLY
CHAIN WOULD HAVE COULD LANSD
THAT IS PEOPLE WHO
MANUFACTURE PARTS WOULD HAVE
BEEN HURT.
AND BY THE WAY, EVEN TOYOTA
WANTED TO DO THAT.
SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
SERIOUS BLOW TO AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING AND IT MAKES A
DIFFERENCE WHETHER THEY ARE
AMERICAN OWNED OR NOT.
>> Rooney: DOW WANT TO
CLARIFY.
>> I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
ABOUT I DON'T WANT THERE TO
BE AMERICAN CAR
MANUFACTURERS THAT IS
ABSURD.
IN AN ERA IN WHICH WE HAVE
PUBLICLY TRADED FIRMS WITH
GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, I THINK
THAT THE COUNTRY OF
OWNERSHIP MAKES LESS
DIFFERENCE.
WHAT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IS WHERE THE JOBS ARE.
WHAT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IS WHERE THE PRODUCT ENDS UP
AND HOW GOOD THE MARKET IS
FOR THAT PARTICULAR PRODUCT.
>> I HAVE TO STRESS THIS IS
A VERY MONTH POINT THAT I IS
MISSING.
COUNTRY OF OWNERSHIP DOES
MAKE A DIFFERENCE PRECISELY
AS TO WHERE THE JOBS ARE.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE FOREIGN
OWNERSHIP YOU ARE LESS
LIKELY TO HAVE JOBS IN
AMERICA.
GERMAN AND JAPANESE
COMPANIES ARE SUBJECT TO
DOMESTIC PRESSURES.
>> GM OWNS SAAB WHERE WERE
THOSE JOBS.
>> BUT WE HAD AMERICAN JOBS.
I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE ME TO
TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU
SAID AND YOU LIKE TO SAY
THEM AND YOU ESTIMATE
HAVEN'T TOLD US WHERE YOU
ARE ON --
>> I LOVE IT T IS
ENTERTAINING.
>> BUT THE FACT IS IF THE
JOBS ARE OWNED BY COMPANIES.
>> IF THE JOBS ARE RUN BY
FOREIGN OWN COMPANYED THERE
IS LESS ASSURANCE THEY WILL
BE HERE.
MOST OF THE GENERAL MOTORS
JOBS ARE HERE.
>> Rooney: SPEAK OF JOBS,
RIGHT AFTER THANKSGIVING THE
EXTENDED JOBS BENEFIT BILL
IS SCHEDULED TO RUN OUT.
WOULD YOU OFFER EXTENDED
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
>> YES, I WOULD.
>> Rooney: RIGHT NOW.
>> YES, I WOULD.
>> Rooney: WOULD YOU ALSO.
>> I WOULD.
>> Rooney: UNFORTUNATELY
MOST REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN
OPPOSING THAT.
THAT IS WHY IT HAS BECOME
CONTROVERSIAL BUT YES I VERY
MUCH SUPPORT THAT.
>> WHEN REPUBLICANS ARE
AGAINST IT, WHY ARE YOU FOR
IT.
>> I THINK THE PROPER WAY TO
DO STIMULUS IS PUT MONEY
BACK IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS.
IF THEY ARE TAXPAYERS, IF
THEY ARE WORKING THAT IS
EASY TO DO THROUGH INCOME
TAX REDUCTIONS.
IF SOMEBODY ISN'T WORKING I
WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE
STIMULUS DRIVEN BY
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION
DECISIONS THEN BY
GOVERNMENT --
>> ON STIMULUS.
>> WE DIFFER, BECAUSE VIND
CONSUMPTION CAN'T, FOR
EXAMPLE, CLEAN UP A
SUPERFUND SITE.
THE STIMULUS IN THE DISTRICT
THAT I NOW REPRESENT THAT WE
ARE BOTH RUNNING FOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 4800
JOBS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE
EXISTED IF IT HADN'T BEEN
THERE.
PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN HIRED,
NOT FIRED THAT IS POLICE
OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS,
CLEANUP IN THE ENVIRONMENT
THAT IS A LOT OF COMPANIES
THEY JUST ANNOUNCED FINE
BUSES BEING FOUGHT, FOR THE
SOUTHEAST REGIONAL TRANSIT
AUTHORITY BOUGHT WITH
STIMULUS MONEY.
ACCELERATION OF A CLEANUP IN
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR.
THOSE CAN'T BE DONE BY
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION IT IS
IMPORTANT BUT --
>> I WANT TO KEEP MOVING
HERE.
>> IT IS NOT AN ALL OR
NOTHING.
>> I WANT TO TALK, THERE IS
AN ARGUMENT BEING MADE THAT
EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS
BEYOND JANUARY 1st WILL
STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, BE A
TRICKLE DOWN, MORE SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT GET STARTED.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST IT HAS
BEEN THAT THE OPPOSITE IS
TRUE.
WHERE DO YOU STAND.
AND IF EXTENDED IN THE
BENEFITS MEANS LOSING THEM
FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS WOULD
YOU VOTE FOR THAT?
>> I'M SORRY, YOU CAN REPEAT
THE LAST QUESTION.
>> IF IT IS EITHER AN ALL OR
NOTHING, YOU INCLUDE THE
RICH, WOULD THAT BE OKAY
WITH YOU.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> BUT IF IT MEANT, IF THE
MIDDLE CLASS DIDN'T GET THE
TAX CUT WAS EITHER OF YOU
VOTE FOR IT.
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT RAISING
TAXES DURING AN ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN IS A BAD IDEA.
IT'S FUNNY THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE, DEMOCRATS WHO
APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF
KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS SAY
LET'S PUMP MONEY BACK INTO
THE ECONOMY, SIMULTANEOUSLY
SAY BUT IT'S OKAY TO TAKE IT
OUT VIA TAX CUTS.
>> WHAT IS THE SCENARIO THAT
THEY DISAPPEAR FOR
EVERYBODY.
THAT COULD HAPPEN.
>> THAT COULD.
AND THAT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA
TOO BECAUSE DID WOULD BE A
TAX INCREASE AND I THINK
RAISE THE TAXES DURING AN
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IS NOT A
GOOD THING TO DO.
>> WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT.
>> I TAKE THE KEYNESIAN
POSITION AND IT IS NOT THAT
ALL TAX INCREASES ARE
EQUALLY BAD IT HAS TO DO
WITH THE PROPENSITY OF
PEOPLE TO SPEND.
I VOTED FOR THE CLINTON TAX
INCREASES IN 1993 FOR THE
TOP TWO PERCENT.
AND THE REPUBLICAN POSITION
WAS OH THIS IS GOING TO HURT
THE ECONOMY IT DIDN'T.
THE ECONOMY THRIVED.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS
THIS, OF COURSE THE TAX CUTS
SHOULD BE EXTENDED FOR
PEOPLE, FOR THE 98% OF THE
PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN
2 -- 250,000 A YEAR.
THE ARGUMENT IS IF SOMEONE
IS MAKING HALF A MILLION
DOLLARS A YEAR AND YOU
INCREASE BY 3,000 PER
100,000, THE MONEY THEY MAKE
ABOVE 250, THAT THEY WILL
SOMEHOW WORK LESS, I DON'T
THINK THAT'S THE CASE.
AND THEY ARE NOT BIG
SPENDERS.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE, AND THIS
IS A QUESTION OF THE DEFICIT
THAT WE HAVE TO BRING DOWN
THE DEFICIT.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO
SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY IN THE
AREAS THAT WILL BRING ABOUT
SPENDING, MR. BIELAT SAYS HE
IT DOESN'T ONLY HAVE TO BE
INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MORE
TO GET CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
GOING IN AREAS WHERE WE NEED
THE TRANSPORTATION, WE ARE
WITH NEED THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE
POLICE OFFICERS, MORE
FIREFIGHTERS.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE
BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY AND
QUALITY OF LIFE IF INSTEAD
OF GIVING A TAX CUT TO
PEOPLE MAKING $250,000, WE
USE THAT REVENUE TO HIRE
TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS.
>> Rooney: THIS IS THE
QUESTION, THIS GOES TO THE
HEART OF THE MATTER WHAT BEN
BERNANKE WAS TALKING ABOUT
THIS WEEK.
THE DEFICIT IS OUT OF
CONTROL.
YOU SAID WE NEED TO LOWER
TAXES, YOU WANT TO SPEND
MORE, MORE STIMULUS MONEY.
>> NOT RAISE TAXES.
>> Rooney: LOWER TAX, DID I
SAY RAISE TAX, YOU WANT TO
LOWER TAX.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE
BUBB TAX CUT .
>> Rooney: NO, NOW I'M
TALKING ABOUT TAXES IN
GENERAL, TAXES IN GENERAL
AND WHAT IS GOING TO
STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
FORGET THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR
NOW.
>> YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
AND STILL SEND DOWN, GET RID
RFT DEFICIT.
BEN BERNANKE IS SENDING UP A
RED FLAG SAY UG CAN'T CUT
TAXES FOR ANYBODY OR
STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
SEAN BIELAT FIRST, AND
EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO WHITTLE
AWAY AT THE DEFICIT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO
GET THE ECONOMY TURNED
AROUND.
I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE THE
PRIORITY.
AFTER THAT WE SHOULD
ABSOLUTELY GO VICIOUSLY
AFTER SPENDING.
WE SHOULD REDUCE
DISCORRECTIONARY SPENDING,
GET THE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS
BACK IN ORDER.
BUT RIGHT NOW I THINK FOCUS
REALLY NEEDS TO BE ON
ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOB
CREATION, ECONOMIC EXPANSION.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT BUT I
THINK TO GET THE RESOURCES,
THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO IT
AND REASSURE THE FINANCIAL
COMMUNITY WHO YOU WANT TO
INVEST, YOU HAVE TO PUT IN
PLACE A LONGER TERM PLAN FOR
DEFICIT REDUCTION.
AS TO THE TAX ISSUE, I THINK
THAT THE 700 BILLION YOU
WOULD LOSE OVER TEN YEARS
FROM GIVING A TAX,
CONTINUING A TAX REDUCTION
THAT FROM THE CLINTON YEARS
FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOMES ARE
MORE THAN 250,000 IS A BAD
BARGAIN.
I DO NOT THINK THAT A
MILLIONAIRE WHO WOULD HAVE
TO PAY ANOTHER $20,000 ON
THAT $750,000 THAT THAT IS A
GOOD TAX THING TO DO RIGHT
NOW.
BUT I WOULD GO BEYOND THAT.
YES, WE NEED TO REDUCE
SPENDING.
MR. BIELAT AND I HAVE
DISAGREEMENT.
YOU HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT
ENTITLEMENTS.
HE HAS ADOPTED THE POSITION
OF PAUL RYAN, HE SAYS.
PAUL RYAN SAYS NO MEDICARE
IF YOU ARE NOT NOW 55.
THAT YOU WILL NOW SOME
PRIVATIZATION AND SOCIAL
SECURITY.
HE HASN'T SAID SO MUCH.
IF YOU LET PEOPLE NOW START
PAYING SOME OF THAT SOCIAL
SECURITY TAX INTO PRIVATE
ACCOUNTS THAT IS LESS MONEY
THAT GOES INTO THE SOCIAL
SECURITY FUND THAT DOES NOW
PAY CURRENT PEOPLE.
AND WE HAVE A BIG
DISAGREEMENT.
I AGREE, RON PAUL AND I FROM
TEXAS HAS SAID AMERICA IS
BEING TOO MUCH THE PROTECTOR
OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.
AND WE BELIEVE YOU CAN
DEFEND AMERICA'S LEGITIMATE
ECONOMIC INTEREST AND TELL
ENGLAND AND JAPAN AND
DENMARK AND GERMANY THE FREE
RIDE IS OVER.
>> Rooney: WHERE DO YOU
STAND ON SOME OF THESE
ISSUES.
>> THERE WERE ABOUT FIVE
THERE.
>> Rooney: LET ME CUT TO IT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RACES
OUT THERE, IN NEVADA,
DELAWARE, WHERE A NUMBER OF
CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING FOR
SENATE V TAKEN AIM AT SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THEY WANT TO PRIVATIZE IT.
THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE
EPA, THE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT.
DO AWE LINE YOURSELF WITH
ANY OF THOSE?
>> NO, NO.
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ME SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT THE EPA OR
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
>> Rooney: SOCIAL SECURITY.
>> I LIKE TO REDUCE
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
ACROSS THE BOARD BUT I'M NOT
TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING
THOSE DEPARTMENTS WITH.
SOCIAL SECURITY WHAT MI
CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW DO WE
MAKE THIS PROGRAM VIABLE
OVER THE LONG-TERM.
HOW DO WE REDUCE THE FUTURE
ECONOMIC DRAG.
NOW EVERY TIME YOU TALK
ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY
SOMEBODY COMES AROUND LIKE
MR. FRANK AND STARTS
SPREADING SCARE TACTICS
SAYING SEAN WANTS TO CAST
SENIORS OUT ON TO THE
STREET.
LOOK AT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS
GRADUALLY RAISE THE
RETIREMENT AGE SO, MY
GENERATION SO, MY LITTLE
BOY'S-- .
>> Rooney: THAT HAS BEEN
DONE.
YOU CAN'T DIRECT SOCIAL
SECURITY UNTIL WE'RE 67,
USED TO BE 612.
IT IS GOING UP.
>> ABSOLUTELY AND THAT'S
PART OF THE PROCESS.
MR. FRANK DOESN'T BELIEVE
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO
ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO A LOT A
PORTION OF THEIR OCEAN
SECURITY PAYMENT TO AN
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT.
>> Rooney: PARTIAL
PRIVATIZATION.
>> CORRECT SO THAT THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO THAT WHEN THEY
RETIRE.
>> Rooney: AT WHAT AGE?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
THE IDEA OF SAYING I CAN SIT
HERE AND TELL YOU IS 68 OR
72.
>> Rooney: YOU HAVE TO HAVE
A CUTOFF OTHERWISE THEY
WOULD BE DIPPING INTO IT
WHEN THEY WERE 35.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT WE HAVE TO DO THE MATH.
THE CBO HAS TO BE INVOLVED
THERE ARE FOUR THINGS, FOUR
VALUES WE HAVE TO TRADE-OFF
ON.
SO I KNOW MR. FRANK WOULD
LOVE ME TO SAY IT WAS 70.
AND MAYBE THAT'S THE RIGHT
ANSWER BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT
WITH GOOD CONSCIENCE RIGHT
NOW AND PRETEND I HAVE THE
ANSWER.
I DON'T AND HE DOESN'T AND
NOT ONLY THAT, HE DOESN'T
HAVE A PLAN FOR SAVING
SOCIAL SECURITY.
NOT ONCE HAS HE SAID WHAT HE
WANTS TO DO.
AND SAYING I HOPE THINGS
WORK OUT, I'M NOT GOING TO
DO ANYTHING, I HOPE THEY
WORK OUT.
THAT'S NOT A PLAN AND THAT
IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.
>> FIRST OF ALL, MR. BIELAT
COMPLAINS, I QUOTED HIM AND
THEN HE COMPUTES TO ME THE
NOTION THAT I SAID HE WANTS
TO THROW SENIORS OUT ON THE
STREET.
I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
REMOTELY LIKE THAT I HAVEN'T
SAID I HOPE THINGS WORK OUT.
I DO DISAGREE WITH HIS VIEW
THAT A CANDIDATE FOR
CONGRESS SHOULDN'T TELL WHAT
IS AN APPROPRIATE AGE, HE
JUST SUGGESTED 72.
>> I DIDN'T SUGGEST THAT.
>> MR. BIELAT.
>> IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL.
>> I AM SORRY YOU DON'T LIKE
WHAT YOU SAY.
>> Rooney: HE SAID 70 MAYBE.
>> NOBODY, YOU SAID IT COULD
BE 68, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS
68, I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS
72.
I THINK IS A GREAT MISTAKE
TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT YOU
MIGHT GET TO 72 IN SOCIAL
SECURITY.
I BELIEVE THAT INSTEAD WE
OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT --
>> DEMAGOGUE REE BUT GO
AHEAD.
>> DEMAGOGUE REE WHEN I
QUOTE WHAT YOU SAID.
YOU SAID THAT IT MIGHT BE
72.
I THINK THAT THAT IS A GREAT
MISTAKE.
I THINK FRANKLY PART OF THE
PROBLEM IS YOU ARE NOT
FAMILIAR WITH THE DISTRICT
WE BOTH WANT TO REPRESENT.
YOU GO TO BEDFORD, TAUNTON,
TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
WORKING PHYSICALLY HARD ALL
THEIR LIVES WHETHER MEN OR
WOMEN AND TELL THEM THAT
YOU --
>> I THINK I KNOW MORE ABOUT
HARD LABOR THAN YOU DO.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T
LIKE IT WHEN YOU I TRY TO
MAKE POINTS THAT YOU ARE
EMBARRASSED BY,.
>> WHAT POINT WOULD THAT BE.
>> THE POINT IS THAT WHEN
YOU TELL PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN WORKING PHYSICAL LABOR
UNTIL 67 THAT THEY HAVE GOT
TO CONTINUE, YOU SAID 70 OR
72, I THINK THAT IS A GREAT
MISTAKE.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS
THAT WE CAN FIND.
I AM FOR RAISING AS YOU SAID
YOU WERE, RAISING THE LEVEL
OF INCOME ON WHICH SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES ARE RAISED.
OR LEVIED.
AND THAT SAY TAX INCREASE
FOR PEOPLE.
IF ARE YOU NOW MAKING
100,000.
>> Rooney: A FYKEA.
YOU WILL ELIMINATE THAT IN
2013.
>> WE BOTH AGREE THAT IT IS
A TAX INCREASE FOR PEOPLE
MAKE -- 50.
>> NOT IF YOU USE THE MONEY
AS AN OFFSET TO FUND THE
PRIVATE K9S.
>> Rooney: IT IS A TAX
INCREASE FOR PEOPLE MAKING
OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
MONEY.
I WANT TO MOVE ON.
I HAVE TO GET TO A COUPLE
OTHER --
>> HE HAS SAID I AGREES WITH
PAUL RYE AND ON MEDICARE.
>> I NEVER SAID THAT.
>> HE SAID IF YOU ARE UNDER
55 YOU DON'T GET MEDICARE.
YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE
AGAINST THE -- DUSH WOULDN'T
CAMPAIGN ON THE REPUBLICAN
PLEDGE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T
TALK ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS, NOT
JUST SOCIAL SECURITY BUT
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
AND THAT YOU SUPPORTED WHAT
PAUL RYAN ADVOCATED.
PAUL RYAN ADVOCACY SAID IF
YOU ARE NOT NOW 55 YOU WILL
NEFERN GET MEDICARE.
DO YOU SUPPORT PAUL RYAN
IDEA ON MEDICARE.
>> I THINK THAT THEY BEAR
SOME CONSIDERATION.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO
LOOK AT-- .
>> Rooney: LET ME MOVE ON
HERE.
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD YOU ONCE
SAY A PROACTIVE SOLUTION.
YOU HAVE HAD 30 YEARS TO
WORK ON IT.
>> I DO WANT TO KNOW
MR. BIELAT IS GOING TO RAISE
IT TO WHAT.
>> YOU HAVE BEEN THERE FOR
30 YEARS YOU COULD HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THESE ISSUES.
>> Rooney: HE SAYS HE HAS TO
STUDY IT AND FIND OUT WHAT
AGE.
>> HE ALSO SAID WE THINK
ABOUT CUTTING MEDICARE AT
AGE 55.
>> WHAT IS THE SOLUTION.
>> TO FINISH A SENTENCE AS
MUCH AS YOU DON'T WANT ME TO
DO.
MY SOLUTION-- .
>> Rooney: YOU HAVE SPOKEN
QUITE A BIT MORE THAN
MR. BIELAT.
I WANT TO MOVE ON, PLEASE.
I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON ONE
OTHER SUBJECT THAT IS DON'T
ASK DON'T TEMPT I KNOW YOU
HAVE PERSONAL CONNECTION
WITH THIS BECAUSE YOU SERVED
IN THE MAIL MILITARY.
ARE YOU NOT FOR REPEALING
THAT.
DID YOU EVER IN YOUR
EXPERIENCE IN THE MILITARY
FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SERVING
WITH HOMOSEXUALS.
>> NOT IN PARTICULAR, NO.
THERE WERE GAY MARINES.
EVERYBODY KIND OF KNEW THAT
THEY WERE GAY.
>> Rooney: WHAT IS WRONG
WITH THE SYSTEM AS IT IS?
>> WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT.
>> I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT
THAT IS WRONG WITH IT.
ALL WHAT WE HAVE IS A
SYSTEM.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY
JUSTICE WHICH IS THE LEGAL
SYSTEM.
>> Rooney: AND WHAT WOULD BE
WRONG WITH CHANGING IT TO
MAKE IT OPENLY IF NOTHING
REALLY WOULD CHANGE WITH WHO
SERVES.
>> THE QUESTION BECOMES ONE
OF WHY WE WOULD DO IT.
IF WE ARE DOING IT BECAUSE
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
AFTER THURLOW STUDY OF THE
ISSUE DECIDES THERE A
MILITARY NEED OR ADDED
CAPABILITY AS A RESULT OF IT,
THEN I'M ALL FOR IT THAT
HASN'T HAPPENED THERE WAS A
NUMBER OF THINGS UNDER THE
UCMJ THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
ADD MESS-- ADDRESSED.
IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS LET'S
JUST CHANGE THE POLICY,
CURRENTLY ORIENTATION IS NOT
ADDRESSED BY IT, YOU CAN BE
GAY, STRAIGHT, DOESN'T
MATTER.
CERTAINLY ACTIONS ARE, BUT
THEY ARE BANNED FOR BOTH
MALES-- HETEROSEXUALS AND
HOMOSEXUALS.
SO YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS A
LESS SIMPLE ISSUE THAN
PEOPLE LIKE TO SAY AND AT
THE END OF THE DAY, THE DOD
SHOULD BE DRIVING THE
DECISION.
>> OF COURSE THE FEDERAL
JUDGE HAS RULED IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHERE DO
YOU STAND ON IT.
>> I'M FOR AGREE REPEALING
IT, I'M WITH COLIN POWELL.
HE SAID IT IS OUTDATED.
YOU LET THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT DECIDE THAT BY
ITSELF.
IF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
DECIDES IT BY ITSELF THERE
WOULD BE NO WOMEN SERVING IN
SIGNIFICANT MILITARY
CAPACITIES.
THAT WAS A DECISION MADE BY
THE WHOLE SOCIETY.
THE WHOLE SOCIETY MAKES
THESE DECISIONS IN A
DEMOCRATIC WAY.
LISTENING TO THE MILITARY,
BUT NOT LETTING THEM MAKE
THE DECISIONS ITSELF.
IF HARRY TRUMAN FOLLOWED
THAT THE MILITARY WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN INTEGRATED
RACIALLY.
THESE ARE DIFFERENT ISSUES
BUT IT IS THE PRINCIPAL
ABOUT WHO DECIDES.
>> Rooney: THE OTHER DAY
DURING A DEBATE ON NECN I
BELIEVE JIM BROADY ASKED YOU
ABOUT 40 B WHICH IS QUESTION
2 ON OUR BALLOT.
YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T
FAMILIAR, HAVE YOU
FAMILIARIZED WNSD I WOULD
VOTE YES.
>> Rooney: WHICH WOULD --
>> WHICH WOULD REPEAL THE
CURRENT-- .
>> Rooney: WHERE DO YOU
STAND.
>> IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE
SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS SAY THEY DON'T WANT
THE GOVERNMENT
INTERVIEW-- INTERINTERFERING
WITH BUSINESS.
WHAT 40 B SAYS DEVELOPERS
WILL NOT BE TOTALLY
CONSTRAINED WITH WHAT I
THINK IS EXCESSIVE
REGULATION IN THIS AREA.
40 B IS ACTUALLY KIND OF A
PRO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
>> Rooney: EXCEPT
NEIGHBORHOODS DON'T WANT IT.
>> I THINK IT LEAVES
DECISION-MAKING AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL.
>> Rooney: I GOT GO.
BARNEY FRANK, SEAN BIELAT,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS IT FOR
BREATER-- "GREATER BOSTON."
REMINDER TO TUNE IN TO MY
RADIO SHOW 89.7 TOMORROW FOR
MY WEEK IN REVIEW AND
TOMORROW IS BEAT THE PRESS.
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE
SHAKE-UP AT PBS OUT IN
CALIFORNIA AND HOW THE
RESCUE IN CHILE BECAME THE
FEEL-GOOD STORY OF THE YEAR
TOMORROW AT 7:00.
I'M EMILY ROONEY.
GOOD NIGHT.