Face the Nation (CBS) - 2009-02-15

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:00] Today on Face the Nation, the Congress

[0:02] passes President Obama's mammoth

[0:05] stimulus package, but with just a few

[0:08] Republican votes. Is bipartisanship dead

[0:11] so soon?

[0:13] President Obama will sign the

[0:14] multi-billion-dollar bill Tuesday in

[0:17] Denver. How soon though will its effects

[0:20] be seen? What's the next goal for the

[0:22] White House and will the president keep

[0:25] reaching out to Republicans despite

[0:27] their rebuffs? These are the questions

[0:30] for White House press secretary Robert

[0:32] Gibbs. Then we'll turn to the crisis in

[0:34] the US banking system. Are some banks

[0:37] just going to have to fail? Is a cap on

[0:40] bankers' pay a good idea? We'll talk

[0:43] with Senator Richard Shelby, Republican

[0:46] of Alabama and the ranking member on the

[0:48] Senate Banking Committee, and

[0:50] Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of

[0:52] Massachusetts, chairman of the House

[0:54] Financial Services Committee. I'll have

[0:57] a final word on dog days of winter. But

[1:01] first, White House press secretary

[1:03] Robert Gibbs on Face the Nation.

[1:14] >> Face the Nation with CBS News chief

[1:17] Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.

[1:20] And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob

[1:23] Schieffer.

[1:24] >> And joining us now from Chicago, the

[1:27] White House press secretary Robert

[1:28] Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs, thank you for joining

[1:30] us this morning. So, the big stimulus

[1:33] package has now been passed by both the

[1:35] House and Senate. It's my understanding

[1:37] the president will sign it on Tuesday in

[1:40] Denver. Why Denver?

[1:43] >> Well, Bob, I I think he wants to get out

[1:45] of Washington and show people all across

[1:47] America the benefits of what are what's

[1:50] inside this economic recovery and

[1:52] reinvestment plan.

[1:53] We thought Denver would be as good a

[1:55] place as any to

[1:56] to highlight some of the investments to

[1:59] put people back to work particularly in

[2:01] clean energy jobs and to focus people on

[2:04] those long-term investments that will

[2:06] help our long-term economic growth.

[2:08] >> When are we going to begin to see the

[2:10] effects of this legislation?

[2:13] >> Well Bob, we certainly hope that that

[2:15] this money gets moved out to the states

[2:17] and localities that to prevent them from

[2:20] having to cut police officers or

[2:22] teachers

[2:23] that the money that comes down through

[2:25] unemployment insurance and certainly the

[2:28] tax cuts to middle-class families.

[2:30] We think that money can get out of the

[2:32] system and two people very quickly.

[2:36] One caution I have Bob, I don't think

[2:37] there's any doubt that

[2:39] we've seen this economy has gotten worse

[2:41] just in the last few months. The

[2:43] acceleration in job loss probably means

[2:46] that this economy is going to get worse

[2:47] before it gets better,

[2:49] but we're happy that Congress in a

[2:51] bipartisan way took steps to make

[2:54] whatever it happened in this recession

[2:56] easier to take for the American people.

[2:58] >> What should we look for? What you say

[3:02] things may get worse before probably

[3:04] will get worse before they get better.

[3:06] What will be a sign that things are

[3:08] getting better? What what will we see

[3:10] out there in a tangible way that can

[3:12] tell us that this package is working?

[3:15] >> Well, I think the

[3:17] the biggest measure of this package

[3:19] obviously is going to be putting jobs

[3:21] creating jobs and putting people back to

[3:23] work.

[3:24] The numbers that I mentioned

[3:26] specifically are you know, we've lost

[3:28] about 3.6 million jobs

[3:30] uh

[3:31] in the during the course of this

[3:33] recession and about half of those jobs

[3:35] have happened job losses have happened

[3:37] just in the last 3 months. So you see

[3:39] that acceleration in unemployment

[3:41] becoming much steeper. Hopefully with

[3:44] this plan now that it's through Congress

[3:46] and awaiting the president's signature

[3:48] we believe that 3 and 1/2 million jobs

[3:50] will be saved or created by this plan,

[3:52] that money will come directly

[3:54] to people into their pockets so that

[3:56] they can spend on their bills

[3:58] and investing in this economy. And so

[4:00] we're hopeful that it will get this

[4:02] economy moving again and that people

[4:04] will

[4:05] see a better end to this year than they

[4:06] have seen a beginning to it.

[4:08] >> Uh

[4:09] some have said that unemployment may

[4:11] actually get to 10% with this stimulus

[4:14] now passed. Do you believe that we will

[4:17] not get to 10% unemployment?

[4:20] >> You know,

[4:21] the economic team believes that this

[4:23] bill will help us stay away from those

[4:26] double digit economic unemployment

[4:28] numbers. So we're certainly hopeful of

[4:30] that. Again, you've seen in just the the

[4:33] last few months the unemployment rate

[4:35] jump uh

[4:37] a lot each month. So it we're certainly

[4:39] going to watch that as time goes on

[4:42] to see and chart the progress of this

[4:44] economic recovery plan. But I think the

[4:46] American people can feel good that

[4:49] Congress acted quickly. You know, we're

[4:51] going to have this bill signed by the

[4:52] president just 4 weeks after he was

[4:54] sworn into office. There's an urgent

[4:57] need to get this economy moving again

[4:59] and we're happy that those in Congress

[5:02] saw that urgency and acted quickly.

[5:04] >> Uh just one thing. You You just said

[5:06] that this is a a bipartisan

[5:09] effort here. The president got a grand

[5:12] total of three votes

[5:14] from Republicans. All three of those

[5:16] Republicans in the Senate, zero votes

[5:19] from Republicans in the House. So how

[5:22] how can you say that this is a

[5:24] bipartisan effort?

[5:26] >> Well, look, Bobby, it never would have

[5:27] gotten through the Senate if it weren't

[5:28] for Republican support. This president

[5:31] is going to continue as he's done

[5:32] throughout his career in public service

[5:35] reaching out to Republicans to find

[5:37] common ground and get things done for

[5:39] the American people. I think the

[5:41] American people watching this show

[5:42] understand that an agenda isn't going to

[5:44] move forward that helps them without

[5:46] that happening.

[5:47] Bobby, he's going to continue to reach

[5:49] out to Republicans and he's hopeful that

[5:51] Republicans

[5:53] uh will start to reach back.

[5:54] >> Well, that was my next question. Will he

[5:56] continue to reach out to Republicans?

[5:58] But let me ask you this. Isn't it going

[6:00] to take more than just inviting

[6:02] Republicans over to the White House for

[6:05] cocktails? Uh more than just talking the

[6:08] talk. Isn't he going to have to find

[6:09] something that Republicans can support

[6:12] if he's going to have true bipartisan

[6:14] support?

[6:16] >> Without question, Bob. That's why

[6:18] Republican ideas were solicited and some

[6:20] of them are contained uh in this

[6:22] stimulus plan. I The first meeting that

[6:24] I went to with the president and the

[6:26] congressional leadership even before he

[6:28] was sworn in, there were ideas around

[6:30] that table uh including a website that

[6:33] will track the transparency and

[6:35] accountability of the projects that are

[6:37] involved in this recovery and

[6:39] reinvestment plan. That was an idea that

[6:41] was offered up uh by one of the

[6:43] Republicans in the room. One of the

[6:45] House Republican leaders.

[6:47] Uh and that's going to be something that

[6:48] we're going to do. So, their suggestions

[6:50] have been taken seriously, Bob. We uh

[6:53] we'll continue to reach out to them. Uh

[6:55] it's a it's a outreach plan that

[6:56] includes, as you said, more than just

[6:58] Wednesday night cocktails. Uh we're

[7:00] going to listen for their ideas. This

[7:02] president is willing to listen to

[7:04] anybody who's got an idea that will help

[7:06] get this economy moving and get people

[7:08] back to work.

[7:09] >> Uh it turned out that the uh stimulus

[7:11] package had something in it that a lot

[7:13] of people didn't know was in there. And

[7:16] that was it did put a cap

[7:19] uh on bonuses, on wages uh for uh

[7:23] executives of these big financial

[7:25] institutions that are getting a

[7:26] financial bailouts. Now, I know that uh

[7:29] Secretary Geithner uh had a totally

[7:31] different idea about this. Is this going

[7:34] to be a hard thing for the president to

[7:36] support? And is he in fact, does he

[7:38] favor this?

[7:40] >> Well, as you know, Bob, the president

[7:42] outlined a very strong measures on

[7:45] executive compensation and bonuses to

[7:47] ensure that taxpayer money that was

[7:49] that's supposed to be used to get our

[7:51] financial system stable and lending

[7:53] money again isn't lining the pockets of

[7:55] some of the people that got us into this

[7:57] mess.

[7:57] >> could just interrupt you, not nearly as

[7:59] strong and as stringent as what came out

[8:02] in this bill. In fact, your people

[8:04] called people up on the hill and and

[8:07] asked them to back off on this a little

[8:08] bit.

[8:09] >> Well, I would say, Bob, that many of the

[8:10] provisions that are in this bill are

[8:12] modeled after things that the president

[8:15] outlined in his plan, particularly a say

[8:18] by shareholders in CEO pay.

[8:21] We are we're looking forward to working

[8:22] with Congress to institute some of these

[8:25] regulations that will ensure that

[8:27] taxpayer money isn't wasted, but we also

[8:30] have to make sure that it doesn't hurt

[8:33] regional, smaller, and regional banks

[8:35] that want to participate in this

[8:36] program. We think we can strike the

[8:39] right balance. The president is very,

[8:41] very focused and wants to make sure that

[8:43] taxpayer money does not in any way go to

[8:46] excessive compensation or bonuses for

[8:49] CEOs that got us into this mess.

[8:51] >> Well, but let me just make sure I

[8:52] understand what you're saying here.

[8:54] You're not saying you're going to try to

[8:55] modify this, are you? Or are you?

[8:57] >> Well,

[8:58] Well, the the president's going to sign

[9:00] this bill in Denver, and those

[9:01] provisions are in this bill. We look

[9:03] forward to working with Congress as we

[9:05] go forward on all measures of executive

[9:07] compensation to ensure that there's not

[9:10] any waste or fraud in this.

[9:12] >> So, he's going to enforce this. He's

[9:14] he's satisfied with this as it is now.

[9:17] >> We will sign this bill into law on

[9:19] Tuesday.

[9:20] >> Let me ask you about Judd Gregg, who

[9:23] was, of course, going to be had been

[9:26] nominated to be a secretary of the

[9:28] commerce. Then Friday we had this

[9:30] surprise deal where he just said no.

[9:34] I I about it, and I don't want to do it.

[9:37] Uh what was that all about, Mr. Gibbs?

[9:41] >> Well, look, I think Senator Gregg, who

[9:43] the president greatly respects and who

[9:45] the president thought would be

[9:47] a great advocate for American business

[9:49] all over both this country and

[9:51] internationally,

[9:53] he thought he would be a great addition

[9:54] to this cabinet. Senator Gregg

[9:57] had reached out to us about this, and

[10:00] the president nominated him. Clearly,

[10:02] Senator Gregg, in thinking about this

[10:04] over time, changed his mind. And as he

[10:05] said

[10:07] during his press conference, he's an

[10:08] independent guy, which might make it

[10:10] hard for him to serve in this or any

[10:12] other cabinet. And we certainly respect

[10:14] his his change of mind. It doesn't

[10:17] change the president's respect for

[10:18] Senator Gregg on many issues like budget

[10:21] reform and social security.

[10:23] >> Well, you know, after Senator Daschle's

[10:26] name was withdrawn over taxes, the

[10:29] president, to use his words, said, "I

[10:31] screwed up." Uh does he feel that he uh

[10:34] did that on this nomination?

[10:38] >> No, I I Bob, I think he he looked for

[10:40] somebody that he thought would be good

[10:42] in this position.

[10:44] That person also happened to be a

[10:46] Republican, and I know he's sought

[10:48] Republicans to be active participants in

[10:51] this cabinet. We thought this was a good

[10:53] selection. Senator Gregg just changed

[10:55] his mind.

[10:56] >> Uh will

[10:58] you try to find another Republican to

[11:00] fill that role?

[11:02] >> I I don't know if the next person that

[11:04] we nominate at Commerce will will be a

[11:06] Republican, but I certainly know that

[11:07] the president will continue to look for

[11:10] Democrats, Republicans, and independents

[11:13] that he think can serve this country in

[11:15] his administration. He he certainly

[11:18] wouldn't, as a result of this episode,

[11:19] preclude asking another Republican to

[11:21] serve.

[11:22] >> Let me just ask you one final question

[11:24] about this. Is there anything having to

[11:26] do with this nomination and the

[11:27] withdrawal that we don't know about? Is

[11:30] there something back there that

[11:32] hasn't been brought up about this or is

[11:35] it just what it appear and what it is on

[11:36] the surface?

[11:38] >> Uh this is just what it appears, Bob. I

[11:40] know it seems funny sometimes in

[11:42] Washington,

[11:43] but this was something that he simply

[11:45] had a change of heart in. This didn't

[11:47] come from the White House. There was

[11:50] nobody asking him to do something that

[11:52] he didn't want to do in the Senate. This

[11:54] was

[11:55] somebody who I think has spent a long

[11:56] time being his own person in the Senate

[11:59] and in public service and decided he

[12:01] wanted to continue on that path.

[12:03] >> All right. Well, thank you very much,

[12:05] Robert Gibbs, a press secretary to

[12:07] President Obama.

[12:08] We'll be back in just 1 minute to talk

[12:10] about this with some key people on

[12:12] Capitol Hill.

[12:24] And we're back now with Senator Richard

[12:25] Shelby, the top Republican on the

[12:27] Banking Committee. He joins us from

[12:29] Montgomery, Alabama. With us from

[12:31] Portland, Maine this morning,

[12:32] Congressman Barney Frank of

[12:34] Massachusetts, chairman of course of the

[12:36] House Financial Services Committee.

[12:37] Gentlemen, thank you both. I want to

[12:39] start with what Robert Gibbs just said

[12:43] about this executive compensation limit

[12:46] that suddenly showed up in the stimulus

[12:49] package that the Congress passed. This

[12:51] was clearly more than the administration

[12:54] had wanted. Senator Shelby, what what do

[12:56] you make of what Robert Gibbs just said?

[13:00] >> Well, it seemed to me that he was

[13:01] waffling a little bit. I believe, Bob,

[13:03] in ordinary times where the government

[13:05] money's not involved that we should not

[13:07] limit or the government should not be

[13:09] involved in limiting executive pay in

[13:11] any way. That's a private matter. But

[13:13] where our taxpayers' money is going to

[13:16] these banks that we and a lot of them

[13:18] have misspent this money as we've known

[13:20] and we've seen and no accounting for the

[13:22] rest, we should put a limit on where

[13:25] what these people make where they're

[13:27] begging for our money. We should protect

[13:29] the taxpayers here, and I believe this

[13:31] provision in the stimulus bill is going

[13:34] in the right direction as far as

[13:36] protecting the taxpayers.

[13:37] >> So, even though you voted against this

[13:39] bill, you are sound like you're very

[13:41] much for this provision.

[13:44] >> I I am. I think that we need that.

[13:47] I'm

[13:48] totally against private companies

[13:52] us being involved in private companies

[13:54] where their money's involved, but where

[13:56] the taxpayers money's involved, we

[13:59] better make sure that money is spent

[14:01] wisely, and it hadn't been under TARP 1.

[14:03] >> Chairman Frank, what's your response to

[14:05] this?

[14:06] >> I agree with half of what Senator Shelby

[14:08] said. Yes, this is important. It's in

[14:10] the bill, and let me be very clear. Mr.

[14:13] Gibbs may not like it, but it's going to

[14:15] be enforced. The administration, I

[14:17] believe understands, I've certainly done

[14:19] everything I could to get them to

[14:20] understand it, that if they want any

[14:22] capacity going forward to have any more

[14:25] resources available to deal with the

[14:26] banking situation, they've got to undo

[14:29] the legitimate anger that existed in the

[14:30] public the way TARP 1 was done. That

[14:33] means in part doing something about

[14:34] foreclosures, which I'm glad to say

[14:35] they're going to be doing very soon. It

[14:37] means that they've got to make sure that

[14:39] some of this money that we give a lot of

[14:40] it is re-lent, but they also have to be

[14:42] tough on compensation. So, this is not

[14:44] an option. This is not, frankly, the

[14:45] Bush administration where they're going

[14:47] to issue a signing statement and refuse

[14:49] to enforce it. They will enforce it. And

[14:51] I'm glad, but I differ with Senator

[14:53] Shelby in in one sense. He said, "Well,

[14:55] only when they are getting the

[14:56] government money." I think we need to

[14:58] try to prevent the situations where

[15:00] people come to us. The problem with

[15:02] incentives with compensation,

[15:05] particularly the financial situation, is

[15:07] that has perverse incentives.

[15:09] You know, this problem didn't start in

[15:11] September. We began to provide some

[15:12] money in September, but I would have

[15:14] liked beginning of 2006 is when

[15:17] I first started pushing for this say on

[15:19] pay. Let the shareholders deal with it.

[15:21] And here's the problem.

[15:22] The way the compensation is structured

[15:24] for a lot of these companies, if they

[15:26] take a gamble and it pays off, the top

[15:28] people get a lot of money. But if they

[15:30] take a gamble and it backfires, they

[15:32] don't lose any money. It's heads they

[15:34] win, tails they break even. That's a

[15:36] perverse incentive. And so when we deal

[15:38] with trying to put rules in place, which

[15:40] we greatly need, to reduce risk-taking

[15:43] that puts government money at risk. You

[15:44] know, many of these are insured by the

[15:46] Federal Deposit Insurance operation,

[15:48] then we have got to make it illegal for

[15:50] them to have these one-way streets,

[15:52] which I think add to the incentive to

[15:53] take unnecessary risk.

[15:55] >> All right. Uh let me uh speaking of

[15:57] details, let me talk to you a little

[15:59] bit, both of you, about the uh

[16:01] presentation that Treasury Secretary

[16:03] Geithner made last week. There was every

[16:05] expectation that he was going to outline

[16:07] some specific plans on uh rescuing the

[16:10] banks. Uh and uh he didn't. Uh he he

[16:14] outlined some sort of some broad

[16:17] concepts, uh I must say, uh that it was

[16:21] universally panned, uh and the stock

[16:23] market went uh way down after he

[16:25] announced this. What happened, uh Mr.

[16:28] Chairman, uh with the Geithner plan? Uh

[16:31] is it urgent that uh Wall Street get

[16:34] some details on this pretty quickly? Or

[16:36] or why do you think this took the turn

[16:38] it did last week?

[16:40] >> Well, one, I don't think one-day

[16:42] trends in the stock market or one-day

[16:44] directions uh uh

[16:46] the stock market over time is a very

[16:47] rational predictor and allocator of

[16:49] assets uh

[16:51] uh and resources, but on any one day, I

[16:53] think it's uh not not wise to read too

[16:55] much into it. Um I think Tim Geithner's

[16:57] doing a wonderful job um moving forward.

[17:00] Uh maybe they should have told people

[17:02] don't be expecting too much of this. And

[17:03] again, there were two things he didn't

[17:05] give details on. One was how they're

[17:06] going to deal with the with the bank bad

[17:08] assets, and another was foreclosures.

[17:10] Now, I understand this next coming week,

[17:12] he's going to deal with one of those,

[17:13] which is a and and it's going to be a

[17:15] great distinction between the Bush

[17:17] administration. You know, one of the

[17:18] reasons we have this anger about TARP 1

[17:20] was it was seen as helping banks with

[17:22] very few restrictions, although some of

[17:24] us tried to get the Secretary of

[17:25] Treasury to enforce them, and didn't do

[17:27] anything for the average citizen. You're

[17:29] going to see a very important, very

[17:31] helpful foreclosure reduction plan

[17:33] rolled out. Shortly thereafter, you'll

[17:35] get the details. Now, people may or the

[17:37] specifics on on on where we are with the

[17:39] banks. So, having waited a week on

[17:42] foreclosure, and maybe 10 days on the

[17:44] bank assets I I don't think does any

[17:46] damage.

[17:46] >> All right, let's get Senator Shelby's

[17:48] reaction here.

[17:49] >> Uh but uh Bob, I believe that Senator

[17:51] Geithner, I mean, Secretary Geithner got

[17:54] off to a bad start last week. He was

[17:56] unprepared as far as details were

[17:58] concerned after a lot of fanfare. Uh he

[18:01] wasted about 4 hours of the Senate's

[18:03] time. I was there. Uh we didn't learn a

[18:05] lot of things. He was uh nervous about

[18:08] the whole plan. I asked him, was the

[18:10] plan, it seemed to me in in as far as it

[18:13] being uh a concept, maybe a son of

[18:16] Paulson. I hope it's not. If it is, this

[18:19] plan's going to be another big mistake

[18:23] uh following the Paulson 1 TARP plan.

[18:26] >> Well, let me Can I say one thing, Bob?

[18:27] Yeah.

[18:28] One thing,

[18:29] I I I understand some of what what you

[18:31] said, but being accused of wasting the

[18:33] Senate's time is like being accused of

[18:34] making it too cold cold in Alaska.

[18:38] >> All right. Let me just ask you

[18:41] one Let me Let me just get on to one

[18:42] thing that uh Mr. Geithner did talk

[18:44] about. And he talked about putting the

[18:47] big banks to a stress test. In other

[18:50] words, to get into the books to

[18:51] determine if they are strong enough to

[18:53] survive. I guess he means with the

[18:56] bailout funds. Uh but what if they don't

[18:59] meet the stress test? What do you take

[19:01] that to mean, Senator Shelby?

[19:03] >> I I think I took it to mean that they're

[19:05] going to close them. There are a lot of

[19:07] banks that are like the walking dead. Uh

[19:10] Uh, a lot of them need to be closed now.

[19:12] I think we would save a lot of money.

[19:14] Nobody wants to close some of the big

[19:16] banks. They say they're too big to fail.

[19:19] Dr. Volcker testified before the Senate

[19:21] Committee. He said some of those banks

[19:23] are too big to exist, and I think he's

[19:26] right. We're spending billions,

[19:28] billions, billions, maybe trillions.

[19:31] I don't know what the answer to, but if

[19:32] a bank is insolvent, we should not keep

[19:35] it open. It costs more in the long run.

[19:37] >> Should we allow these banks to fail, uh,

[19:39] Chairman Frank?

[19:40] >> Oh, of course. And we have allowed some

[19:42] to fail. IndyMac failed and and and

[19:44] Sheila Bair, the excellent chair of the

[19:46] FDIC, who was a Bush appointee, carried

[19:48] over by uh by this administration, is

[19:50] doing a good job with it. Wachovia went

[19:52] out of business and it was taken over by

[19:54] Wells Fargo. In fact, we have a pretty

[19:56] good system in place for bank failures.

[19:58] One of the things we're going to have to

[19:59] do going forward, Bob, and Chairman

[20:01] Bernanke said this, Mr. Volcker a lot,

[20:03] and even Hank Paulson has said it. We

[20:05] don't have a comparable system for

[20:07] helping a large non-bank financial

[20:10] institutions go out of business. That's

[20:11] why both Bear Stearns and Lehman

[20:13] Brothers were so troubling because we

[20:15] don't have a regular procedure. So, yes,

[20:17] uh

[20:18] we we have we know how to help banks go

[20:20] out of business without any damage. And

[20:22] let's be very clear, people should

[20:24] understand if they have insured

[20:25] deposits, they are protected. Let's not

[20:27] have any citizen who's got an insured

[20:29] deposit insured by the federal

[20:30] government think for a second that even

[20:32] a nickel is at risk.

[20:34] >> All right, let me ask you quickly

[20:35] because you mentioned the $50 million

[20:37] that Mr. Geithner is talking about to

[20:40] for a foreclosure relief. Is And we have

[20:43] about a minute left here, Mr. Chairman.

[20:45] Is that going to be enough or will more

[20:47] money be needed to stall all these

[20:49] foreclosures?

[20:49] >> will be enough, but in fairness to Mr.

[20:50] Geithner, we won't know that for a

[20:52] while. I I believe that he will be he's

[20:54] got a good set of plans coming forward

[20:55] to begin to reduce foreclosures. And by

[20:57] the way, we reduce foreclosures not just

[20:59] to be charitable to individuals, but

[21:00] because the massive number of

[21:02] foreclosures is a major macroeconomic

[21:04] problem. It hurts the whole economy. And

[21:06] so, what I hope is this, we will begin,

[21:09] if in fact by the time we've used 50

[21:11] billion, it turns out we can use more,

[21:13] then I believe the Congress would be

[21:14] responsive. But first they're going to

[21:16] have to demonstrate the will, which they

[21:17] have demonstrated, and the capacity to

[21:19] use it effectively.

[21:20] >> Let me give Senator Shelby the last 30

[21:21] seconds.

[21:23] We've got we've got an awesome task on

[21:25] our hand, but what troubles me about all

[21:28] of it is the role of the Fed. I think

[21:29] the Fed's in uncharted waters.

[21:32] I'm not sure that we have a lot of

[21:34] confidence in them right now.

[21:35] >> All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you

[21:37] very much for a very informative

[21:38] discussion. I'll be back with some final

[21:41] thoughts in just a minute.

[21:48] >> This portion of Face the Nation is

[21:50] brought to you by T. Rowe Price,

[21:53] providing investment management

[21:55] excellence for over 70 years. Invest

[21:59] with confidence.

[22:05] >> Finally today, when Uno the Beagle won

[22:08] Best of Show at last year's Westminster

[22:10] Dog Show, I thought it couldn't get any

[22:12] better than that. Finally, a top dog

[22:15] that looked like a dog. Well, it got

[22:17] better. This year, the oldest dog in the

[22:20] show, a 10-year-old Sussex Spaniel named

[22:23] Stump, walked off with a top prize. You

[22:26] can see why I might identify with the

[22:29] oldest dog in the show. They said in

[22:31] human years, Stump would be 70, which

[22:33] means if I were a dog I'd be turning 504

[22:37] later this month. Now, when you're 504,

[22:40] people have a right to ask if you've

[22:42] learned anything along the way, and my

[22:44] answer is yes. Mainly, that the older

[22:47] you get, the more you have to take care

[22:49] of yourself. But here is my advice, go

[22:51] to the doctor, do what the doctor says,

[22:54] and discuss your health with no one

[22:56] else, because no one else cares,

[22:59] especially if it's about your teeth. I

[23:02] thought friends would be fascinated to

[23:04] hear about my dental implant. They

[23:06] weren't. So, I told a colleague, "If I

[23:09] bring up my teeth again, just say

[23:11] there's something on your ear." Which

[23:13] will be the reminder to me to talk about

[23:15] something else. Sure enough, friends who

[23:18] disappeared in recent weeks started

[23:20] drifting back, at least some of them.

[23:22] Maybe the rest haven't heard. But, if

[23:24] you see any of my friends, tell them I

[23:27] have changed the subject. When you're

[23:29] 105 and 4, you need all your friends all

[23:33] the time. Back in a minute.

[23:46] And we'll see you next Sunday right here

[23:48] on Face the Nation.

[23:55] >> This broadcast was produced by CBS News,

[23:58] which is solely responsible for the

[24:00] selection of today's guests and topics.

[24:03] It originated in Washington, D.C.