tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 14, 2015 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
your question is how do we build on this relationship and the answer is resoundingly yes, i'm all in. we're trying to build up. we're working out dates and times when nick and six can present to the dem caucus. he's already presented to the progressive caucus. did you know that there is no table that combines state legislate tors, national governor, dnc, d triple c, dsec? y'all know what i'm talking about? there is no national coordinated campaign. if some of your state, you have coordinated campaigns. and we're trying to win. i tell you this, they never stop begging me for more money, which is fine, i don't mind doing my part fund raise, but what about some smart work? which coordinating team work makes the dream work, does it
not? so, i mean, spot on. but progressive caucus is looking for partnership and we're so proud to be working with six and we want to do nothing but work more and more with six. on the progressive caucus front, the thing is, when you have like nancy pelosi is a progressive, so, right now, you know, we basically go to nancy and say, nancy, if you really want to push on this issue, we got you. and she's like, awesome. now, we may, if we had a conservative leadership? well, then we would still have to say, look, you got 72 people in this caucus who don't think that what we need to do, you know, we don't actually believe rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. so, we're not going to help you
cut foot stamps. at the end of f the day, every leader of every caucus that you all are in is trying to build a consensus and if you and if we're organizeded within your caucus, you create a gravitational pull in the other direction. don't y'all remember the days when you know, there was sort of even if you were as progressive as you could be, you kind of felt like you didn't want to use the word polar people. welfare. people could say don't use that word, that's alienating, to who? we've got to create a gravitational pull in favor of progressive values. now, we're not always going to agree. i am 100% against doctrine air behavior. we do not have litmus tests. the closest thing is our people's budget, which we form and we offer and we get a vote on and we all vote for our
budget, but also for the black caucus budget. also for the dem caucus budget, but we've got, we have got, our ideas have migrated into the dem caucus budget on a pretty regular and consistent basis because how? we have ideas to start with. you cannot migrate your progressive ideas into the democratic caucus idea box if you don't have any ideas to start with. right? so, that's the key. so, again, it's more extensive that we have time for now. but we would really love to be in a conversation about how you can start a progressive caucus. i've talked too much. back to the panel. senator? >> yeah, i just wanted to go back to representative burks question. i don't have am radio and the cable issue, but one of the first things i worked on with some of the people at that table was the death penalty. there were people who just didn't see the world the way i did. the way we got movement and moved the billing away in my
freshman year that we had never been able to move it was to sit down with people and recognize they have a different perspective and listen to them. one of the things i did, sit down, listen to people who disagreed, then walked away. i didn't assert what i wanted to do. i went and a thought about what they said an thought if i had that perspective, how could i hear e somebody else and i came back to them in a way much different and they now quicksy say this, although my session start ed with the comment about what white people tell about what i see, i think they are some of the most critical voices because when i can't be heard, they can be heard because they're not seen as invested in this the way i am. >> i want to dive into the idea about how can we get more young people to turn out the vote. my answer to that would be i don't know. being real. but i think we're making a mund mental mistake and we fall in
this trap all the time when we say if we could just get more young people to vote. more of a certain minority to turp out. to win elections consistently, you have to appeal to the broad swath of the electorate. maybe in presidential races, when it's close any way, you can get over the top with a targeted turnout efforts and we should work to turn people out. but you're surely going to lose even if wrou turn people out if wrou don't appeal to a broad swath of the electorate with issues that matter to them and more importantly, that they believe you care about them. if they believe you care about them, if they believe you're on their side and on their team, then they'll vote for you. they're so divorced generally from specific issues and minutia we get involved in. really need to swing that bat really for the stands and try to get everybody into the fold that we can and that's how you build lasting majorities and that's
what we need to do on the state level. >> awesome. >> i want to address the same issue from a more tact kl perspective. in o orr, one of the things we did in our house races, i went to individual donors in the tech world and said will you invest in us testing this tool. will you give us the money to do pandora targeting and then collect data on it and figure out whether or not it works. because for young people, women, targeted voters, the ability to know what work, you have to direct the data and be disciplined enough to have a data driven campaign. we have a large tech community near portland and so, going to some of those folks who really believe e in data general ly wa really helpful because we weren't taking money out of traditional mail and calling and all of that. so, it was much easier when you had earmarked dollars to say i'd love to put this into your mail program, but the donor wants it
to go to targeted new media. >> you could do a whole panel on how to employ technology and how to be a more ektive campaigner. >> i'll be really brief. being sure to incorporate social media. in north dakota, we moved mountains among young people doipg facebook, twitter and that fun stuff. it's easy, t free most of the time and the people around the table who are helping you try to move the bill are testifying and organizational partners, having them share reaches a larger audience. >> so, look, everybody. i think we've pretty much reached the end of our time and i want to say that haven't we had some truly brilliant ideas emerge in this session? what do you think? and i just want to say you know,
everything everybody e said, i agree with it 100%. i think we have to appeal to the broad swath of the electorate. but young people are a part of that broad swath of the electorate. they experience the economy in a particular way, in a way that me at 52 years old didn't experience. when i graduated from law school when i was 25 years old, i had $12,000 in student debt. $12,000 per semester is what a lot of these kids got and a lot of these kids are not alone in that because there's a lot of parents who got parent plus loans, so my point is, youp, appeal to the broad swath of the economy. talk to those bread and butter issues ch don't be afraid to talk about race. i think progressives can own this issue if we're not afraid to talk authentically in our heart about our neighbor, our friends, our people. and we have had what i think is
is an awesome morning and i want to say we got to just get closer and closer together and work more and more together and i could tell you 72 members of the progressive caucus want to do that with you. god bless and have a great session. more road to the white house coverage coming up tonight. hillary clinton speaks at a rally in las vegas after taking part in last night's first democratic presidential debate in the 2016 campaign. hillary clinton speaks live tonight at 8:30 eastern on cspan. the cspan bus continues on its road to the white house tour. visiting the texas state fair in dallas today. inside the bus, vis tors learned about our campaign coverage and online resources. cspan has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you'll find the candidates, the speech, debates
and most importantly, your questions. this year, we're taking our coverage into classrooms across the country. with our student cam contest. giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow cspan's student cam contest and road to the white house 2016 on tv on the radio and online. at cspan.org. this monday on landmark cases, by 1830, the mississippi river had become a breeding ground for cholera and yellow fever. the address this problem, louisiana allowed only one government-run slaulgter house, crescent city, and other houses took them to court. follow the slaughter house cases of 1873. we're joined by paul clement,
former solicitor general and constitutional law attorney and michael ross, author of justice of shattered dreams, to help tell the history of this time period in the south, the personal stories of the butchers and the state of things in new orleans as well as the attorneys and supreme court justices involved in this decision. be sure to join the conversation as we take your call, tweets and facebook comments during the program, landmark cases. live monday on cspan, cspan 3 and cspan radio. background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the book. it's available for 8.95 plus shipping at cspan.org/landmark cases. coming up tonight on cspan, maziar bahari was jailed in 2009 on espionage charges. here's a preview with him describing his experience.
>> during those days, because i was most, under that seven days in solitary confinement, i did not get any new information, but my information about the revolutionary guards, the regime, the paranoia really deepened. i understood how much they hated jews, for example, how much they regard israel and enji at the same time, hatred. so, i went through a different periods during my interrogation. as i said, and beginning, they charged me with espionage, so they were beatings, psychological torture mostly. telling me that and you know, this isolation is the worst kind of torture because you have deprived of all your senses.
you cannot touch anything except for the walls, you don't see anything except for the walls, don't hear anything and that was the worst kind of torture, sometimes, i really wished that yikd get out of the solitary confinement and go to the interrogation room to be beaten a little bit so i had some human contact, then when the espionage period finished after a couple of months, i believe they started to ask me about my private life and especially my sex life, that how many people i've slept with. how much times. how much did i pay them. it was just -- which was getting from ridiculous to more ridiculous. >> joined by tim greenberg tonight on cspan starting at 8:00 eastern. >> treasury secretary jack lew says the debt ceiling the
federal government's borrowing authority will be reached on about november 5th and he's asking for lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling. he's interviewed by the round table president, tim pawlenty. >> good morning, we're delighted to have secretary lew with us. the fact he would take time out of his busy schedule to be here with us this morning is deeply -- you have to feel like bill murray on ground hogs day. facing another budget deadline, the issues are going to come
back. how you view their an inability to view the issues and the consequences and the need to address those issues. >> thank you. if i may, let me just begin on a kind of somber note. as we meet this morning, i think everybody in this room like people across the country, are feeling the sadness of the families in oregon that had the terrible losses and the shootings yesterday. and i think before we jump into today's conversation, we need to take a moment to be with them and to commit ourselves to doing something about this terrible problem. with gun violence in this country. on the question of the budget, i think across the world, there is a deep, deep desire to operate in a normal business like way in terms of public finance in the united states. we've seen over the last year
and a half, that since congress reached an agreement to not have fights every six months over either the budget or the debt limit, it's led to a greater confidence and calmness and helped to stimulate truostronge growth in the u.s. economy. we know brinks man ship is bad for confidence. we know it's bad for economic decision making. and it's total ly avoidable. congress knows how to solve this problem. congress knows how to sit down, democrats and republicans, and work out their differences. that's what happened when senator murray and congressman ryan reached an agreement just a couple of years ago that has health. i certainly hope that the leadership in congress is able to structure that kind of a conversation now, work out our budget differences and now, i told congress yesterday, the deadline for deal wg the debt limit is november 5th. and congress shouldn't wait to
november 5th to do it. we all know what happens when you wait until the last minute. as the date gets closer, anxiety grows. it changes the way people think about what decisions they should make. and we don't need that. right now, the world is is looking at the u.s. economy as an engine of strength. i'm going to be going next week to the annual meetings and if it's at all like the last conerer sagss we had at the g-20 meeting, what i'm going to hear is how does the u.s. do it? how does the u.s. bounce back from an economic crisis, come back up, growing with stable, strong growth and it not with standing the noise of the political pros, make the decisions you have to make to move the country forward? this would be a terrible time for congress to fail to do its work and start to create the kind of anxiety that undermines that confidence in the u.s. the good news, it's not necessary to do that. they have a pathway out of this.
they can look at the kinds of trade offs so that on the spending bill, they can raise the levels so they can meet our defense and nondefense needs without damaging our budget. projections. on the debt limb, they just have to do it. only congress can raise the debt limit. we've been through this so many times. congress decides how much money to spend at one point, then the decision to raise the debt limit is the consequence of decisions made a long time ago. you don't get to go back and reverse the spending decisions, so congress has to raise the debt limit and the sooner they do it, the better. we went through this in 2011, 2013. i hope we don't have to go back to the terrible planning process of what do you do in the event there's a miscalculation or a bad decision and congress goes over the cliff. there are no good alternatives. you look at what you would do mechanically. there are no way, there's tho way to pay all the bills of the united states.
and it should be unacceptable to everyone for the united states to be in a position where it's in default on any of its obligations and for our member, i know many of you have hill meetings, you'll be talking to members of congress in the coming hours or days. secretary's always interested in trying to make sure they appreciate the importance of this issue. they've already authorized the expenditure of the money. like dining and dashing. so, want to remind them, if you've spent the money, have to have the authorization to pay the bills. i know the secretary would appreciate your perspective on that as well. our members for many months and years, have been very interested in tax reform. we have members in the room who look at it from a macro economic standpoint of course, but also from an individual standpoint and a corporate standpoint. but we're going to wonder wh whether it could still happen in the near or intermediate term and more specifically with the elections coming up in 2016,
what that means for the both sides can you give us a sense of hope that some form could be possible in the next 18 month sns. >> i have been one of the biggest advocates of doing business tax reform. for the past many years. i think that if you look at the conversations i've had with democrats and republicans, there is a place where there should be a meeting of the mind. when i sit down and talk with chairman ryan, it gives me the sense we could do this if there were freedom to have a kind of conversation where you really solve the problem. obviously, time is not our friend. there's not a lot of time left in this congress and there are still differences. what's the right way to do business tax reform? the right way is to do a big business tax reforl. to get rid of the loopholes and deductions. lower the stat chour rate. and close down the unfair loopholes to pay for it.
so it doesn't cost money. we cannot spend money to do business tax reforms. it's going to have to be self-financed. now, why has that been hard to do? it should be something that's straightforward. businesses say that the high rates are just distorting the terrain for doing business. from the kind of -- we're talking about. a argument has been made by some republicans that until you do individual tax reform, you shouldn't do business tax reform because it would be unfair to pass through businesses as if the businesses are small businesses. they're not. the small businesses would benefit from a semp fied tax code. from being able to take a full deduction for up to a million dollars of investment. the businesses that wouldn't benefit are not such small businesses. they look more like hedge funds
and interstate pipeline companies than harry's hardware story or a small manufacturing firm. now, i tried to make this argument. there's been a powerful effort to define this as a small business issue and i think in a completely incorrect way. now, if you can't do full business tax reform b what the president proposed three years ago is that we should do what we can do to get the international tax code fixed. to be available for investing in our infrastructure and solving the terrible problem of inversions where companies change their address to an overseas address to avoid overseas tax loss. to make the environment for doing business in the united states so attractive. so, why is that hard to do? it's hard to do because you have to agree on a number of things. on making it revenue neutral,
which means having a rate that's sufficient so it doesn't cost you money over time and i think you have to agree to put the one time revenues that come in into building our infrastructure. if we could agree, there could be a pathway forward. time is short. i know there are still conversations going on. i hope that we can have a breakthrough. this is an important issue for us to address and frankly, it's one that if we were at a different political climate, i would have higher confidence that we could address. obviously, it's a difficult climate. it has been to get things like this done. but we have not stopped working towards it and i will talk to anyone who and continue to talk to anyone who is interested in proceeding. you got a deal with the budget. debt ceiling. one of the leaders on the discussions relating to potential tax reform and you have even much more in your port foal low, including a big part of the role in the trade discussion.
ministerial meetings in atlanta had interesting and positive news regarding the trans pacific partnership. that's advancing quite well, a little more to go. can you talk about where it goes in terms of timing and sub tans and any remaining hurdles? >> the reports i'm hearing are still preliminary because until they're done, they're not done. are positive, that they're making real progress on the g d goods and services issues that are the subject of that discussion. i have responsibility for a sub part of the trade discussion. the pieces that affect the financial services industry. but also, the issues regarding currency that we're discussing parallel to the goods and services discussion. as i think you know, when congress passed trade promotion authority, they made clear that they wanted this issue of currency to be very prominent in our discussions of trade. and we are working very hard and
making great progress to get to a place where we will have greater transparency of what currency practices are pursued around the world. what kinds of interventions in countries are making to affect their currency value and to force a process to have these issues brought to a level where monetary authorities work through differences they have so that we can make sure that there's a level playing field where the u.s. is competing on a fair bases, not unfairly with other countries doing things to essentially deflate the value of their currency to gain unfair advantage. i think we're making real progress in that and it's parallel to the conversations going on in atlanta. >> on the financial services part, it seems like financial services early on, i don't want to say was moved to the shelf, but is not a prominent part of where the agreement stands now. any thoughts about where the
dynamics are around that, why that has come to that point? >> i think there are provisions in this that will make for a more level playing field and financial services as well. i think we have made progress in that area. on kinds of nontariff barriers like requirements that would force electronics services to be locally located. there's a host of issues in the financial services area that we've worked very hard to make sure our financial services as well as our goods and other services can compete fairly in the world. we have to remember that the kind of critical importance of this trade agreement is it was designed to set high standards around the world. we in the united states in almost every area, meet those high standards because we have the kinds of laws and
regulations here that have evolved to make uz the strongest country in the world. when we compete with others who undermine those standards, they get a price advantage that's unfair and also damaging to the goals that we seek to accomplish. this agreement will drive up standards in a host of areas. to make sure that whether it's environmental, health, fair practices in terms of tariffs, that high standards, not low standards, are driving the global decision making process. that is a huge advantage to the u.s. economy and i think we all know that the global economy is, the growth in the global economy is largely outside of the united states. just in terms of population an consumer demand. i believe that will open up more areas for economic growth and competition for u.s. businesses and reach an agreement on tpp is a critical part of our growth agenda for the next decade.
>> return iing to the imf, anotr global issue, global impact, domestic hang ups, so to speak. the system changes have been kicked around for some time now. i think our international partners are growingl weary on whether the united states is willing and able to make the change. >> let me start with the consequences. i think u.s. leadership in the world the critically important to our international security and since world war ii, one of the areas of leadership where the united states has helped shape decisions. through the system that evolveded out of world war ii. i think our very leadership and that set of critical
institutions is at stake. quota reform is something we led the negotiation on almost ten years ago. started in the bush administration, to this administration. it says growing emerging economies have a right to a stronger voice and there has to be some reallocation of shares. the united states share is held at a very high level and barely changed at all and it's really moving around shares amongst other countries. and this is a good deal for the united states. it is something that protects the u.s. influence and vito in the organization. and it is something congress should have approved years ago. around the world, it is now being seen as a test of whether or not the u.s. will stand up for its leadership and whether the u.s. will approach these international institutions in a way that reflects the reality that other countries see the need to have as they grow.
now, i think the if if you look at our role in the world, everything we try to do internationally gets harder. i deal with it in every international conversation i have. even countries that would give up share want us to approve, but -- the international system. i'm going to go to the imf meetings in a couple of days. the world is going to start talking about moving on without the united states. congress shouldn't let that happen. only congress can approve this. we've workeded with congress. the issues that people have been concerned about have been addressed and we need, congress needs to get this done. >> let's turn to some domestic issues -- >> on a more optimistic note, i have believed that there's a broad understanding now of how important it is. it's like many other things, a difficult thing to do. because getting things through congress is difficult these
days, but compared to a few years ago, i think there's a much broader understanding that this has real significance to u.s. national and economic security and i'm very hopeful that we'll get it done. >> on the domestic front, a video played on our save ten initiative. to enroll auto escalate their employees in their employer based savings programs. but as we know, there's a lot of individuals in our country who don't have access to employer based savings. you've been a leader on some initiatives tho address that need. can you give us an update on how that's gone and whether you have ideas or plans for enhancing that proposal and initiative. >> i applaud the effort the round table is making to move foryour save ten initiative because getting people to sign up early for retirement savings is just a critical part of making sure that people have the resources they need for
retirement when the time comes. you can't wait until you're on the eve of requiremetirement. you have to start early with small amounts. let them build over time. our initiative the based on that principle. it was a way to deal with what are the reasons that people are uncomfortable saving. when they start, they're worried about will they lose their money. t a totally safe investment vehicle. they're worry ied about fees. there are no fees. they're worried about can they get their money back. t it's set up like a roth ira. if you have an emergency and need to tap your money, you can, but hopefully, you won't. it's a very attractive product. we've tested it over a period of time with a limited pilot group of companies. and it works very well. and we're looking at some ways to expand it to make it easier for people to sign up. and it's going to be an area that we put a lot of effort into in the coming year because getting people to start saving is the key. once people start, they tend to continue.
but starting at the beginning of your career or you know, early in the middle of your career makes a big difference and we know that starting with small amounts makes a difference. so, it's not that people have to put aside an amount of money that is putting a real crimp in their ability to meet their current expenses. even small amounts, some ira, you can put $5 a pay period away. obviously, the more you put away, the more you're going to save, but the critical thing is to get started and i think it's a great initiative and we're looking forward to spending a good deal of the next year and a half pushing hard on it. >> are there ways that people here could be helpful to you in that regard? >> the more people know about it, when people hear about it, they tend to go to the website and when they go to the website, that's when you can start getting enrolled. we would love to have help getting more eyes on this option and we would be happy to work with you and anyone else who's
happy to help people become more familiar with it. >> another one of your many roles is to lead the f sock, and so, now we are number of years removed from its creation. there's been some you know, operation alex appearance with it. some observers have said we don't want to eliminate the f sock. it plays an important role, but some of the process concerns i know you're familiar with them are what really is the record for decision making and is that, is there enough transparency around the record and as the decision gets made on that record, to the extent the f sock has an ininterpreter ration of those facts, give people a chance to know what it might be to comment before the decision making is finalized and if the goal is derisking, is there a way once somebody is in the cross hairs, could they derisk and get out of the designation process or after the designation process, is there you know, a clear way and timing and rules
around an off rafr to get out and then there's broader concerns that the f sock over time could play a role around ha harmonization as a power an encourager of trying to make the whole regular will torre platform more coherent and consistent. taughts about any and all of that. >> sure, i've said many times that if any of us were starting from scratch, we probably wouldn't design the system we have today that's evolved over more than a century. with many institutions and overlapping roles. f sock the really an attempt to deal with that for the first time. by having a formal institution where all of the agencies responsible for financial regulation come together with a mission of worrying about addressing financial stability
risks. for young organization there's a lot of mythology that's built up. start with some facts. in 2006, 2007, there was no entity in the federal government that was charged singularly with worrying about financial stability. and looking across all the different platforms. and asking what are the risks we should be deal iing with. f sock was createded to fill that gap and i think any notion that we want to go back to a world where we don't have that radar, the ability to see what's looming on the horizon, would be a grave, grave mistake. i wish we had it. in 2005 and we need it going into the future. second, i think from the debate one has heard over the questions you raised, whether they're process issue ors a risk of designation issues. you would think that hundreds of nonbanks had been designated.
you know how many have been designated? >> three, i think. four. >> so, this is not a process of tens or hundreds or thousands of institutions being designated. it's a careful process that takes not a week or a month, it's an average of two years of going through the review process. there is an enormous amount of back and forth between the f sock and the entities that ultimately are being reviewed or designated. we went through and listened to concerns that were raised and it's a new five-year, six-year organization. it's evolving. in my time, the three years that i've been chair, we've changed some of the procedural rules to address concerns about public notification process. i think was a good process before. i think it's a better process now. i hear questions raised about companies don't, how do they
know how to derisk in they want to be dedesignated? when a designation is being made, it's not a two paragraph designation, it's more like a 340-page analysis that goes through in a firm, specific way, what risks have been identified and why the designation was made. those risks, if changed, would lead to a new decision. if the risks were eliminated. now, there's an annual review of the designations. if the facts have changeded, then the designation can change. so, there is in fact a process for look iing at firms and it's not the goal to expand the number of firms regulated for any purpose other than to address issues of financial stability risk and that's why the number designated is relatively small because there are not that many firms that pose that level of risk. so, i actually think the process
has been a very good one. i think that it is an improving one and that's a good thing. and i hope that the facts of f sock breakthrough some of the mythology because what all of us should worry about is a world where the radar shut off. even out of the private sector, i guess seven years are back in government, you've served in really high roles for seven years, as we transition in a moment to aud vens question, we'll send out a hopeful note as you think about and reflect upon the service. you personally have put in, the reflections, insights that give you hope for the future for our could be tri, economy, financial services and their stability in the country's prosperity. give us some of your hopeful thoughts. >> tim, i actually am an optimist and i don't think you could do the work i do if you didn't believe that most of the
people working in our government in all branches, move in the right direction. they don't agree how to do it, but really care about this country being the best, strongest country in the world. you know, i've worked in public service for 25 years. i've seen periods of political challenge. and one of the things that i've kind of learned over the years is that the political challenges you face tend to be the worst ever faced. it's always worst than it was before. there's no moment when we can't get things done. we could still do tax reform. we can avoid budget crisis. we are going to have to avoid a debt limit crisis and it means that people across party lines have to talk to each other. now, that's hard. that's hard. because there are differences of view that are legitimate differences of belief. that's always been the case in this country.
we have to find a way to solve the problems and we can. so, i am inherently more optimistic about the ability of decisions to be made. than the kind of 24-hour chatter suggests. let me give you an example in my world and this may seem like going from a lofty $30,000 foot to something right on the ground. we worry a lot about financial inclusion. i don't think that's an issue that is a right left democrat republican issue. everybody should want small businesses and individuals to have access to financial services. to have access to financial education. to be able to build a future of economic opportunity by having access to the best financial system in the world. that's the kind of thing we should still work together on. even if you can't do some big legislative things. i give you a host of other examples of things we can make
progress on. i'm not going to be a polly anna and say that i think in the next six month to a year, all of the log jams will be broken, but i also believe this the debates we have will lay a foundation for edition decisions. whether on issues like infrastructure, tax reform, immigration reform, the big issues we know what we need to do, the time we spend debating it and working op it is an investment in decisions that ultimately will be made. the sooner the better. >> right. >> let's go to questions from the audience if there are om. just raise your hand and there we go. john. give john a microphone. >> one's coming to you from your right there. >> thank you for coming. one of the things that we all spend a lot of money on is
cybersecurity and the whole cyber issue. i know you're involved in that. can you give us some of your latest thinking about that and some of the things you're doing with other governments and other peoples you talk with around the globe to help us in this issue? trust is what we offer our customers and that's an important part. >> i think there's probably no issue that has changed more dramatically in terms of its prominence in the attention of ceos like yourself or senior officials in government like myself. ore the last ten years in cybersecurity. it is truly a risk that we have to deal with. it's also a risk that is not something we're going to deal with and put it aside. it's going to continue to change. the risks will change. the bad guys are going to come up with new approaches. and we know that collectively, we need to do better. i actually think the financial services sector and the work we
do together is at the you know, high-end of readiness to deal with it. and we know that there's a lot that we need to do. which should make your worried about everyone else because i don't think anyone in this room feels that they're doing everything that they need to do or that the problem is under control. we work closely with industry to make sure there's information sharing. that we encourage you to report problems because the more we see, what's going on, the more the al gor it ms can be understood, the better we can address things before cyber attacks hit. legislation in that area has been pending. the sooner it's passed, the better, but even without the legislation, we're doing whatever we can. the executive order the president put in place goes to the limit of what we can do short of changing the law.
first, i hope congress passes legislation. second, we can't wait to figure out how to lick this problem before we start coordinating internationally. as much work as we need to do, when i go to international meetings, we're ahead of a lot of other countries, so, the g 7 has started a process, which my deputy secretary is a co-chair of, to bring senior leaders across the major economies together to share information and develop as best we can a common understanding, which hopefully, will lead to more effective approaches. the thing that is an unfornt fact of life is that this is probably going to dominate the attention of all of us and the people who take our places for some time. the more that there's benefit from attacking information systems, the more people will try to attack them. and attacks will change.
they'll become more sophisticated and we're going to have to defend and develop a resilience so that'ven if there's some penetration of a system, you can bounce back quickly and not have the result be the kind of long disruption of service or loss of access to personal resources or information that is truly paralyzing. i mean, i don't think we can pretend nothing will ever hit. the vast majority of things we catch. so, it's not as if we don't do a will the of deflection of attacks. but that's not a standard that any of us are happy with because the one that hits is terrible. and we just have to constantly redouble our efforts, so, i wish i could give a simple answer and i think you know, as i've talked to many of you in different settings, there isn't anything i'm saying that isn't shared pretty broadly in terms of the
level of the risk and nature of the challenge. i hope we can break down the barriers that still exist in terms of the stigma that's attached with saying we were attacked. because the more we share information, the better we all will be able to protect ourselves and it's not something that either an agtdsy or a firm needs to feel singled out for. what we have to do is do the very best we can to understand the nature of attacks as we see them, so we can stop them and then remediate any damage done. and that's kind of my sense of where we are. that's -- >> quick follow up. i absolutely agree with we need congressional help here. sharing is critical. especially you know, now among ourselves, but clearly with government. so, thank you. >> thanks, john. >> thank you for being here.
i agree completely with john and you. you've been a driver of this on cyber from your days at the white house through our interaction. that liability share ng the bill is going to be very important. froms i'll ask a different question for you on sanctions and you've been a driver of that, the efficacy of how you feel of how we're doing that in russia, the ukraine and where you think this is going. i did pick up a recent trip into europe, some shaking on their side on the future of that and i'm just trying to figure out how you feel about that and how you're thinking about that. sanctions are an enormously powerful tool. you didn't ask about iran. the negotiates with iran was something that proves the power of sanctions. iran came to the table because the most effective international sanctions ever put in place brought their economy to a point where they needed to find a way
out of sanctions and we ended up with an agreement that will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon because of that effective coordination of sanctions. so, sanctions are a very powerful tool. i've always said that sanctions can put pressure on an economy. but they can't force a regime to change its policies. they can create circumstances where the rational choice is to change. but if a country is willing to endure pain and more pain, it won't necessarily accomplish the result. we should take hope from the iran case that even some very, very recalcitrant governments do ultimately respond to that kind of economic pressure. in the case of europe and russia and ukraine, we've taken an approach to sanctions there, probably the most sophisticated ever designed. it's not designed to hurt the
russian people. it's designed to put pressure on the decision makers in russia and on the russian economy in a way that will bring russia to change its policies on you crane. policies on ukraine. obviously, russia has not in a dramatic way changed its policy. i don't think the sanctions have been without impact. they've very much had an impact on russia's economy, and i think it has curtailed, perhaps, some of russia's actions. if you look at eastern ukraine, i can't say what do we do to get out of sanctions. i think that's a case for keeping tough sanctions in place because it's not the case six months or a year from now things will necessarily be where they are. and i think it's very important that russia understand that europe and the united states
remain united because, a, they need to not go further, and b, they need to not step back. there are conversations going on in europe at the political level that i think are reenforcing the importance of living with the accord. i've not gotten the sense that you are stepping back from sanctions. i have actually seen a steadfastness in sticking with a tough sanctions program. at the core is a need for russia to change its policy towards ukraine, but it's also a need for ukraine to have an economic future where it can withstand the pressure and have a better path forward. the bright spot over the last few months, the last year, is ukraine has embarked on economic reforms that are actually really quite substantial.
it is more than would have been expected even without the pressure of the conflict with russia, and ukraine's economy while still very challenged is slowly improving. we have to continue to support ukraine. ukraine suffers a risk both on a military security front but also a financial front. if you lose either of those battles, it is tremendously damaging. so we're supportive of ukraine in strengthening its reforms and its economy, and we're going to continue to keep pressure on russia. >> barbara, you had your hand up? >> secretary, thank you for joining us this morning. i had a question on the international side. there's a growing number of issues whether it's derivatives and cross border issues or tax
issues like ftt. you're going to be at imf next week. what's the u.s. position on these kinds of issues? how do we use your leadership and the american leadership to drive some of these to a conclusion? >> you know, we have taken a very active role on trying to use these international conversations to drive the world to high standards. i think we've made some progress in the tax area and the base erosion conversations. i think we've made progress in the financial area through the fsb and in focusing on bringing international standards up. what we can't do is we can't use an international conversation as a way to dilute the things where we're a world leader, and that's a bit of a challenge because you bring standards up closer to where you are and you're still higher. and that has led to some friction because there's a desire on the part of some of
our trading partners to say, well, what we do is good enough and you ought to recognize it as good enough. we try to work through that. if there is an area where there is really substantial consistency of approach, we ought to find a way to respect each other's regulatory processes, but if there's a difference, if it doesn't meet a standard, we have to be careful to kind of not contract our responsibility to others. just as we were talking about fsoc where there's a lot of mythology. there's a lot of mythology about these international conversations. we have to retain control over making u.s. policy. if we have high standards to protect the u.s. economy, u.s. financial stability, that has to be our fundamental driving concern. we subscribe to that 100%.
the closer we can get the world to that high standard, the better off the whole world will be. and i think we are making progress, but i don't think we'll eliminate all the differences overnight. i hope we can reduce the friction because it's not good for there to be friction over these issues, but it's also not good if there's any perception that international agreements are kind of lessening the steps we take to keep the united states safe. that's the approach we take. >> we have time for one more if there is one. >> mr. secretary, mark trust. i'm a strong personal supporter of the fsoc. i would not like to go back to a world where we didn't have that kind of coordination. if you go back to the financial crisis and the formation of fsoc one of the primary issues it was trying to get a hand on was counterparty credit.
>> i think we've made a lot of progress. certainly in the united states we've made a lot of progress that we have transparency where we had non-transparency to use a polite term. we have the ability for both institutions and regulators to see what is urnder the hood in these formerly very opaque transactions. frankly, we're ahead of the rest of the world, so we have more central clearing. we have more reporting. so we need to make sure that other major economies catch up to us. it's one of the areas where if we were to use a lower international standard i think it would be a mistake, but we can get to a high international standard. that's a good thing. and we also have to be cog ani and we also have to be cog anzat of the fact that we have created nodes because central clearing is taking place in centralized
locations. we have to be attentive to what risks arise out of that kind of concentrated activity as our public readouts of meetings have shown. we've been looking at the question of risks associated with central clearing, and i think we did the right thing by creating central clearing. we've done the right thing by creating transparency. now we have to ask the question what does that mean in terms of future financial stability risks and we have to make sure we address those, which is exactly what we're working on doing. >> let me just make a quick housekeeping announcement, then we'll thank the secretary. in just a minute, we're going to play a video to allow the stage to add a chair and to allow the press to transition and break down their equipment and leave. that'll take about three or four minutes. then i'm going to make another
announcement. ask john to come up and lead the ceo panel. hopefully, you'll stay right where you are to see that. please be a little patient just for a few minutes during this transition and remain in the room. after that panel, there will be a break before leader mcconnell comes and participates in our forum. if you look at the scope and weight of his portfolio just on these topics, has enormous responsibilities and he just throws himself into it with terrific energy and passion and a heart for public service. we're grateful for him. we're grateful for his time here this morning. mr. secretary, thank you for all that you do for the united states of america. >> thank you. it's been a pleasure. >> appreciate it. [ applause ] coming up shortly, more road to the white house 2016 coverage as hillary clinton will be speaking another a rally in las vegas. this after appearing in the first democratic presidential debate in the 2016 campaign last
night. live coverage starts at 8:30 eastern on our companion network c-span. hillary clinton will be back on capitol hill next week. she testifies before the house select committee on benghazi. that committee was created to investigate the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in libya in which ambassador christopher stevens and others passed away. her testimony is live thursday, october 22nd at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you'll find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly your questions. this year we're taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity
to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's student cam contest and road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. a signature feature of book tv is our all day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top non-fiction authors. here's our schedule. we're live from austin for the texas book festival. and the following weekend we're live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison. and at the end of the month, we'll be in nashville for the southern festival of books. at the start of november, we're back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it's the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. at the end of november, we're live for the 18th year in a row