tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 6, 2011 1:00am-5:59am EDT
do we need to do better as a country? absolutely. let us give credit where credit is due. there are over 200 people murdered in colombia several years ago. less than 20, so far this year. the for my friends to suggest that somehow this language that the country and the president of colombia have agreed to should somehow be attached to hr free trade agreement is devoid of the reality of what a trade agreement is. no trade agreement that this
congress has passed in the history of this country has included language to dictate what the other country is about to do or required to do. rather, our trade agreement by definition is the language in which our country is agreeing to a set of principles, a set of actions. so for my friends on the other side to suggest that the good work, the good gestures, the promises of the santos administration of the colombian congress could show how -- should somehow be amended and adopted to our trade agreement is not only setting a double standard but is breaking from past practice of how we past trade agreements and negotiate good faith with other governments. i would suggest that is a bad policy. second, i would ask my friends who have already stated they are going to oppose this trade
agreement with columbia, against the assumption is perhaps they are comfortable with the violence, the murder rate, the humanitarian efforts of the other two countries we are about to vote on, and all other countries that we have current trade agreements with. but do not hear my friends on the other side suggesting that perhaps we should revisit our trade agreements with mexico, which not only has significant violence and murder rates on its own people, but on our people. and perhaps it is the mexican government that should be looking to renegotiate their agreement with us, now that they have discovered that our government has used our taxpayer money to infiltrate their streets with weapons. this is a dangerous road for us to be going down when what we should be talking about is trade and creating a level playing field and commerce so that growers, many factors, service
sector folks in our communities and our country can compete on a level playing field with those in other countries who wish to do the same. that is why the columbia trade agreement is a no-brainer. ms. ellard, perhaps you can enlighten us, what were the taxes that colombian producers of flowers, coffee, paid to the united states citizens and companies in terms of trading their goods to our economy? >> the average tariff paid by imports from colombia into the united states was less than 1%. by contrast, the average tariff paid by u.s. exports to columbia was 11.2%. so it it is fair to say that the
people being put at a competitive disadvantage by inaction is not colombia and the united states, but perhaps simply the united states? >> yes, i think that is accurate. >> oprah care about jobs and growing our economy, i would urge passage of this bill. >> mr. thompson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for more than 20 years, colombia has benefited greatly from duty- free access into u.s. markets under the andean trade preferences act. at the same time, they have also enjoyed lucrative government subsidies, and sometimes even u.s. foreign aid to benefit their access into our market. one thing that has done in my home state of california is that it has devastated the cut flower industry. once a very lucrative industry,
a lucrative market, thousands of jobs, and it just has been devastated by this unfair, and level playing field on which columbia operates in regard to this specific industry. this is not a new issue, and it is not something that has not been brought up. i have had conversations with the trade ambassador about it, a california it delegation has written a majority -- a majority of delegation members have written the president, the secretary of agriculture, the trade ambassador, and even in this committee, i raised an amendment on this issue for discussion purposes and withdrew it. this is not a new issue, yet it
is one that the administration and the negotiators have failed to recognize. if something is not done, it will and the rest of this incredibly important industry in california. the colombians also enjoy two major trading transportation hubs to not only bring their flowers and, the flowers that are being grown and cut on and on a level playing field, but to better and more efficiently distribute them in our country, putting yet another nail in the coffin of our domestic industry. there are ways to fix this, and we have tried to deal with it, but it is as though this administration has been deaf to our problems. i think that is terribly unfortunate, and presents a huge problem for me on this
particular measure, and it is and industry i am not going to stand by and let die. unless this administration does something, that is exactly what is going to happen, and that is unacceptable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you for all of your worked and chairman brady's work on these trade agreements, and i would like to thank represent the ron kirk for all of his work in bringing these agreements to this point. it is my privilege to represent the dallas-fort worth airport and the cities that surround that airport and it is a very important economic engine in the state of texas.
these trade agreements would generate jobs in the dallas-fort worth area from transportation, warehousing and distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars of goods that will flow through the dfw and alliance airport. our area will serve as an important gateway for the ever- increasing movement of the imports from these countries that are flown in from south america and korea. these trade agreements mark an important first step towards getting these countries -- this country's economy back on track. people in the 24 district of texas need jobs, and to these agreements will provide those jobs. over 9% of america's work force is out of work, looking for
jobs, using the president's own metric, over 250,000 jobs will be created from these trade agreements. it is time to act. it is time for us as a committee to both these bills out. it is time for the house to vote these bills and time for us to move forward. >> mr. larsen is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, for organizing this today. my questions have to deal specifically for the general counsel of the u.s. the are. as they relate to north korea, i will not be able to be here for the rest of the hearing, and a number of issues have arisen with people from my district coming and talking about some areas that i think need to be clarified specifically as
relates to the u.s. sanctions on north korea, the industrial context and the trends shipments from china. before we vote on this matter, i was hoping you might be able to clarify that. let me just rapidly go through them. if you don't have the time, if you could submit in writing, but essentially the questions are as follows. what impact will the fda have on u.s. sanctions on north korea. can goods from the case on come into the u.s. under the fta, how is the u.s. going to ensure that korean products do not enter the united states containing those components? if those goods were going to be converted and afforded duty relief, what would need to happen? executive order, resolution, legislation? finally, what steps are being taken to ensure that chinese
manufacturers don't transshipments through korea and claim that the goods were made in korea in order to obtain duty relief under fta. all of them are related. >> let me try to take your questions one by one. first, what impact will the fda have on u.s. sanctions on north korea? none. the fda does not affect those sanctions. the u.s. has had sanctions for many years and are governed by different statutes that prohibit imports into the united states directly or indirectly from north korea, except where they are expressly license. the executive order carries for this type regime and tie and that further by preventing evasion. in recent years the redeem has been not too fast to implement sanctions in the development of missile technology and in -- and
other sanctions. imports have been at virtually 0, virtually all of which were postage stamps. we have a very tight sanctions regime and the fda will not affect that in any respect. in goods from the investor plan not recommend to the united states under the fda? no. the imports from north korea, all parts of north korea are affected by our sanctions regime. under the fta, bids from north korea or expressly disqualified from entering into the united states. should there be a desire to change that, there would have to be the following steps. a committee comprised of both u.s. officials and north korean officials would have to meet and agree unanimously to recommend that there be this change, and
the u.s. server and would have to recommend that to congress and congress would have to enact a change to u.s. law. the congress would have to enact the change to u.s. law and the president would have to change -- sign that change into effect. how will we ensure that products are not entering the united states? the burma, and security and our customs and border protection agency have assessed three powerful tools of the party. they look at four different points in time. before shipment leaves korea, while it is on the water, when the shipment arrives at a u.s. port, and after the shipment has cleared customs, and applies a set of powerful tools front loaded to detection. u.s. customs service has numerous ways of obtaining the permission that can detect whether shipments from north korea or other forms of
inappropriate entries for coming in. for example, a contact south korean authorities, working with u.s. businesses, working with labor organizations. it also deploys the resources of the u.s. government including having eyes on the ground in korea that can be watching and working on these issues. in specific areas, the customs border protection authority can conduct -- examine purchase orders and delivery notices and go into minute detail. the kind of thing if you are a business owner you do not want to be engaged in, to assess whether there is a problem. further, the u.s. and south korea have entered into a new memorandum of understanding that will further enhance the provisions. that is as a result of the free- trade agreement which will improve our ability to detect unlawful shipments coming from
north korea. >> thank you for clarifying that. if i could receive those in writing, because i think these are important to constituents who care deeply about these issues. ms. black is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all those who have been involved in bringing this bill to us today, particularly chairman camp and chairman brady and also the president for taking action and knowing that this bill is going to be a significant build for us in creating jobs. these three bills are truly jobs bills today. i want to go specifically to my state and the area that i represent. we have about 50% of my district is agriculture, and we grow corn and wheat and so we in this area. i know there has been a real shift in our market share,
falling from 71% market share in colombia back in 2008 to the current date of 27%. this is significant for our farmers. they have a number of challenges to begin with, weatherize, and many challenges that are out of their control, but knowing that we have not move forward on these trade agreements and been very disappointing for me and for my farmers. i want to go back to the discussion that seems to be the biggest thing today that is on the other side of the aisle, there objection to passing this bill. that is the labor issue. i want to again draw the thread and have my colleague from washington and illinois in recognizing colombia is impressive progress on labor rights. obviously that is important to us that we make sure that those we are doing business with are treating people well. i think that it is important for
us to make sure we have the facts right as we talk about this to ensure the people that are listening that we are concerned about labor rights and there are facts there to show that we should move forward because of the progress that has been made. making dramatic process improvement in those labor laws is increasing the violence against union members. it is increasing the prosecutions against those who create such violence. i think your the one to speak to this, talk about what has the un done in recognizing this? have they not taken an action as a result of what columbia has done in their progress? >> the international labor organization has removed columbia from a list of countries that have particular problems in this area over the last number of months and is in
recognition of important progress that the santos administration has made, moving forward and addressing a number of these different areas. as the discussion has illustrated, this is not a simple matter. the action plan has been implemented by columbia every step of the way, as provided for under the action plan, with the few remaining steps left. we are confident that the action plan is putting into place tools that will alter the situation on the ground, coupled with the highest labor standards of any free-trade agreement in the world that are fully enforceable. >> i think that is important to list and to make sure it is be noted both within this committee and also for those who are listening in following this agreement, because there will be a lot of news after today. i think this is a really important day for our jobs bill
and being able to move forward and helping our farmers and many of the other industries. it is not just the united states that says recognize the progress that has been done in colombia. it has been recognized by the un, and the fact that they have been lifted from the labor watch list in 2010, as you have already said, there has been significant action just since april when president obama and president said towson agreed on a labor relations plan. my understanding is that almost all of which columbia has already completed, and they are meeting every deadline. i think that it is so important that when we talk about our concerns and what were the past concerns, that we make sure the facts are laid on the table and that we are not ignoring this issue. this is an issue being addressed very seriously, and to give credit to the colombian leaders that they are moving along and progressing.
therefore, that says to be there is a reason to support this. this is good for both columbia and the united states, but most importantly it is good for our american citizens in the creation of jobs. >> mr. larsen is recognized for the purposes of a statement. >> i regret that i have to leave and attend a funeral. i wish for the record to be recorded no on columbia, yes on korea, and yes on panama. >> i appreciate getting to us at this point on these issues. the trade and international economy is important to my community, and i have been proud of a history of trying to work on a bipartisan platform in dealing with trade in areas
like be a nominee through, china, and the wto bid i have been pleased at efforts to try and work and make these things better. we have seen some who are cranky that things did not proceed as soon as the agreements were negotiated. i personally think the time was well worth it. i appreciate the work of mr. levin and others to be able to dive in. i appreciate what has happened with the administration in a number of areas of clarification. i think the countries involved will move forward. it will make a difference for the community i represent. in terms of korea, autos and leave, i think the panamanian agreement renegotiated with -- dealing with internal protections, which are of particular interest to may, and i think there has been progress made with colombia. i would take modest exception to
appoint my good friend from illinois made, because we are not talking about and concerned about murder rates, although we are all concerned whether it is st. louis or bogota, but the notion of violence that is targeted toward specific people. my information is that there were more trade unionists killed in colombia last year than anyplace else in the world. this cannot just a murder rate. i think there has been progress. i salute the progress. i hope more is done. we are in this together, and i think we have a responsibility to columbia, which has spent more than little destabilized because we cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, and it has had a disrupting effect. i do think it is important for us to continue the progress of improvement, trying to reestablish a platform where we
can work cooperatively and thoughtfully on the big picture issues. i think there is more that can be done in strengthening the action plan in dealing with issues of colombia. i am not going to speak extensively in the course of the proceedings on the others, but i hope that what we are talking about you are going forward is a recognition that the delay with the administration, and i think we have worked on -- it has resulted in three agreements that are better, and i think it was worth the effort. i plan on supporting 2 of the three, but i hope this is a platform that we go forward in other areas where we can strengthen the things that our constituents care about and agree upon. i think there is an opportunity for progress ahead. >> mr. ryan is recognized. >> first of all, it is nice to
see you back here at the committee. i want to congratulate you for all your hard work in bringing this forward. i think the have taken five years too much time. quite frankly, i am a little more if you more than a little embarrassed that it has taken us this long to get to this position. let's think about what this agreement does and who it is with. we already give columbia unfettered trade to our country. this gets us reciprocal treatment. labour, i don't understand why labor does not call this a victory. instead, why are we moving the goal post again? i will not yield. i know someone will ask me to in a second. foreign policy is a no-brainer. but at what this ally has done. they have helped us stop the drug trade. they in print -- engage in great security cooperation in south america.
they helped us at the un security council. they have taken the initiative against farc. they are a beachhead for democracy and free enterprise in latin america where we need one. it is embarrassing that it has taken this long. we are damaging our country's leadership and our reliability by dragging our feet on these kinds of agreements. i don't even want to take any more time because i want to get on with a vote and move this thing forward. >> [inaudible] >> we don't expect people to be perfect. only gott is perfect, but what we are hearing today is very familiar.
kovach to the last 10 discussions, the last 10 trade agreements we have had the same promises. you just brought up an interesting subject, mr. ryan, now that we are dealing with no- brainers. let me ask mr. reif, since president santos took over, was elected in colombia -- he is the president, right? the last 38 cases of trade union murders -- do you know how many convictions we have had since he has been the president? now that we turned to a new chapter, how many convictions? >> i know that every single one of them is being investigated, and if i might say -- just how
many. the answer was one. what -- where is your progress that you talked of? this is not delayed. this is not delayed over five years. this is discussion, a bipartisan way to try to get the best deals that we can get. i respect both sides of the aisle who participated in these things to bring us to where we are, but that does not mean we got to where we want to be. i am looking at the u.s. international trade commission, which is basically are the commerce department, although it is independent and impartial. would you agree with that? >> it is an independent agency -- >> we do consider them impartial? >> yes, sir. >> let me -- i want to know your
response to what they say. the korean deal, jobs, negligible. the columbia deal, which is in front of us right now, minimal to no effect in most jobs sectors. and all is unclear but small. we have a major problem here. you want to talk about distorting facts? both sides have committed, and neither is privy to the issue, i will grant you that, of jobs. both sides committed in january to come and bring before us american people how the government can be helpful in creating jobs and not reducing them. the government cannot just that it's thinkers. it does not happen that way. we can falsely promised and then
raise expectations and not being able to deliver. i defy anyone to tell this audience today -- that is why people are demonstrating in new york and detroit and other places. these are not anarchist. if they are, the heck with them. but they are basically people who understand that the promises we presented, we cannot deliver on. these are three deals. i think the panama deal is a different situation. this is a do over. this is an absolute do over. the may 10, 2007 agreement, which we fought for and proudly supported, provided for the inclusion of enforceable international labor standards in trade for the first time. our workers are not going to take any longer with false promises that have one segment
of the population, one area, the new jersey or illinois, and does not look at the very basic creation of jobs. we are back at it, and our trade deals are just as much a part of what happened to this country in the last four years as any thing, and both parties participated in it. no party can wash its hands in what happened with our trade agreements. we only need two or three things to change, mr. chairman. we talked about it here. currency, the manipulation of currency. if we rectify that, there would be at least 1 million, 200 jobs created in this country. your leadership would not even bring it up here. both sides are phony on the issue, and these deals are phony. >> i am going to let my
colleagues argue and have a discussion on site issues. from your perspective, and the administration's estimate, how many jobs are we talking about being created under these three agreements? >> the corrine agreement is the largest, and tens of thousands, 70,000. let me underscore that the modeling in this area does not include -- includes only goods traded. it is difficult to model services trade. the half trillion dollar career and services market kurdistan to benefit enormously in the united states, through our businesses and employment, is not even part of the studies. these are important net positive for the united states in terms of job -- job creation. bakery and one is obviously the largest of the three. >> i entirely agree with that
estimate and the characterization of the conservative nature of the estimate. >> so it is a good day. there is a good chance we will be creating jobs at of these three agreements. i am just going to take a moment to enjoy the fact that we are doing something positive about the economic situation of america. one issue of wanted to touch on, i come from upstate new york. i have a lot of agricultural activity in my district. one product in particular is apples. i know the south korean agreement, there are some issues with the apple situation and colombia and panama seen to be little more receptive to the apple trade. i wanted to know that my office is interested in working with the administration and our trade ambassador to work with the south korean government about expanding the opening of apple
exports from upstate new york to south korea. any thing we can do along those lines would be greatly appreciated by me. >> we are pleased to work with your office and with the growers and the korean market and any other market context. might i make a comment about the number of comments that have been made about the lay? the president took office at a time when there was enormous skepticism about trade. what he directed ambassador kirk to do was to go to the three bentinck -- pending agreements and seek to address the concerns that had been raised. the discussion this morning illustrates that we succeeded better in the eyes of some on some of the agreements and succeeded less well, but we took head on the issues of
automobiles and other things in the context of the korean agreement. we took on the issue of labor standards and the relationship between the ability to apply a strong flavor provisions imbedded in the colombian agreement with the issue of labor violence. betook head on the issue of taxes and the implementation of labor laws in panama. the purpose of doing that, and it did take some time, the purpose was to seek to lay a firmer foundation and we found when we -- when the president took office. for now, a critical role that expanding trade plays to our economy can be more strongly entrenched in moving forward on these agreements as well as agreements that will follow in the future. so there was a purpose to taking the time to work on these three agreements. i know you all understand that, but i wanted to say on behalf of
the administration, ambassador per, and the president, that there was a reason for that, and we are very pleased to be moving forward on all three of these agreements. >> what i would like to say is, as a new member of congress, it is amazing what we can accomplish in this city if we don't care who gets the credit. as a new member, you always hear that from me. i don't care who gets the credit, as long as we are moving the ball down the field. today i believe we are making a giant step to move the ball down the field in a positive way for all americans. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i have two remaining requests for questions and then i will look to concluding it the question period. we will move to mr. neal. >> i want to use my time to raise a question with my friend
mr. ryan. inoculating myself to suggest that i have been generally supportive of these trade agreements, these -- if these really are no-brainers, then how come the american people are so skeptical of them? i think there will be an acknowledgement that the cause economic dislocation, and there are parts of the economy that do better and parts that do worse. much of it is concentrated in the old industrial areas. if we except the genius of capitalism, it is that new industries replace those that are dying out. there ought to be a role for the government to mitigate some of the circumstances. if they are all no-brainers, why is it that the american people are so skeptical of these agreements? >> first of all, i said this agreement -- this agreement is a no-brainer, because we already
give them free access to our market, but they do not us. columbia, i am talking about. when 95% of the world's consumers live in countries other than this one, if we want to be a mature economy, make and sell things and have a high living standard, we have to be able to get agreements to make and sell things across the world. other countries are running laps on us, getting better agreements that help steer trade toward them and away from us. if you are standing still in trade, you are falling behind, and we are losing the ability to open up markets for our products. >> with the gentleman acknowledge there are countries across the world really do not open up their markets, despite what they say, and that trade field really has not been leveled and many instances? drexel the flip side is we should do nothing could direct not at all.
if in fact these are so great, why is it the american people are so skeptical. my hunch is, in your constituency as well as mine, they are. >> 250,000 jobs resulting from these three agreements. what are many factors understand is we have to open up markets for them. >> the barriers that have been created by china -- >> we are talking about colombia. >> i am pointing out that he made the argument that these are no-brainers. our response is they have petitioned us over the years. that they would argue that in the financial-services industry, the idea of a forced or coerced partnership -- does not really
make that determination for the company. >> when i say no-brainer, when columbia has free access to our markets but we don't have free access to their markets, and it's essentially gives us that, that, to me, is a no-brainer. >> the more general argument would be that we knowledge that some areas of our economy do better and some do worse. we were told for many years that we cannot include environmental concerns and human rights initiatives. today we discovered it can include all of them. in some of the other agreement, they could have been strengthened if we had the opportunity to go beyond a yes or no vote. >> i also want to speed this up and not slow it down, but i want
to thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. brady for all your work on trade. i also want to thank my freshman colleagues. when it came down here, our concern was trade, and there were 67 of the freshmen who said let's get rolling on this. we have hashed over all these things, but one anecdotal thing for me was i talk to our trade office in north dakota a couple of days ago and asked them, are many factories and people moving our egg products, are they ready to start moving forward when these trade agreements pass? the question to meet back --, and back to me was, we have been ready since 2006. we have tariffs on our products going to columbia. my only fear is that we have not lost too much market share by the time this gets implemented in a way that helps our american
producers, whether small business or agriculture, get in these markets. >> i just want to say one thing to my friend from massachusetts. we have a trade surplus with countries, even in manufacturing, that we have .rade agreements with perr i think that means we should pursue more trade agreement so we can get the kinds of advantages for our economy like we have been able to achieve with those with which we have trade agreements. >> mr. ryan has the time. >> i think the point is, we do
well for our country when we get trade agreements, and we even have surpluses. that is what we are talking about here. >> one of the problems with the trade agreement -- >> if you cannot double yield. [laughter] i will yield to mr. neal. one minute. >> the gentleman has made the argument that north dakota is performing extremely well and the agricultural sector is going to do very well from these agreements. that is not a dispute. the manufacturers were promised a panacea of the tunnel -- jun a formal relationship did not benefit. many of the items really did not turn out to be quite what we were told they were going to be.
if you recall the fevered push here for many sectors of the economy to push that chinese trade agreement, it really did not pan out. many of these financial services industry's decided they were going to go with great enthusiasm to china, and have decided after many years to pull back and withdraw. it is the towson partnership that is the most problematic part of the relationship. the idea that you can only control 49% of the companies endeavors is a prohibitive factor. i hope the gentleman might in acknowledge that part. >> i will acknowledge that. this is colombia, not china. we don't have a trade agreement with china, and it would be in our interest -- i yield back.
>> mr. byrd has a few seconds remaining or i will recognize mr. crowley and he can yield. >> mr. crowley is recognized for five minutes. >> my point was and is that when i hear people say these agreements are no-brainers, they have been sold to us under that dies before. only to discover afterwards that there are certain parts of the agreements that do not go down well with previously held positions that were enthusiastically supported by sectors of the economy. >> reclaim my time, mr. chairman. thank you for bringing all of these bills before us today. a great deal of work went into the development of these agreements. i want to thank the administration for moving forward. i was not going to speak on this
bill, but i do have some comments for the record. i felt compelled momentarily to say something in regard to my colleague from illinois and the statements about what's we are trying to do by engaging in these agreements. i would argue that one of our greatest commodities and products in this country or our values. and what we like to see in other countries that are developing around the world. the murder rate in colombia is a factor, as it is other human rights within countries that we enter into agreements with. we do not have an agreement with burma or north korea. we do not have one with iran. i would imagine my colleague from illinois it would not suggest we enter into them
because of their human rights violations and the positions they hold that are contrary to ours and are shared allies like south korea. if you want to be treated like south korea, act like south korea. i just think it is important to note that many of us on this side of the aisle would say let's renegotiate the agreement with mexico. i was not here when that legislation was entered into. there is no question here, we all have concerns about the level of violence and murder taking place in mexico today. working through the agreement right now, hoping we can someway effectuate change within mexico, but the notion that these are
purely economic agreements, i would argue they are also geopolitical agreements and diplomatic agreements that we are entering into today, and that our reason for supporting disagreements if we choose to is because we do believe that korea is a special ally of the united states. we do believe that panama is a special ally of the united states, and we do believe that columbia and south america is a special allied to the united states, a longstanding ally. dating back to the korean war. i don't think purely looking at this as economics and not looking at the greater picture and what is happening in these countries, as though that should not be important to us. i think that needs to be clarified. those are important factors that need to be weighed when
negotiating these agreements. >> let me commend the leadership of this committee. there has been a lot of hard work and put into these bilateral trade agreements and i appreciate the opportunity to consider them today. i will be supporting all three. it is time for us to get back in the game. i commend the team that has been assembled and the obama administration for taking prior negotiated trade agreements and making them better. there were serious concerns on this side of the aisle into what was initially negotiated. i think they improve them drastically and put them in a position where many of us feel more comfortable supporting them, including colombia. i share the concerns of many of my colleagues in regard to the level of violence in colombia and the level of violence with labor leaders in particular.
it is an issue that needs to be addressed. the labor action plan that is now being implemented is a huge step forward. unlike our ranking member who played an instrumental role in making sure that labor action plans in place and is moving forward, i do not share his concern that it was vitally concerned to have it as part of the bulk of the agreement. a lot of what is in the labor action plan is already in the process, already being implemented. are we fooling ourselves in thinking that will stop at some point in the future it is not part of the agreement, or is the colombian government going to live up to the effort they made and continue trying to improve the labor bylines conditions in that country? >> i think very much so, for a number of reasons. i think this administration from when it started has approached the issue with bigger and
seriousness. all the elements of the action plan except the hiring of the labor inspectors will be in place before january 2012, so the president can assess that columbia has continued to implement every one of these steps as it has moved along. we fully expect the government will continue to implement that plan, and we will work with them to provide assistance, to share concerns as they arise, which is true in other areas of trade agreements as well. >> let me reiterate my thanks to mr. levin. he advanced the ball. what i am hearing today is the fact that it is not part of the bulk of the agreement will not weaken the commitment of the colombian government as we move forward. >> that is correct.
>> i share the concern raised earlier that the longer we are on the sidelines, the greater market share we are losing in these countries. i just had a recent meeting with ambassador kirk is that we have already lost close to 50% of market share for agricultural products going into columbia in the last year alone. the longer we wait, the more we will be excluding our products and services. time is of the essence. not that these agreements will be the panacea for our economy, but being on the sidelines for so long, not having an aggressive trade agenda has hurt our economy and can be part of the solution to creating a good paying jobs we desperately need. people in wisconsin feel these are a good deal to have increased market share. many of my manufacturers are
all supportive of these agreements because what they are making is now being exported, but getting hit with a terrace, a tax that is making it harder for them to remain competitive on the global scale. these agreements will help in that regard, too. it is difficult with the economic gains i cheek we face to sell it to the american people, but as my colleague from wisconsin pointed out, we are 4% of the world population. it is more than just goods and services crossing the borders. it is an important tool in our diplomatic arsenal that we are engaged actively in trade agreements, trying to level the playing field for our workers and companies. these trade agreements make a huge step in that direction, providing a good template for future trade action we hope we will be able to work on as a committee. i also want to thank you, mr.
chairman, for your diligence with the authorization. hopefully we will have a chance to have some hearings in the committee on how to improve the t a process so it is more effective. >> in the interest of time, i would like my full statement to be put into the record, and just taking a moment of the committee's time, i also have serious concerns about job creation in this country. my state in particular has been hardest hit. i have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. i will be voting against the trade agreement for the very reason that some in the committee are saying that this " very good thing. rather than creating jobs, and the number 200,000 has been presented by many of my
colleagues, i think just the opposite is going to happen. i am fearful that these trade agreements will continue to undermine the american workforce and we will be losing 200,000 jobs, not creating them. for that reason, i will be voting against all three. i will submit my entire statement for the record, and i thank you. >> i will try not to use my full five minutes. i only have a few questions. do you own a house? i think i have asked you this before. >> we do. >> and did you shake hands with the bank when they loan you the money to buy your house? or did they have to sign some documents? >> there was a shaking of hands
and the signing of documents. >> did they give you the money because she shook hands, or because you signed the documents? >> i suspect it was related to the documents. >> i expect so as well. if we rely on a document that is signed and it is get certified we have an agreement so the bank feels comfortable lending you money, or i feel comfortable for you as the buyer to take over my home, it is because we want to be as short as possible that you indeed will fulfill your end of the bargain after i have given you the house or the loan. with regard to colombia, i know the president did a great job of trying to negotiate some terms with colombia to address the extreme violence that exists today in colombia, not just against colombians but against
colombian to our workers who are trying to increase their wages or get better working conditions in their place of work. my understanding is that it was a pretty good agreement on how to move forward to make sure that colombia will not try to allow its employers to suppress the opportunities for its workers to engage in meaningful activities to protect their wages or protected their opportunities and rights at the workplace. i appreciate that you are relying on the good faith of the colombian government to move forward with the terms of that plan that was agreed to, but just as the bank did not rely on your good faith to pay the mortgage, nor would you rely on the good faith of the buyer to pay you as well, i don't believe the united states and american workers should rely on the good
faith of another country to make sure that it is competing with our workers based on a handshake or the good-faith of any particular competitor. i believe that is what this all boils down to. i want to applaud the work the administration has done in trying to change what was a flawed trade agreement when it was first signed. i want to applaud the president for making its part of his administration's efforts to try to change the terms of the original agreement to make it a better agreement. i want to applaud the president for the work he did to try to get this action plan to deal with the highest rate of worker killings in any part of the world. my understanding is that in colombia you have more trade unionists killed and have throughout the world. i think you did a phenomenal
there. i think you fell short in trying to make sure you could then it those terms satisfied. it is more than a darn shame because american workers may be the people who pay the price if columbia does not resolve the violence against people who work and try to organize and make sure all colombian workers have decent conditions. if they don't get decent conditions, it makes it easier to compete against things we currently manufacture. the signature on the dotted line, not for the president, but for american workers to feel comfortable with that. in terms of the other agreements, you also made progress. in terms of this colombian agreement, it is are real unfortunate mistake to try to move forward an agreement
without taking care of the issues of leveling the playing field so american workers don't feel besieged. i thank you and the president and the administration for the work you have done, but i would love to discipline you for the failure to move forward on that aspect of tying all the ends together. >> i believe there are no further questions. >> i think mr. bush sarah has covered this issue -- mr. becerra has covered this issue.
i think it was a mistake to give .he the action plan relates to the gist of the issues between our two countries that prevented the approval of colombiaanother facr reference in the plan will lay a foundation that would describe the basis for future implementation of the work to write provision. after a long shovel, we're able to get worker rights in a trade agreement.
it is general language. what it means will be determined in implementation. in terms of columbia, said the clear reference will lay the foundation for future use of the dispute. it is a step forward. i yield back. i assume we now go on to korea. >> if there were no further question would there be amendments? recognize the purpose of offering a motion.
correc>> you will do all three. person to commit the role 19, it to be postponed until the end of the market. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> up next, harry reid talks about president obama processor job bill. then we speak to brian moynihan. >> robert mahler will be on capitol hill tamara to discuss the agency's counter-terrorism operations. he will be joined by matthew
it helps you navigate the candidates. it is all at c-span.org/ campaign2012. >> kerry reed urged passage of the jobs bill. he discusses his proposal for millionaires to pay for the $447 billion in and is spending. he is joined for this briefing. >> 40 million people are out of work. we will find ways to get them back to work. we have moved a bill to end
this is an import part of what we're doing. this is the example. economic adviser for john mccain. there's no better way to stimulate the business. this we are told by the inner circle was that it is his job. it ohrid too many jobs. even beat tea party agrees it is time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes.
the fact is we're going to move to have the richest of the rich to pay a little bit more. we will do everything we can to get the americans back to work. >> thank you. those who heard the speech on the floor yesterday at the open session heard him call for us to work in bipartisan fashion on the things we agree and. we have a bill on the floor. it has the strong support of many republicans. let's pass it. but get it done. i think we recognize this.
it cannot be offered on the floor. as soon as we finish the currency. let us not slow down the task at hand. it is a critical part of america's economic recovery to have fairness when it comes to dealing with that country which is our largest competitor and our creditor. i hope we can get this done this week. this is where it is not as high as other places. the american people are frustrated that we have not come together on a bipartisan basis to propose the jobs bill.
this is something we have work done. we can work immediately to a jobs bill. >> thank you. we passed the time the currency bill. it is kept religiously bipartisan. it had broad support. it will send an important message that they cannot get away with economic murder. it is as important to the future as america's anything else.
i will plead with senator mcconnell not to block the bill because he cannot get an amendment on the bill. it looks like a subterfuge. it is eerie hard to oppose directly. a -- it is hard to oppose directly. it is so needed. i want to talk about the jobs bill as well. they made this a turning point. it moved the debate aggressively. it was one of the president's this. his proposal was large enough to tackle the problem.
they are not rich. this kind of income does not give you a home are lot of vacation or anything else is as they do with what. it would not affect to many small businesses. there are small businesses that struggle. we believe the million dollars is the right line. there are two income households that make it. it does not make them rich. they are firmly in middle-class. many are billionaires' to have done very well. this is the only group that has really done well.
we can invest in the country's future. i believe the addition of this proposal makes it very tough for republicans to oppose the job package. they will be hard-pressed to explain why the about teachers and fire fighters to be laid off rather than have millionaires and billionaires. republicans will struggle to repair schools. this will be on display in the senate next week. we hope republicans will approve this package and put americans back to work. if they do not, it will put them ahead. >> republicans are against tax increases.
if this is creating jobs, why will it produce something so radioactive? >> 75% of republican support this. going to have to listen to the constituents. even the t party believes -- tea party believes it should be on an income basis. they should pay their fair share. they can hang onto their mantra. i would suggest they're not keeping numb could touch with their constituents. keeping in touch with their
constituents. >> with the congressional approval ratings at an all-time low and most people saying it is about the job, and let say it is differing on almost every issue that is giving this low place to america. how can you change that? >> we have done what we can. we have spent months on matters that have taken place in matter of a few minutes. this has been going on since 1876. hundreds of times. not now. we wasted months on that.
we have short-term ones were we able to fund the government. then we thought we were going to be fine. we have a budget deficit reduction act we are working on. it is to raise the debt ceiling. all of you have heard me say this before. we raised it 18 times. we spent months on this. the only time i got the budget deficit reduction passed it. it was for the next year. immediately we are back in the same fix. they would not allow us to have a short-term cr that took weeks. they were trying to place a burden on the backs of the people who suffer an even more
-- who suffered any more. we try to change the tone. i admire senator mcconnell. to did everything he could su battle senator mcconnell. every police the democrats are doing better than the republicans. >> now he had chosen this, do you think you have the democratic connectivity? is still not be open to an amendment. >> i have better things to do. i said i look forward to this.
that is what we think. there are people making to 50 or 300. weeper per -- we prefer the million dollars. >> thank you. >> on tomorrows "washington journal"we will discuss the economy and jobs. on the program, kevin brady and barbara lee. "washington journal" begins a 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the only people allowed in the supreme court conference room are the nine justices. who gets the door? >> i was paying close attention.
for all the details go to studentcam.org. >> the journalist met today to discuss the politics in 2012 elections. timothy geithner discusses the administration's economic policy. we will also hear from brian moynihan and robert rubin. this is just over one hour. >> thank you. this escapes me. this is right in. we have about 50 minutes together. the other official who has been
grappling with this was ben bernanke. he said that the recovery is close to a faltering. growth is slower and weaker. it is lower than we hoped. why is that happening? we have a very substantial shop. we have a very dramatic disaster in japan. we have a severe ongoing financial crisis. we have a very divisive debate about whether we should meet the country. we need to wonder whether political system is up to. it is still dealing. it is not surprising growth. the question is, what can we do?
contains that damage. there are things we can do here to make growth stronger until the recovery more quickly. you hire someone new. their combined with investments to help trigger the country. if congress were to act on that package, we would make a major difference. if we go to the long-term fiscal position, we would also make a big contribution and demonstrate that the political system is up to the challenge.
>> will the recovery falter if congress does not @? >> if congress does not act, growth will be weaker. will be more vulnerable to other things happening. -- we will be more vulnerable to other things happening. you can think of this as a protection from the things we're grappling with. it is good insurance. enough? >> i would just use the words of european leaders. the have been behind the curve. moving as fast as the empowerment. they're building more confidence that they will act to hold the
thing together. they decided they will escalate substantially. this is not a question about the capacity. they have financial resources as a consonants. -- as a continent. did they are moving more quickly. >> what is it like when you're having this conversation stacks is that affecting the ability to influence the fact that this contagion began here ta? >> wii caused enormous damage to our credibility in world by allowing a financial system to get to the point where it did.
look at our politics. people look at us that they wonder whether they will see washington demonstrate that they can do things. we have to do these discussions. they have humility in the face of the challenges. this means a lot to us. they understand that they em fight it does in through the imf. they have invited us in. people have some views about what makes sense in context. we have been very forceful. they welcome the support. they welcomed the device.
they have a lot of challenges. >> is a noble what degree of vulnerability our banks have to a financial crisis in europe? >> this is a way to look at it. it has a very good feel for the financial exposure of the financial institutions. it is very limited. europe is a large part of the global economy. a severe crisis would be very damaging. that is why it makes a lot of sense for us to invest effort. our financial system -- you ask
the question about a third possible stress tests. our financial system is much stronger today than it was before the crisis. it provides a substantial amount of this. we basically crushed this. the most formal parts no longer operate in the shadows of regulation. we're in a much better position. it is facing an enormous challenge. we want to make a stronger. as we do, we have a huge stake
in europe. >> tell like to step back and ask a couple of questions given your unique vantage point. a couple maybe historic and sociological ones. how do you look at the debt ceiling fight that we had this summer in? -- summer? do you think it will look like a careful or did something we moved on from? >> it depends on what choice congress makes now. let me take the optimism aside. it is hard to do. it is hard to be an optimist in
the political system today. we achieved three important things. a pretty substantial down payment of spending over the next decade followed by about a quarter of our 10-year fiscal sustainability. tweeted the threat of default off -- we took the threat of default off the table. it is important to do that. it puts a lot of pressure on congress. we take another large step toward fiscal sustainability.
there's a foundation linked. there are entitlement programs. this will in the been the foundation for what we do. we may not get all of that done in the next three months. there is no other place to go. i would like to take the optimistic side. our economy is a much more diversified and flexible and innovative economy relative to the other major economies. we've always had a political system that always is the right
thing. if you look at how the world looks it up, how they view us in relative terms, there's still a lot of confidence around the world. it to be justified. we're looking very carefully to what actions are done. they decided because we are in the political season that we're going to put policy actions on hold. this is a time when so much crisis exists in the world.
>> this is a pretty retrospective question. you moved quickly as a group to apply lessons that were learned to our detriment during the great depression about how to respond to a crisis. you talked a lot about the need to move. have you learn new lessons? we find ourselves in the situation. >> we learned a huge amount. we learned how to do things better than we have done at in past. we've been poring over this for a long amount of time. it is unfair to reduce them to
the simple things. the more forceful we are, and the quicker you can dial back those things and the less long- term damage you do. how you do that is very important. " we tried to demonstrate is if you use a strategy that puts enormous burden or pressure on private capital to come in, a you take more of the burger -- you take more of a burden off. the direct cost is the intervention. because of the strategy we adopted, we have a long way to
go. we of a very good chance of putting out the financial fire. would this have been possible ultimately, there limits to what you can do. it provides authority. it allows as constraints. it provides much greater risk. there's the design of the policy instruments. you can do the unpopular things you have to do. this is the hardest challenge.
what happens is the low-cost of the initial response is so difficult and devastating. people tend to pull back. some leave the job and finished. >> here is a sociological question. it is about wall street. you never worked on wall street. there's some confusion on that. you know it well enough to participate in rescuing the financial system. it is fair to say that yono one
has been a greater direct beneficiary than the financial community of the policies of this demonstration. you saved their jobs and bonuses. they cannot stand this present now. even people who supported him for years ago -- the cannot stand this president now, even people who supported him four years ago. why? >> people resent when they need help. they reason to the public anger. -- resent the public anger. they say it was created by us. that is an unfair judgment. they react to what is pretty
modest comments and observations. and do not understand why they're so sensitive. they have seen a huge amount of damage. they would like to heal that. what can you heal that? this is something have to our better selves. >> de have sympathy for the occupied wall street movement? >> i have sympathy for the general sense among americans on whether we have lost the possibility. it is a pretty bad lost decade.
it is a lot of public institutions. there's a sense of opportunity. i deafness of the thighs for that. we're not just trying to clean up a terrible mess. we have to figure out how to do that at the same time that we are restoring faith in public institutions. we are having a huge and important debate about the role of government in economy. we need to restore some basic confidence. this is the big debate we're having. >> do you have any key
differences with larry summers? are you the same person operating in three bodies' ta? >> i am sure there would be offended by the comparison. i had huge admiration for them. everyone knows we debated over many issues. we all came from different backgrounds. we use a cane to a pretty good place. i am honored to have worked with them so closely. i am privileged.
>> it is nice to have been in the same room together. >> have they met? your shirt is tucked in. >> go ahead. we will ask bob when he arrives. has enough been done? >> i was a public servants in the treasury. >> houle and to the rumor get so rooted predict how did that rumor gets a rooted in the public -- houle noted that rumor gets so rooted in the public
next up, we have someone new secretary geithner regulates, brian moynihan. he will be interviewed. we thank you. you can take this extra moment to go on to amazon and by "of the social animal." >> cannot hear a thing. >> welcome. hello. i do not know anything. please, have a seat. welcome. i am just getting somewhere think in year.
it is not some guy. for some reason i'm getting static in air. and not have a thing in my ear. i have two years -- ears. you are a really famous guy now. your bank has become famous because of $5. i've never seen anything like it. i want to begin with the $5 question. adding $5 a month to the debit card account has caused the most massive political backlash i've ever seen. why did you do it? >> we have started with a basic vision to be clear and transparent with our retail customers. as you watch them build up
practices, there were things that people did not like, overdraft fees. in 2009, we started with the credit card. the limit to checking accounts. we took the penalty fees. we are building a transparent thing. 20 think about this be, -- when you think about this a fee, anyone that has a mortgage or car, there will probably get out. >> i understand it transparency. i appreciate that. of thehis a function durban tax? walmart out lobby to the bank of
america. you have to cut back on 45 cents to 20 cents. tell me if i am wrong. profit is a dirty word. he is promoting people to go away. did any cause this in first place? >> i am glad they gave the something to talk about. >> we have lunch. nothing was going on. now you're the most famous person in the country. >> really getting to what we're trying to do. we provide atms. people can access it would no charges. i want to focus. we know our customers. in retail banking, and the ability to be profitable has changed.
how do we rebuild the profitability? had to provide all these great services? we have to be clear. there is of a chinese banking. >> the president is not happy with the. banks do not have some inherent job to make a profit. that is a heavy statement. what does that mean to you? >> i have an inherited duty of a company to get a return for my shareholders. i have a duty to do a great job for my customers. we know our customers. we know the choices. we have 50 million. listen to them all the time. we provide a great service to the customers.
>> you believe in the profit model. >> absolutely. you're operating in free-market economy. what did you make of obama's statement? is the ushe threatening you? >> if you look at what they have said, we have been working with it since elizabeth warren was putting together an idea. we believe clarity is the right thing. this is what they believe. our customers will see this.
this is not start until halfway next year. he will find the customers that cannot have this. it is consistent with the motives. >> were you responding to the president of? you are a leading bankers. blasted a regulatory policies on several occasions. he had no right to make a profit. it has gone into overkill. were you protesting that it is not a bad thing? >> we will talk to our customers. we will talk to our team mates.
what is being important is providing great services and making a profit. that is what we need to do. >> will you be raising other fees? >> we will make sure that we balance everything we do. we listen to our customers on a daily basis. we know if they spent last month. is there more than they did last year. there are constituencies. all this has been through the process. we will go through this. >> taken this it is out of some central plan. this is what it sounded like
when i first heard it. it is waging wars against banks. there's some pretty harsh language from the president and from senator durban. many bankers believe it that dodd/frank -- he mentioned the consumer finance bureau. fannie mae and freddie mac are taking you to court for mortgage-backed bonds. the attorney general of california loved this. do you feel under siege? in the midst of this sluggish economy. >> we have a strong banking
do you feel under assault? he is telling people to get away from the bank of america. that is extraordinary for you. he have branches in illinois. is it wrong for him to tell people to get away? it is an odd formulation. do you feel under attack? >> we do a great job for our customers. we got a lot of work to do it. they allow us to ship port -- to support our customers. that is what we need to do. we need to focus on the energy. when people talk about it. their word it will impact our
ability for growth. all that is trying to balance in the safety of the financial system materiality that he had a serious set of issues. current projections for growth are lower. to have to figure it out. dd how much is dot /frank costing the bank of america? >> we have made estimates. it is in the billions of dollars.
>> you are new to the job. many people think you're doing a great job. you are always the first talk to go down. how do you look at that as a ceo? >> our exposure would not be something he would focus on. we continue to make money. a lot of projections have deteriorated. >> ben bernanke says the recovery is close to a faltering.
your service saying the same thing. your everyman's bank. you are also the largest lending bank. the economy is faltering. >> our credit quality does not correlate with the economy. the economy is still growing. there is the fear that we have to keep going. the growth is a lot better than no growth. you got to make sure that the momentum goes forward. >> a question on housing.
i think we should get these people confirmed. justice scalia, too many things are before the federal court that should be in front of the state courts. we wanted to to impound a stolen car. it is not the place. senator, -- >> i want to thank my colleagues from connecticut. thank you for being here for
this meeting at the committee. most people are not aware that we have a dinner for the senate visit to the supreme court and we have a chance to break bread with families and have an informal moment. the last time we got together and mentioned to one of your colleagues who has been on the bench for some time that i was chair of the subcommittee on the constitution, a civil rights, and human rights. i asked your colleagues if i could ask you, what to you think i should take a look at in the subcommittee? gauging the issues there, before your court, the questions that present themselves, under the civil rights, it was interesting that the justice said, you should take a look at the people who are imprisoned in the united states of america. i am aware of it.
over 2 million people are incarcerated in our jails and prisons. more per-capita than any other country in the world. obvious overcrowding. terrible racial disparities in terms of those who end up in prison. african-americans are six times the rate of caucasians. a study showed that one out of every 11 african americans is in prison, parole or probation. senator sessions and i joined forces to address the crack cocaine sentencing disparity. we could have done it differently but we reached an agreement. that is historic when you consider the philosophies that were part of the agreement in an attempt to reduce some of the incarceration. i am not going to hold you to that askew -- issue but ask you to comment. where should we make an inquiry
when it comes to our constitution and the challenges we face today? >> i think it is fine you are getting into that. mandatory minimums are part of that. there are a range of things. there have been articles in the newspaper about elements not within our control. the prosecution area, the criminal area, that is a huge matter. i am glad you're going into it. >> i do not want to confine you if you think there are other issues were the of inquiry. >> i am going to pass. this is within the category -- i leave you alone, you leave me alone.
it is a policy question. i do not want to get into it. >> i have another question. this relates to the question of tactics which, it turns out, is handled differently in our branches of government. as someone who has been involved in political campaigns for a long time, i know the need for us to not only be honest in our dealings but to have an appearance of honesty in our work. we will impose certain restrictions. every other member of congress, the entire executive branch, and all federal judges are restricted from receiving certain chips and outside income. the members of the supreme court and its employees are the only
employees were exempt from these restrictions. to you believe the supreme court should be required to follow the same financial restrictions as everyone else? >> we are. we have these reports every year. it is expensive to prepare where every penny that i take in or my wife or my children, every asset has to be listed. it is all filed. the amount of money you can take is far more limited under the codes of ethics than people who are not and judges. judges have special restrictions. why do not think that the life of the judge in terms of the six is less restricted than the life of any other member of the government. to my knowledge. >> it is no reflection on either one of you.
i anticipated that answer. i understand the court is bounded by these restrictions. i wonder if you could tell me about the resolution. it is not public law. would you agree that it should be more public? >> are are several different things. one is what money you can take or cannot take. reporting requirements and some of the general requirements. those are statutory. i have lois thought so. there are some that are in this ethics volume. that is probably what you're thinking of. which ones are they? i could not answer. there are some the fallen that category. probably like most of us -- it used to be seven volumes. if i had an ethical question of
when i recused myself, i would see what they say. i did not distinguish whether they are legally binding or something i follow. i read them and if i have a problem my college professor. everybody has some such a system. there is no one who wants to violate any of those rules. there is a difference between the supreme court and the lower court. the difference is, when i was on the court of appeals, if i had a question, i would take myself out of the case. they will put someone else in. one judge is as good as another. if i take myself out of the case, that could change the result. the parties, knowing that, it is possible to try to choose your panel which is undesirable in the supreme court. that means that there is an
obligation where you are not reduced as well as an obligation to recuse. sometimes those questions are tough. i have to make up my own mind. others cannot make it up for me. that is an important part of being an independent judge. we are given tough questions to answer. the answer is, we are bound by law. we are bound in practice. whether law or practice, we have to think it through and try to work out which is the predominant force. >> i do not have any more time left. how much of this should be made known to the public? for example, we make disclosures
that would lead to conclusions as whether we are in a complex situation. i do not believe the same disclosure is made. >> i cannot say 100%, but usually there is a press inquiry. sometimes we write opinions about it and usually the press gets an answer. i am not sure -- i have to take myself out of a few cases because my brother is a judge in san francisco. if i take myself out a huge lead tell the press officer, this is normally off the record. i will sell -- say the reason is because it is my brother. i do not think there is a secrets thing that goes on.
i cannot think of any case. >> i am gonna go to senator lee, but if you could answer this one quickly, you talked about having to step out and nobody else will step in. we have three retired supreme court to justices. all of our courts of appeals, those are taken senior status. there has been aircrews all, -- a recusal, how would you like for them to step in? >> who is going to pick the former justice to step in? >> i would assume the chief. >> i do not think that would make anybody happy.
what if it is 4-4? >> you do not have somebody. >> i think we can stumble along the way we are. getting theou're reaction, don't change anything but we have not thought that went through. it sounds like there might be problems. >> i may chat with you more about this one. >> i do not think it is much of a problem. there are very few cases where we are formed by an equally divided court. it is rare that that happens. >> thank you. it is an honor to have you here today. justice scalia, a wanted to follow upon things he said in your opening statement along the lines it should be a difficult,
cumbersome process in our constitutional republic to enact legislation. i think the courts can and should play a significant role in insuring that is the case. the court has played a role in the past. the court has stepped in and said, notwithstanding the fact that you have a found something that makes this process easier or even more of feet -- efficient, you have not dotted your eyes in the same way we wrote under article one requiring bicameral passage. so this provision is invalid. the me ask you the question, is there a role for the courts in other situations in which congress might do something different that would prove easier and more efficient but perhaps in a way that is
antithetical to the constitution. let's suppose that congress, when legislating on the issue of maintaining proper records, since we're talking about legislation, these would be moving in commerce or taking advantage of some interstate commerce. a law in which congress just passes a law saying we're delegating authority to regulate it. record keeping for dogs to the board of directors. that passes both houses. goes to the president. it is signed into law and we outsourced the regulation to the kennel club. is that a situation where the court might step in? >> i would step in. i do not know if the court would. i was the dissenting vote in the
first case involving -- i hate to mention this. he was on the sentencing commission. i thought when congress created a sensing commission to decide how many years people should spend in jail because congress did not have the time to figure it out for themselves and left it to this commission. i did not think that was constitutional. i am sure i would not like your dog breeding body there. i cannot speak for the court. >> for you personally, i was standing the fact you have a bicameral passage and -- the problem is you have delegated the lawmaking power. >> you have to be careful. i just read this in his book. the first chapter, the first
chief justice, george washington said i have a lot of questions. i do not want to do anything unconstitutional. he said, no advisor opinion. the real reason is he did not know the answer. [laughter] >> and he was right. >> the situation you poses different from your leading it to an agency. >> how is it different? >> when you leave it to an agency, you are giving it to the executives. the executive can make rules. you cannot do it without making rose. the door rose -- doors open at 8:00. you can raise private. it is up to the agency to make
rules. but there is an obstacle that discourage use you from giving too much power to the executive agency because you are increasing the power of the president. this separation of powers with different branches competing. there is no such disincentive when you leave it to this private groups you're talking about. that is a pure delegation of legislative power. you are not authorizing an executive to act like an executive which you are delegating power to a group that has no responsibilities. >> the difference is based on the fact this is an executive agency which is subject to the control of the chief executive. >> i think that is right. you're talking about the doctrine of unconstitutional delegation of legislative
authority which is a bad name for it. there was no such thing as a constitutional delegation. you cannot delegate with legislative authority. when you've given rulemaking to an agency, how far can you go? can congress get together and say, the president can do anything he wants and adjourn. of course not. is it ought to the courts to decide where the line is drawn between enough authority and too much authority? i would not apply or let the courts apply the doctrine of a unconstitutional delegation. i would not give into it. some of my colleagues would. >> in the situation where we said, we shall have a good law.
the power to make good laws is delegated to the department of good law. >> i would do that when the that is not going to happen. i am talking about any real situation. >> i have a question for you, i enjoyed reading parts of your new book, making our democracy work. it is well written and fascinating. it is good reading for any american who wants to learn about the systems. he suggested that there is rarely an easy answer to the question of what level of government should resort responded -- be responsible for legislation. the question usually turns on empirical information. you explain on page 125 and 26 that this means that the courts ought to step aside. a final understanding you, how
congress decides the condors and boundaries of of federalism. and my understanding correctly? >> that is right. if you start talking abstractly, the trouble is you can characterize any individual situation usually in 15 different ways of abstraction depending on how you characterize it. it will seem appropriate for a state or local lancer. the police department. your arresting him for having guns. it is a state problem. the guns or temple -- our torpedoes. it is so complicated and difficult that it is hard to find a general principle. that is my point. >> if that is the case that the powers of the government are few
and defined whereas those of the state are numerous and a definite, members of congress should read the constitution and decide what does contours' are and restrain ourselves rather than waiting for the course to step in and say you have overstepped the boundaries. >> you are elected by officials in a state. you will make such judgments on such matters as you believe appropriate in light of how people feel and what you're trying to represent. a lot of that is your decision. >> of course you have to make those decisions. the only reason i can look at a federal statute and say i have to disregard this because it does not comport with the constitution, i have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. you take the same oath and we give deference to legislation on the assumption that the members
of the senate and house have tried to be faithful. if they're not looking were thinking about the constitutionality of it, that presumption should not exist. >> in that respect, our oath to uphold the constitution hall means more than doing that we might to get away with in court. >> i think you have to make your own decision about constitutionality. you follow what the supreme court has said. we do not strike down any of your laws. we just ignore them. where you're a lot does not comport with the constitution, we ignore it and apply the rest of the law.
but it is really you. you have the first cut and the most important cut. >> thank you. >> thank you for letting senator turbaned go out of order. >> thank you for having this hearing. thank you for spending so much time with us and having so much patience with our questions. before coming here, i am one of the more junior senators. i was attorney general of the state of connecticut. the highlight of those 20 years where the cases i argued before your court. i have been waiting for the day -- >> this is payback. [laughter]
>> when i could interrupt you as mercilessly as i did -- as you did. [laughter] you decided the right way. so what -- i will avoid the temptation. i was impressed and moved by your explanation as to why you think it is important for the public to understand and appreciate what judging is and what role it plays in our system. i agree with you that not only is there a need a lack of understanding. as one who has argued and a former law clerk who sat through a year of arguments and learned so much about the system, why not open it to video recordings? why not give the public the benefit of seeing it first and
in your court and other federal courts and appreciate the quality as well as the diversity and extraordinary difficulty of what you do? >> i will start. when i first came on the courts, i was in favor -- you're talking about televising the arguments. the brazilian supreme court to televises their conference. >> i would never -- >> nor would i. >> i was initially in favor of televising but the longer i have been there, the less good of an idea i think it is. the justification is we want to educate the american people about what the court is. if i really thought the american people would get educated, i would be all for it.
if they sat through our proceedings, kuwait would teach them ala. they would learn we're not looking up at the sky and saying, should there be a right to this or that? we are doing real law. bankruptcy. people would never again come up and ask, why do have to be a lawyer to be on the supreme court? the constitution does not say so. 99% of what we do is law. if the people would learn that, it would be a great piece of education. for every 10 people who sat through our proceedings, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a 32nd to take out from one of the proceedings which would not be representative of what we do. it would be given a misimpression of the supreme
court. i am sure that would be the consequence. >> but it would for a high school students or even nicholson -- middle school students and the public who were interested in this. and provide a means for them to see -- right now only a limited audience can view it. >> for those horrid interested, surely the tapes are good enough. >> the tapes, with all due respect, i understand your argument. it is not the same way and with as much interest the kind of debate, the back and forth, the sense of the action in court. i know and you know, how dramatic it can be pureed >>
there is not a whole lot of visual motion. there really isn't. it is mostly intellectual motion during >> it is gripping if your answering the questions. do you have a different view? >> sort of. a little. we are conservative. you would be too if you were there. the court has lasted the country well over a long period of time. we are there for a short time. we are trustees. we do not want to make a decision that will be non- reversible. sometimes one we have the term limits case, i just wish people could have seen that. it was such a good case. you had jefferson on one side and madison hamilton on the other side.
what you saw was everything evenly balanced with the precedents, i will not go into the case but if they could have seen that across the country, people would have seen nine individuals struggling with a difficult and important constitutional question. so what is the problem? one problem is we are a symbol. if it were us, it could probably be in every criminal case. you would get rid of jurors. what about the criminal witnesses? you do not know what happens. or would people come up with a misimpression, the oral arguments -- is really done in writing. people relate to people. when you see them, they are your friends are not your friends.
we are making decisions that are there to affect 309 million people who are not there. in our minds, we have to take them into account. will that come across? then there's the problem that justice scalia mentioned, you can make people look good or you can make them look bad depending on what a 30 seconds you take. it is already a cult of personality. we wear black robes because we are speaking for the law. that is a good thing. i would like to know more. i really would. there are places that have it. there's california in some situations. i have 100 different situations. see what happens to attitudes,
to judicial attitudes. what you're getting -- maybe there will be no other way to see things. everybody is doing it and then it would just seem weird will we do now. but before that time, i think information is something that would make me easier. until we become reasonably convinced it will not hurt the institution, you're going to get a conservative reaction. >> it may be unfair to put this question to you since your youngster, -- >> the best thing that has been said about me. >> to you think the process has been improved room desist proceedings have been televised? >> just as you took a pass. i think there are mixed views.
in general, openness and transparency improves institutions. for all of the reasons you have so eloquently talked about your role in educating the american people, i think that an audio and visual recording of supreme court proceedings would potentially do the same. i think that whatever the results of televising senate proceedings or -- i was only facetious when i said i would take a pass. if it has been a step in the right direction of providing transparency and the disclosure and understanding on the part of the public, i will let you and the public be the judge of how it to use us. in general, americans should
understand the challenges as well as the role that their institutions face. since my time has expired, i want to thank you for being here. i'm not all dismissive of the points he made. i have great respect for them. perhaps we can provide you with more information that would be persuasive in the advantages and the positives in those kinds of accessibility. thank you for being here today. thank you for raising the issue of courts. i have spent a lot of time in the state court. all too often we fail to understand how integral and the courts are to dispensing justice. >> now to senator sessions.
>> thank you for attending and your good comments and inside. i hope the nine people have appreciated this. i would say to the people having travelled around the world for a number of years, we have the greatest legal system in the history of the world. it is a marvelous thing. people can rely on care dealings in court. they can place their liberty at risk and feel like they're getting a fair day in court. i practice before federal judges as an attorney for 14 years. when i have a lot on my side, i almost always won. if the law was not with me, i lost. i king that happens all over america.
and judges tried to do that. justice scalia, i believe it is law. it takes a lawyer to dig through these matters and understand. what i would say is the american people do care. they have a high opinion of the court. they believe you should follow the law. the greatest threats to the court in my opinion is if the american people believe that judges are consistently redefining the meaning of words to advance their agenda, their views and that law is not to the essence of what you do. that is my own observation from the political world.
with regard to the comment, i can there is an area which we can respect has to the more activist or the more living constitutional view of the constitution. if it goes beyond that, the judge should not be confirmed. i have to know that when they say they understand they will serve the under the constitution that they're willing to comply with that. that is how we wrestle with these issues. >> you do not scare me, senator. >> he said that essence, what she called on the judges to do was to enforce of this
constitution. we establish this constitution of the united states. he said the good and bad parts. whether you like it or not. that document will be stronger and a greater bork if the courts enforce it as it is written. would you agree with that? or ask you to discuss that point. >> yes, sir. i certainly do. i do not think -- i said this before. the controversial nature of a recent confirmation proceedings is attributable to some extent to the doctrine of the living constitution.
whether you have a supreme court that believes the constitution means what it ought to mean in today's times, it seems a fair question for the senate to ask or for the president to ask when he selects a nominee, or kind of the constitution would you write? that seems to me -- is less important whether the person is a good lawyer, has a judicial temperament. what kind of a constitution do they want to write? that is crazy. it is like having a constitutional convention every time you select a new judge. i am hopeful that the living constitution will die. [laughter]
>> what she said, i agree with that. i said constitution. i wanted you do think of john marshall. it is a constitution we are expanding. he is thinking that document has to last us for 200 years. the hardest problem in real cases is that the words life, liberty, property do not explain themselves. nor does a freedom of speech and say what counts as a the freedom of speech. there is a job in lower court judges of what happens when you're on the internet and uriel somebody's personal information and it is picked up in the newspaper. how does that in fade theirs. -- invade theirs?
trying to put those values into the words, circumstances that are continuously changing is not something that can be done by computer. neither of us thinks that. no one thinks that. it is all look to human judgment. as soon as that interest -- enters the picture, fallibility as possible. some of us think that i really reading the history, we can get answers. and be aware of the judge like me who tries to see what our circumstances now are. there is a risk with me how that unbeknownst to me myself i will become too subjective. i will substitute what i think is good or the constitution as it was written and intended to
apply. i say you are right about that. all i can do is be on my guard, write my opinions, and i see the opposite danger, and is called the frigidity. the opposite danger is interpreting those words that will no longer work for a country of 300 million americans living in the 21st century. >> it is a constitution. do you have polling data dexter you have a hearing to determine whether it will work or not? what to do? what is a good example? a good example where we did not agree? there are cases when you say, will it work?
you are looking to, what are the free speech consequences? we had a case where somebody took a tape recorder of something that was in the public interest that involves a personal conversation. they printed it and there was a loss and you could not wiretap to give that information. how did that fit within the framework of expression? you tried to see what are the risks to the expression? what are the expectations of the individual? you had 42 briefs that are helping you on that. >> those are new phenomenon. you and i do not disagree. you have to calculate the trajectory -- let's take the first amendment. it was clear when the people
ratified the first amendment that libel was not part of the freedom of speech. that included libel a public figures such as you gentlemen. the supreme court, a marvelous example of the living constitution, decided it would be a good idea if there were no such thing of libeling a public figure. who authorized the supreme court to change the law? it may be a good rule. people are free to adopt it by legislation. new york could have amended those laws to have libel for public figures. what is in flexible is the inability now to change the libel law that the supreme court has instituted through new york
times vs. sullivan. you cannot change it. nobody can. i guess we can change it. [laughter] >> could i think both of these witnesses for their great comments. i vote for over 90% of president obama's nominees but we have a range in which if you believe that your to flexible about the constitution, i would conclude the and not faithful to the constitution and i could not support them even though they may be wonderful people. intellectually gifted. one of my standards is a death penalty case. any judson says the u.s. constitution calls for an elimination of the death penalty should not be on the bench. they will not get my vote.
we all have individual standards. we're immigrate to judicial system. i congratulate you. >> i will resist the temptation. i cannot think the two of you enough. >> let me join the chairman in thinking you for being here as to individuals who up been here for the confirmation process. i am impressed that you're willing to return. >> it was not bad for either of us. >> we have talked about the role of the judiciary and the larger american system and architecture of government. i wish you would say a few words about the role of the
jury with an that architecture and whether or not you see the jury as just a little piece of fact-finding machinery for dispute resolution or whether the founders and you see a larger role for it as a political institution in our system of government. is it a piece of our government are good -- architecture? if so, how? >> it absolutely is which is why it is guaranteed in the bill of rights and criminal cases and in all civil cases involving more than $20. the jury is a check on us. it is a check on the judges.
i think the framers were not willing to trust the judges to find the facts. at the beginning, when the constitution was ratified, and juries used to find the facts and the law. this was a way of reducing the power of the judge's to condemn somebody from prison. it absolutely is a structural guarantee of the constitution. >> i think it is very important. i have never been a district judge. but my brother is a trial court judge. i was there a while ago in san francisco and he said want to see me select a jury. i was on a jury in massachusetts. he said, at the and you end justice know how to select a jury.
i saw the morning passed which was just terrific. you take 12 people randomly from that community and two alternates and by the time they are finished, they are thinking that this is the future of this individual is, in all likelihood, in our hands. they take that because of the way the lawyer behaves as a very serious matter. they are participating. they're part of the government of the united states. you begin to think it is a wonderful thing that before you deprive a person of his or her liberty, if you look through this process where the community is brought in as judges of the facts. this is a way of saying to people in a community, it is all of you in this democratic system who will participate in this
terribly important matter, and matter depriving an individual of his freedom. just listening to the instructions and noticing a jury's reaction, they take that in. i saw that same thing in boston where a room is set aside and they have people to read in that room that so the 1 the person comes away from the jury, they are very proud to have participated as a citizen in this exercise of the application of community power. i find that fact finding, showing people how they are part of the government of the united states and its most important processes in a way of overcoming isolation and bringing our community into the legal process. >> at the time the constitution
was adopted, minor standing is that the founders also had a skeptical view of a governor's. they had hot -- shown at arrogance and high handedness. they were skeptical of assemblies. i wonder if the stature of the jury in the architecture of the government cannot just be a check on judges also was the last bastion or somebody who is upon by political forces can get away from and the political forces that lend themselves to
corruption and get themselves before a random group of their peers is the case is right and it has a larger significance than a check on you but also all of us in the system of government. >> i think that is probably right. if you will leave that juries can ignore the law, where they think that the law as producing a terrible result. they do that sometimes. that makes them a check in on just on the judge's but on the legislature that enacted the law to apply in this situation. i am a big fan of the jury. i think our record is, too. >> let me ask a question about this fact-finding role. what is the role of the court of final appeal with respect to
fight finding -- fact finding. hypothesize you have a case from a supreme court and the supreme court has indulged in fact finding at the supreme court level. what standard of review in view accord findings that have been indulged in by a state supreme court that is before you? >> you mean the supreme court has overruled the jury? >> it does not have a record to support it. do you credential match? >> if it is a criminal case and that is being appealed for a violation of a federal constitutional provision and is the supreme court has made a finding that is not supported in the record, if that finding is
crucial to the conviction, we would set the conviction aside. >> there is a role the says if there are two lower courts said hold a finding of fact, we will not go into it. it is an area that i've noticed over time. nine people and to try to get them to read this record and come to a conclusion is not very good. you can never say never about anything. we stay away from the fact finding. >> i will not trespass on your patience with us further. i appreciate that you returned to this chamber and share your thoughts with us this afternoon. >> my colleague and i have enjoyed it.
>> we did enjoy it. >> i appreciate you accepting the invitation. i will put in the record in the letter from the chief justice what he was sane about these hearings. i think i can speak for all of the senators here that this means a lot that you did this. when i hope the means, i hope a schools and colleges will look at this. not just law schools. that is why we stream dipped. we made a copy and everything else. we are in a nation where people look for a bumper sticker solution to everything. on the right or left. it is more complex than that. history never hurt anybody.
>> on c-span, an appearance by ron paul at the national press club. then, live with your phone calls followed by live coverage of today's u.s. house session. >> robert muller will be on capitol hill today to discuss the agency's counter-terrorism operations. he will be joined by matthew olson. coverage of the intelligence committee begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.
>> congress is back in session this week. the house passed a bill that will keep the government funded through mid november. it now takes up a bill on hazardous emissions. the senate will take up a bill dealing with china's currency. use our comprehensive resource on congress to get more information about your elected officials. including video of every house and senate session, records, the daily schedule, hearings and more. it is washington, your weight. crated by cable, provided as a public service. >> conduct -- candidate ron paul announced yesterday that his campaign had raised $8 million in the third quarter. those funds came from 100,000 donors. the announcement came where the candidate talk about economic policy and u.s. foreign policy.
in july he announced he would not seek reelection in the house in order to focus on his presidential campaign. this is an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am online video journalist with the associated press. we are the leading professional organization for journalists committed to our future to programming events such as this while working to foster a free press worldwide. for more information, i am like you to visit our website at press.org and through our library where you can find information. on behalf of our members, i would like to welcome our speaker today as well as those of you attending the event. it includes guest of our
speakers and journalists to our club members. i issue the reminder that if you hear applause in the audience, members of the general public are attending. i would like to welcome our c- span and public radio audiences today. there also featured on podcast -- podcasts on itunes. you can follow the action on twitter. then we will have a q&a and i will ask as many questions as time permits. please note that it does not signify an endorsement of the speaker. please stand up as your name is announced. we will begin from your right. sam is the director of the institute for public accuracy. diana bart is a reporter for reuters.