tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 3, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
the progress with their out of ate, out of touch jds of ideas and turn us back. now, i am aware we have challenges around the world. that's why i think, my spreps as secretary of state, as a senator from new york is especially pertinent to what we have to do to make sure we remain safe and secure. we lead with our values and in pursuit of our interests. but at the end of the day, i have to tell you for me what gets me up and keeps me going is the thought of my granddaughter and not what kind of life she has because we will make sure life as positive as it can be. what kind of country will she become an adult in.
what kind of world will be waiting for her? i'm the granddaughter of a factory worker. hard d grandfather worked and he did it to support his family and wanted his sons to have a better life. hey all went to college. he worked hard and gave us a good middle-class lifestyle and i'm asking you to vote for me for president. that's what is supposed to happen in america. whatever your dream might be. so i don't think it's enough that my granddaughter will have opportunities. it's not enough that the granddaughter of a former president or former secretary of state has a chance to live up to her potential, it should apply and if i'mwork tries
the foundation has safeguarded our collections and the summer funded the last two volumes of the documentary history of the first federal congress. tonight, their scholars are with us. in partnership with the national park service, we stand ready to unleash federal hall educational power. by 2020, an array of programs will unfurl eliminating the ideas of american democracy ports year between 1789 and 1990. we think the price fine company and our board member for their ofual and steadfast support the harvard conservancy.
we welcome c-span will be sharing the evening with viewers across america. right race, and the preview the election. the challenge posed to our politicalis to -- history. is the urban affairs correspondent for the new york times. since 1992 he has hosted the new york times close-up, and hour-long weekly news and interview series on new york one. he is the author of several noteworthy books including the brother, the untold story of the a finalist for the national book critics circle award.
grand central, how a train station transformed america and the history of new york in 101 objects. his advisor to the federal health hits -- history committee. ladies and gentlemen please welcome me and joining him. [applause] clicks thanks to all of you for coming. especially thanks or panel for agreeing to participate tonight. this is less a debate than it is a conversation, but as rene pointed out the stated challenge is to call the presidential race through the prism -- prism of federal hall's rich history. --withstanding the problem the popularity of hamel on -- hamilton on broadway, most new yorkers do not care about
history. jackson, the columbia university professor likes to say someone should see sicily. history is for losers. he looks for places wallow in their past. nothing much happens. offense, jamestown kind of sank into the mud. the first written records of the pilgrims are writing on a rock came about 121 years after they landed. i've been covering new york for nearly 50 years, but he said something else that may be i took for granted and that is america begins in new york.
no site in new york city embodies that beginning more than federal hall. what distinguished new york for the rest of america was the dutch roots, the dutch did not come here to escape religious persecution they did not come here to proselytize, became to make money. if you did not get in their way, you are welcome. you can call it tolerance you can call it indifference, whatever it was it defines new york and america at this site which embodies new york's history right here where you are wasing, peter's anger accused of rivaling the royal governor in 1735. called the morningstar of liberty which subsequently revolutionized america.
1765 theades later in john kruger to i confess i've never heard of before was the mayor of new york. he drafted a declaration of rights decades before that other declaration in philadelphia and it demanded no taxation without representation. then not even most new yorkers know this, for 18 months new york was1789, the nation's first capital. washington was inaugurated here at this site on the stone over there in the corner. holding the bible that you can see their.
peevishly stormed out whene chamber one day senators postpone their debate on a treaty. not reject the treaty, they just could not hear over the noise of the new york traffic. washington never turn to the senate after that. congress was debating slavery and immigration at the site, they flesh out the bodies of -- body of laws and government from the bare bones of the constitution. congress also approved 12 amendments to the constitution, 12 the first to signal their priorities, congressional pay and representation. if it did not been ratified we would have 6000 congress members.
the original 10 ratified became the bill of rights. theyhen thanks to hamilton all departed for a southern marsh. it was not a swamp it was a marsh. they have the right in philadelphia abigail adams lamented it won't be. site where at the history happened we are pleased to be joined by three journalists who bring historical context and diverse perspectives to their work. gail collins joined the new york times in 1995 her editorial page editor, she was the first woman to hold that position. she is now an op-ed columnists. she is the author of america's women, or be entitled. she's in the midst of writing a book called older women.
becky noon in former primary speechwriter for -- weekly columnist for the wall street journal author of seven books her book will be published in november. my former colleague at the new york times a prize-winning reporter. the first black woman to win the pulitzer prize. a panel of historians convened concluded that the founding anders were improvisers compromisers. i would like to ask the panel first given the way the government is working these days, if the founding fathers came back and were sitting with
us tonight with a think they got it right? ladies? >> they would have no clue. group -- ie that the agree it's a good thing the left new york for washington. the context is a totally different. the idea that they would come back and see all these women running around. i would love to envision thomas jefferson seeing hillary clinton , it's hard to put in a context like that. they were extraordinary people for their time, but i don't get >>o the founding fathers -- of course there were all fathers. as it turns out they came here to marry. >> can i tell you one thing >> one thing about it.
this was my older woman thought. asking them to come over from england and kept saying things like anyone of a good dispossession under the age of 65 would make a wonderful wife. and i thought that's the last time it came up. > what do you think? the government we have now was working the way they envisioned? >> i think that some of the founding generations are not insignificant number of them who walk these halls, were not at all certain that the united states of america, which they were business i inventing, would a, endure shall, b, endure as a
dem. 230, 240 years later, they might think, well, that worked. but after that, i would think ey would see the rampant disfunction, discord and very in coherent washington and they would be confused by it. if they look at the 2016 election, they would see things that would astound them. ey would see a number of leading candidates who have nor experience in elective office running for president of the united states. they would see other candidates whor i think the founders in a germ sense and who ared and those are professional
politicians, those who went into politics who worked for years in some profession or some honest work and then as good citizens decided to leave the field go to washington and do public service by representing their state or their congressional delegation and serve for a limited time and then go home and leave washington and be a normal american citizen. i think they would be shocked by the november isness by some candidates and shocked by that byitics is a job and shocked the political consultants and hocked by super pacs and billionaires. all that hamilton would say,
what is a billionaire. so much would be start rling for them. t the biggest thing would be that in a republic. >> given that most of our founding fathers were slave holders, they would be stunned and i think speechless to know who was actually in the white house right now. [applause] >> i don't think they wouldn't be able to comprehend the possibility of the people who have been who were brought here against their will, by hundreds of thousands and our first president, he was a slave holder f hundreds of enslaved african-americans. it was a difficult thing to come
present hepped the idea that people, that 10% could be a mainstream into the society of a whole. it would be incomprehensible they could have imagined a person of african-american descent would be in the white house. host: would it be surprising that it took so long and now that he got there, being held to a higher or different standard as president because he is black? >> i think they could not comprehend the day when it would happen. understanding how they would have thought about that. is emind us that this hallowed ground and how intertwined the issue and the economic and the enslavement was
to the count friday and to new york. we are on wall street. wall street was named after a wall ap was built by enslaved africans. a lot of people don't realize that. and on this street, the wall was built of laws by the enslaved people. 1700's, this was a mart ter that were not sealed as commodities. very much intertwined and part f the foings of our city and country. and charleston, courget carolina was ar port that was being sold and those who were arisk to be
sold and represented on this very state. host: we talk about it being compromises. eric caintor wrote in "the times" he never heard ofal football team that won by throwing hail mary passes. what is the ability to solve problems incrementally, to take baby steps and make small comprise mess than and do it in a way. nd you wrote scorpion tongs, that was a long time ago that things got worse to talk civily to esh other.
>> you make the point. when he was running for , his nt, he kept saying maid, his ambassador to russia and wife was an i will legitimate mate child and on and on and on. god only knows what they would have thought. i don't know that in terms of character there's any difference. they had the moment right now. and remember in congress, the uy that got the senator, the cane. south carolina. always south carolina. always been this crazy streak and we are in a moment in which the crazy streak and what's going to happen, the people who
are doing this will lose. and once they figure this out, things will calm down. >> what happened? >> i think maybe in the past 25 years, certainly in the past 10 or 15, a number of things came together, all of which had a negative effect on things. one, everybody in polits got max mallist. they couldn't put forward a modest bill ap say this modest bill will do something. and it's small and we are in agreement. let's put it forward. nobody wanted to do that anymore. everything is max mallist. you can't have a peace by peace
immigration bill. no. it's got to be huge. so that happens. i think we are living in a time because of our media, more and more of our candidates can and will be car is matic. but they aren't legislators. that is what is going on. legislative inability to move things forward. things that have happened, there are so many people making so much money on the divisions that drive us crazy. left wing people in groups and right wing people in groups. they are going to their own bases and getting them mad and getting them frustrated and saying, you right write that
congressman or senator. finally, america has been undergoing something culture rally something of the big sort. people who are like-minded are more likely to be living together in places like new york and texas. people who are like-minded, navigate their way towards media towards comfort or back up their biases. all of these things have the effect of putting daggers in the idea of compromise and going together and taking a chance and trusting the other guy. , it would be or
easier now than any time in our country's history. people can find comfort and on swell elevision that can up. and there are studies among the ogy call scientists, very thing that drives everybody crazy. it's the idea that instead of mple being convinced of anything, we are looking to confirm what we believe. and they can buildup because people are looking in this echo chamber for things they believe already. and when in fact, we are creating more of a confirmation by the people who are planting
themselves in things that they know. this confirmation bias is in new studies, new information that on one side would say, you must believe what we say. and he we are going to access. and one piece that has been confirmed. >> i think there is a little bit -- i don't have this thoughtfully thought out, but i feel as an american there is a slow-mo french revolution going on where everybody hates every
establishment. hey hate the political establishment and hate the media establishment. they hate all establishments, but the u.s. military and their own doctor, is the impression i get. that means everybody who's trying in their own way to help america run knows he is constantly under threat. >> what we already believe in. then what we make of alan of columbia who says of donald trump is a first in american politics, a candidate with no belief system other than the certainty that what he says is
right. how do we account for that? , i truly believe -- just for the hell of it so we could have a debate. and we the media and we were doing all that stuff and i belonged to the group in high it was all about not wearing strapless dresses. and then we evolved. we totally didn't believe that anyone in authority could be trusted. we totally didn't accept anybody in authority. and it evolved into the politics a very era, and you had
crazy time of politics in which the democrats, the left, were very unwilling to compromise, very unwilling to work the way things used to work in all of that, and i remember when bill clinton was running the first time, talking to one of the super left politicians in new york city and saying how can you be for bill clinton, he is such a compromiser, and she said i am tired of losing. the democratic party changed at that point. i argument toward be that right now the thing we have is not a political problem, it's a republican problem. that's the whole we hate everything, we hate everybody. we are not going to compromise. we are not going to do anything. it's actually not the two parties being crazy. it's just one party right now.
i am not trying to have a fight here, but i am going there. i am of two minds on that, or maybe more than two minds of that. there is a lot of feeling on the republican side that they have been trying to compromise for and at the 50 years, end of the day, they look back and it somehow always got worse. spending on higher. taxation got higher. regulation got higher. the power of the government to intrude into your life became bigger. so they think wow, where did we get by compromising? has is a time when america fairly serious problems that we are all familiar with. i understand those.
people in the tea party would say look, now is the time when you just have to start getting tough. at the same time, i look at a speaker of the house who navigated his way as well, i as a human being could the past few years, who has such record,vative voting who led the republicans in congress to a great victory in ,010 and continued it in 2014 and he essentially is leaving because he is tired of handling, hisan no longer handle feisty, rambunctious, and in ine cases distractive -- and even some cases ignorant base in congress. i don't know how to balance these two shots. -- two thoughts.
i have great sympathy for republicans, by which i mean conservatives. but to lose a man who was so making a deal feels not good at all, and i rue it. you also say the gap between those in government and those who are governed has grown and also pretends things that are not good. can you tell us what you mean? peggy: i forget. what was i talking about? what you on the spot for once. >> you are talking in the context of immigration. right.right, right, >> i remember. sam.: thank you, i shouldn't have put you on the spot in that way. -- america's is
, america has political leaders, our congressmen and senators, the people who populate the federal government -- i am going to repeat something i said before. they used to live normal lives. they used to experience the normal harassments of life in america. they work jobs. they got a paycheck. they had no specific or great status. they knew what it was to be just normal and then they would go into government. i mean, i am being very general. we can all see exceptions, but they go into government and they sort of thing normally. i don't see that happening in government now. entire,re, -- i see an for a few generations, a governing class. come up through the to thesess, go
fabulous school, and want to be in government for the rest of their lives. they are detached from normal people. they have not been in touch with the fears and anxieties of normal people for a long time. -- andinton once said this is not to pick on clinton, but it's the anecdote that comes to mind. the new990's, he told yorker that he had come to understand in some new way that crime in america -- this was in the early 1990's, like 1993 or was experienced as a harassment and daily executive -- daily anxiety by many americans. i thought, he is president of the united states, why is that just occurring to him now? why did he realize that for the
last 20 years? it's because for the last 20 years he had been living in a limousine as governor. he had not experienced normal life for 20 years by the time he got to be president. this is bad. if i could change it, i would. but we all would. sorry i answered so long. i was looking for my point. it takes time sometimes. sam: this is the place, as we where race was first debated. as isabel has written in her and wrote in the new york times last year, if events in the last year have taught us anything, it's that is much progress has been made over generations, the challenges of color are not locked away in another country or confined to a region, but persist as a national problem and require the commitment of an entire nation
to resolve. if bill clinton or barack obama nation toet the honestly confront race, who can? isabel: i think it takes more than one person. this is something that goes back the arrival of people of african descent in and the creation of the system of enslavement that existed anywhere in the world until that time. this is the foundation on which our country was built, and we are still dealing with it. i ,ften say, just remind people enslavement lasted for far, far longer than the time that african-americans have been free. of us alive today will see the moment at which we reach
neutrality, at which we are equal, because it was 246 years of enslavement and so many far fewer years of freedom. that enslavement went on for 12 generations. greats do we have to add to grandparents to get to that generation? that's a very long time. it is so much bigger than one person. often the first question i will get from europeans is well, there is an african-american president, why is this going on? this is much more than one person. it is an american challenge, not just one person's responsibility. sam: we have held barack obama to a higher standard. what about a woman in the white house? gail, you have written about women in politics, obviously.
margaret sullivan, the public editor of "the new york times" pointed out that we have full-time reporter to cover the clintons while other candidates, she says the sea shall he, have been spared that particular blessing -- she says facetiously, have been spared the particular blessing. are we treating hillary clinton differently? isabel: yes -- part yes, we are, in because she might be the first woman president, but also because she is hillary clinton. she had a life in the white house. she left the white house and became a senator. secretary of state. she was married to the president. you would lookat at her differently. it doesn't mean you judge her
politics differently. i think we will once we start having debates and things quiet down a little bit. -- i love this. i have to tell you. this has been so interesting over the past few months, but i think she will be judged as a candidate like everybody else. people will be trying to decide -- they are not going to elect her because she is a woman. never vote for women because they are women. becausete for women they agree with their positions. she will be judged but i think it will be ok. sam: will people not to vote for her because she is a woman? more women vote than men. but donald trump is ahead in the polls. obviously, there are people out there that are not making reasonable decisions right now. i think partly that is because it's summer, they are bored, and
they like entertainment. in the end, people chose barack obama not because he was black, but because they thought he would be better. they thought the stuff he would be doing would be better than the stuff that had been going on in washington. peggy: can i ask a question? sam: sure. peggy: this is an unanswered political question of our time, and it is something i have pondered. i will throw it out you and see if you have an opinion. in 1988, i was working for george h w bush when he was running for president. his pollster was a really talented, professional, sober person. he was telling me -- we were in his office. we had been there to talk about something, and the conversation alighted in two recent polling he had done. he told me a bunch of interesting, offkilter stuff that for some reason i will -- i askedt, such as
him, what countries do americans really like and not like. i was just curious. and he said americans still don't like the japanese, but they like the germans. go figure. but that's a degree in. he told me about his polling on caucus, and heo said women are going more democratic -- mike dukakis, and he said that women are going more democratic and men are going more republican. that was something that was sort of cliche by then. and i said why it that? why do women vote for democratic and men more republican? and he said we don't know. then he said he thought it had something to do with the price of things, shopping. women are concrete. they are in the stores. they are seeing what happening
in the stores and they are worried about prices and the economy. and they are more interested in security. that was his guests. he didn't know the answer. women have been voting more democratic and men more republican in our lifetimes. do you have an opinion why? gail: studies suggest it tends to be because they like the stuff that democrats do. they like more federal spending on education. they like social security. they like obama. the like the idea that country is providing a safety net for everybody, including their families and everybody else's families. they don't tend to like people they think are going to get usi?
isabel: no, i don't. gail: i don't have a good opinion either. sam: what do you think? just don't know if it is sexist and i am going to get myself in trouble, but it seems to me that women have a greater life,of the essentials of it ising in brooklyn, and more likely a man who will say let's build the brooklyn bridge. it meaningful to live there and make life possible. they want stability. they want the essentials of life. and they want to build from there. but its power that says let's build the bridge.
and powell roebling that says let's build the bridge. 16 republican candidates for president debated for something like five hours. i looked through the transcript of the federal news service and could not find a single mention "urban," "s inequality," "housing," or "crime." moderating a presidential debate, what questions would you want to ask? isabel: moderating a five-hour debate? or any length. was at the reagan
library debate. i am a sure i had ever seen a presidential debate before. it was so interesting when i saw. for one thing, the candidates have a way of finding out where the staff is and talking to the staff. i hadn't known that. during the commercials, they are to drink water and hug somebody. they go into the audience, hug and touch, shake hands. they go very much to the family. it struck me for the first time -- i just saw them as a bunch of individual operatives, and i thought they are lonelier and more insecure than you know, and they are all looking for support. ted cruz keeps his eyes on his wife and she gives him this. i think your observation is an example of the disconnect that we are seeing
unfold even as recently as the last few days. aboutrrent discussion is wements by jeb bush about are not going to give free stuff to african-americans. that is a message to people who are willing to hear it. just looking at it from an historical perspective, because the politics is really not my wheelhouse, but from an historical perspective, i wish everyone could think about the magnitude of that message, the magnitude of stating that african-americans might be free stuff. historically, it's a stunning suggestion for anyone to make. and the reason is because african americans, as you know, been enslaved and did
nothing but work to help build ,he country for 246 years followed by 100 years of jim crow segregation in which many african-americans in the self or working for the right to live on the land they were farming. they were sharecropping and not even being paid. so much of our history involves african-americans giving the country free stuff, meaning free labor, and that is the overarching history of our country when it comes to the exchange of goods, services, blood, sweat, and tears on the part of americans who have not been and can respected as americans for much of our -- acknowledged and respected as americans for much of our history. if i were in a position to ask theone to speak about statement and what that actually this day,nd even to
the statistics show that african-americans, when they look for a job, an african-american with a clean record is less likely to be hired van a white american with a felony record. -- savannah white american with a felony record. whites a study -- than a american with a felony record. this is a study out of princeton. so even when african-americans attempt to find work, there is unconscious bias. challengesome of the the give the lie to a statement about free stuff. matter how high unemployment is in america, it's always higher for african-americans. historically, it has been, but , there areit may be always more african-americans nonworking.
so if there is 20% unemployment, 80% are working. so where is this trope coming from and why are we so quick to be deceived by these statements that misrepresent an entire group of people in our country? sam: you talk so much in your book about the migration to the north. we talk about immigrants and where they are coming from, now from asia, south america, instead of europe. are blacks going to be the indelible immigrants in this country? often talk about the fact that we live in a cast system, which is something that accustomed tonot speaking of ourselves in being in. system is an artificial hierarchy. in our country, it is based on
race. system actually began in the north, in massachusetts, began as well.nt it was an institution that was refined, you might say, or course and, in the south. as long as we have an artificial aree system in which people presumed to have certain characteristics based on what continue toke, we see the situation -- 2014 was a unleashingar of this of attacks on african-americans. eric gardner was a metronome -- there is a metronome of names. we have literally, with our very eyes seen american citizens killed, beaten, shot before our very eyes. it's stunning. as i was preparing -- i have
been out of the country talking about this, and people outside i ame country will say terrified to go to the united states. there are guns everywhere. we seal these videos of americans being shot. -- we see alling these videos of americans being shot. and it is stunning to see videos of people being killed. gale, a question for a candidate? gail: i was thinking about the magic question idea. the idea that there is a magic question you can ask. i regret that i was not clear about explaining my great tax policy. it doesn't work anymore like that, and i am not sure it ever did. george washington had political issues. time a reporter wrote
down what they said in congress and wrote down -- they were horrified. they were shocked. when people started following them around when they were giving speeches, they would stop talking because they were so horrified by the idea, because it was so unfair that somebody would write down what you said and put it in the newspaper. , you can't ask a magic question. you can't do it because they know how to answer all the magic questions. what i am looking forward to, and what works -- what we were talking about with jeb bush. if you could confront him with that statement, he knows what to say now and he would fix it. if you could surprise him the way donald trump was surprised -- once in a while they will get surprised by references to things they have actually done.
and that's like an end to debate thing. it's like two or three people yelling at each other on the stage. it's not going to happen now. but my answer is there are no magic questions. sam: do you have one, isabel? you don't have to. isabel: no. i like surprise questions that can elicit thought. i asked a candidate -- it was off the record, so i won't say his name -- sam: who are we going to tell? well, c-span is here. he may be watching. he probably is. i said to him -- he was telling me where he stands on isis and syria, and islam. isent, can i ask the said --
said, when you think about foreign affairs and geopolitical things, who do you read? who do you go to for guidance and information on a new thought , and what books on history do you go to? i was surprised and surprised because i was actually saying please tell me how you think and where your thoughts come from. i won't name him in part because his answer was poor. imagine a question that requires a thought for an answer. speaking of which, we have time for about two thoughts from the audience, if anyone has a magic question, not a trick question. if not, i have more questions to ask. does anyone have one?
>> when you are all discussing lean democratic, none of you brought up the right to have an abortion. don't you think that's essential ? i mean, i know so many women leanare conservative who democratic because of that one issue. you are understand what saying and i think it is true, but women leaning more democratic and men leaning more has been going on for longer than these current conversations. it has been an older political story. when we talk about why women do this, there is something in this, i think. women are dealing with the essentials of life, and when they see somebody come along
with programs dealing with the essentials, they are more likely to be sympathetic. they can look at the other side sometimes and hear words like competition, competition. you know, it's all about competition. and they might be thinking to , competition is good. it's part of american life. we like that. sports.ll playing but first, take care of the essentials. i think that's part of what going on. sam: anyone else have a question question mark s, ma'am? question? yes, ma'am. what in your thoughts and in your plans that you are putting forth here for the american people is really going to the lives of the children and your grandchildren and your great grandchildren? that's a heavy
responsibility. isabel? isabel: i think that's what most people believe they are actually doing. i think people are seeking to do that on all sides of our political spectrum. i don't think anyone is doing anything specifically because they do not want their children and grandchildren too well -- to do well. i think they just disagree on how to do that. gail: can i go back to the abortion thing for a second? sam: sure. what has fascinated me all along about the abortion issue is so freighted with class. you can do all most to planned parenthood or an abortion clinic , and middle-class women are going to be able to get abortions. the whole fight we are having
now is actually a fight about the rights of poor women, and to tilt in one it does direction. i don't know that there are many conservative women, even the the right toeve in abortion, who are quite as concerned about that class. maybe i am wrong. maybe i am underestimating them, but that has always been a thing. this comes up in debates. the american people want abortion rights, but they are about tweaking it. you have candidates saying i know believe a woman who is ra -- ihould have an abortion
don't believe a woman who is ra ped should have an abortion. it's still the same principle. but that scares people. get so much done if washington worked better in that area. public opinion is very much against third trimester abortion, late term abortion. i mean, france doesn't have late-term abortion. other civilized nations don't. gail: but what we don't have, particularly in the republican say i are people who will don't believe in late-term abortion. i know believe in abortion passed the first or master. so i want to get a whole fleet ,f family planning out there
get birth control to people so that this isn't an issue. sam: similar to finding common ground on mass incarceration and things like that. are a resident of florida, ohio, virginia, or north carolina, you are all but an invisible voter in 2016. whereing states are candidates are spending their time and money. what about the rest of us? peggy: it's absurd. the last presidential election took place apparently in ohio and florida. nobody else's vote mattered. that is astonishing to me. mattered a little. indiana mattered a little. this is something about that is too strange and very unsatisfying. and you never see candidates go
cities our great anymore. i mean, they go through and shake them like an atm at fundraisers. this, but weeve has to have real political rallies, huge campaign rallies in new york city in the garment district. my gosh, the first political rally i ever went to was in 1964 for lyndon johnson. as i remember, its buildout of madison square garden. he was talking about the issues and riling the crowd. it was exciting. it is astonishing to me that nobody who runs for president has to come here. we should make new york -- we should surprise people now and then and start to show a little more republican support. just have an election and vote republican. they will start to think new york is in play and they will come here and treat us with
respect and have a rally. we could all plan this. this is something we could compromise. head fake every presidential candidate. joining us.ou for peggy noonan, isabel wilkerson, the l collins. -- gail collins. books by the panelists are available in the bookstore as you exit. to those of you with tickets dinner, please join us on the second floor. use the stairs or the elevator. thank you so much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> treasury secretary jack lew next. then a senate hearing on the impact of the epa goldmine still
pill in colorado. after that, hillary clinton in florida. journal,xt washington victoria stillwell discusses the september jobs report and possible action by the federal reserve. then, detroit news washington bureau chief on public trust in automakers after reports of deception by volkswagen and fiat. the founder of george washington university space institute talks about the discovery on mars. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. feature-span networks weekends full of politics, books and american history.
at 10 a.m. on saturday, with the announcement of liquid water on mars, the science, space and technology committee talk to experts about the announcement. sunday evening at 6:30 p.m., policymakers, business leaders and media personalities discussed the issues driving the national conversation. speakers include mitt romney and valerie jarrey. t. saturday night on afterward, martha kumar discusses her book. she is interviewed by mack m clarty. sunday at noon, we are live with tom hartman who has authored several books, including the crash of 2016, removing the american dream and threshold. join our conversation as we take your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets.
on c-span3 saturday afternoon at oney author steve discusses the events of the 1930 murder of mary fagan in georgia and the arrest and killing of leo frank. sunday afternoon at 4:00, the 1975 federal energy administration documentary on the supply and demand of fossil feels in the u.s. and a look at alternative. energy sources. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> treasury secretary jack lew spoke in the financial services roundtable in washington, d.c. he told congress that the federal government will hit the debt limit on or about november 6, a few weeks earlier than previously expected. he also discussed a range of other fiscal issues. he is interviewed by roundtable
president, ceo and former governor tim pilante. this is about 45 minutes. francis: good morning. i am the executive vice president of government affairs here at the financial services roundtable. secretary lew is here and will be out in a minute or two. but first, i want to talk about the safe 10 initiative. is here and will be out in a minute or two. but first i want to talk about the safe 10 initiative. we started by trying to do two simple things. we want to make sure employees prepared for retirement by saving at least 10% of their income, including by taking better advantage of the employee benefit fans -- plans that you all offer. and secondly, by providing high quality employee plans that help employees save and keep at least
10% of their income. leadership, we have already recognized about 50 save 10 companies that employ over a million americans. we are at the stage now where we are ready to do more. for those of you who are save 10 members already, congratulations and thank you. for those who are not, please take a look at the brochure on your table. mr. dimon said yesterday that our companies are extremely progressive when it comes to employee benefits. of that. be proud you probably qualify for safe 10 already without doing anything different. if you do, please let us know so we can tell the story of what you are already doing. more importantly, we are looking to grow our initiative from an effort where we bring on one company at a time week i week, -- by week, to an effort where
we bring on many more companies. we are looking to scale this. going to get the word out with a social media driven video contest. we are asking people to share with us, their social media network, and anyone else they can find, short videos talking about how and why everyone should save 10% of their income. we know that is not the right for every person. but we do know what the wrong number is, zero. too many americans aren't saving anything. we think this save 10 initiative get more people to save more, to have a better, more dignified retirement. with that, we are going to be launching a video contest on october 10. goode hoping to get a
collection of videos. we are offering 10 great prizes to encourage people to start saving and become more financially secure. keep doing what you are doing. it's good work. ask our i would like to chairman and the ceo of northern trust to come up and introduce our next speaker. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i hope everybody has been enjoying the conference. it looks like we have great attendance for day two. this morning, we are going to kick things off with a conversation between tim plenty lenty, and u.s. secretary of the treasury, jack lew. heldis a position he has since 2013. the secretary is a two-time director of the office of management and budget, and he
began his career on capitol hill as a legislative assistant, and went on to serve as a policy advisor for speaker tip o'neill, back in the good old days when everyone was talking. he served as white house chief of staff for president obama and has an extensive career of accomplishment in our nation's government. his role as secretary of the treasury is critical to the financial security of our country. as you saw this morning, he has a need for some money, and i am sure he is going to talk about that. the comments and q&a will be on the record. we will have press here. please keep that in mind. with that, i would like to awlenty and polli secretary jack lew. [applause]
tim: good morning. we are delighted to have ew with us. he is all over the globe all the time, so the fact that he took time out of his scheduled to be with us is very appreciated. jack: thank you. tim: you must feel like bill .urray in groundhog day the issues you were facing in september are going to come back in another couple of months, and now we have another debt ceiling vote. the about how you view inability or unwillingness to tackle issues in a timely way and the consequences if they don't address these issues. do want to begin on a somber note. as we meet this morning, i think everyone in this room and across the country is feeling the sadness of the families in oregon who had terrible losses
in a shooting yesterday. i think before we jump into today's conversation, we have to take a moment to be with them and to commit ourselves to doing something about the terrible problem of gun violence in this country. on the question you asked about the budget, i think across the country and across the world there is a deep, deep desire for operate in a normal way in terms of public finance in the united states. we have seen in the last year and a half that since congress reached an agreement to not have fights every six month over the budget or the debt limit, it has led to greater confidence and calmness, and it has helped stimulate stronger growth in the economy. we know brinksmanship is bad for confidence, bad for decision-making, and totally avoidable. knows how to solve
these problems. congress knows how to sit down with democrats and republicans and work out their differences. that is what happened a couple of years ago. i certainly hope that leadership in congress is able to structure that kind of conversation now, work out our differences, and the as you indicated, deadline for dealing with this is november 5. congress should not wait until november 5 to do it. we all know what happens when you wait in till the last minute. as the date gets closer, anxiety grows. now, people are looking at the u.s. economy as an engine of strength. i am going next week to the imf annual meetings. if it is at all like the last conversations we had at the g 20 meetings, what i am going to hear is how does the u.s. do it?
how does the u.s. bounce back an economic crisis and come back with stable, strong growth, and notwithstanding the noise of the political process, make the decisions you have to make to move the country forward? timewould be a terrible for congress to fail all to do its work and start to undermine do itsmpton -- fail to work and start to undermine that confidence that other countries have in the u.s. on the spending bill, they could raise the levels to meet our defense and nondefense needs without damaging our budget projections. on the debt limit, they just have to do it. this sobeen through many times. congress decides how much money to spend at some point, and then then, theision --
decision to raise the debt limit is the consequence of decisions made a long time ago. you don't get to reverse the spending decisions. congress needs to do it, and the sooner, the better. went through this in 2011 and 2013. i hope we don't have to go through the terrible process of what do you do if there is a miscalculation and congress goes over the cliff. there is no way to pay all the bills that the united states has, and it should be unacceptable to everyone for the united states to be in a position to default on any obligations. many of you will be talking to members of congress in the coming hours or days. the secretary is always and her student trying to make sure they appreciate the importance of this issue. interested in trying to make sure they appreciate the importance of this issue. it's like dining and dashing.
you have to remind them, if you have already spent the money, you have to pay the bill. i am sure the secretary would appreciate your perspective on that as well. we have many people in the room who look at tax reform from a macroeconomic standpoint, but also from an individual standpoint or a corporate standpoint. inh the elections coming up 2016 and what that means for both sides of the aisle, can you give us some hope that some type of tax reform could be possible in the next 18 months? i have been one of the biggest advocates of doing business tax reform for many years. if you look at the conversations i have had with democrats and republicans, there is a place where there should be a meeting of the mines. when i sit down to talk with
chairman ryan, you get the sense that we could do this if there was the freedom to have the kind of conversation where you really solve the problem. not oury, time is friend. there is not a lot of time left in this congress, and there are a lot of differences. what is the right way to do tax reform? to do a big business tax reform. get rid of loopholes and it actions, get rid of non-competitive tax rates and close loopholes to pay for it. we can't spend money to do is know as tax reform. it has to be self financed. business tax reform. it has to be self financed. why is that hard to do? small businesses -- 95% of small businesses would benefit from the kind of tax reform we have
been talking about. the argument has been made by you republicans that until do individual tax reform, you shouldn't do business tax reform, because it would be unfair to small businesses. it's not. small businesses would benefit from a simplified tax code and from being able to take a full deduction up to $1 million in investment. the businesses that would not then if it look more like hedge -- would not benefit look more like hedge funds and interstate pipelines of van harry's hardware store. harry's hardware store. now, if you can't do full business tax reform, what the president proposed and i have been advocating strongly is that toshould do what we can do get the international tax code
fixed, to get the money that comes in from fixing the international code to be for investing in our infrastructure, and solving a terrible problem of inversion, where companies change their addressto an overseas in order to avoid u.s. tax laws but then if it from everything we do to make doing -- benefit from everything we do to make doing business in the u.s. so attractive. you have to have a rate that is sufficient so that it doesn't cost you money over time, and i think you have to agree to put revenue into infrastructure. if you could agree on those i think it could be a pathway forward. time is short. there are conversations going on. i hope we can have a breakthrough. this is an important issue to address, and frankly, it's one that if we were in a different political climate, i would have
higher confidence that we could address it. obviously, it is a difficult climate to get things like this done. but we have not stop working toward it and i will continue to talk to anyone who is interested in pursuing it. we have talked about the budget and the debt ceiling. you are a leader in tax reform and you are playing a big role in the trade discussions. some positive news regarding the transpacific partnership. that is advancing, it seems, , with a little more to go. i can you talk a little bit about that? what we areinarily, hearing is positive, that we are making real progress.
some responsibility for the trade discussions and the pieces that affect the financial industry, but also the issues involving current the -- currency. as i think you know and was madey debated, congress clear they wanted this issue of currency to be prominent in our discussions of trade. we are working hard and making to having greater transparency and what practices are pursued around the world, what kind of interventions , and tos are making force a process to have these get to a level where monetary authorities work through what differences they have to make sure there is a level playing field where the u.s. is competing on a fair
.asis i think we are making real progress on that and that is parallel to the conversations going on in atlanta. the financial services part, it seems like financial services early on -- i don't want to say moved to the shelf, but were not part of where the agreement stands now. any ideas about that? jack: i think there are provisions in this that will make for a more level playing field in financial services as well. i think we have eight progress made progress in that area on nontariff barriers that wouldements force electronic services to be locally located. there is a host of issues in the financial services area that we
have worked very hard to make our financial services as well as other goods and services can compete fairly in the world. the critical importance of the it wasgreement is designed to set high standards around the world. we have the united states, in almost every area, meet those high standards because we have the kinds of laws and regulations here that have to make us the strongest, most secure economy and country in the world. the standards,ne others get a price advantage that is unfair and damaging to the goals we seek to accomplish. this agreement will drive up a host of areas to make sure that whether it is environmental, health, fair practices in terms of tariffs, that high standards, not low
standards, are driving the global decision-making process. the is a huge advantage to u.s. economy. i think we all know that the global economy is largely -- growth of the global economy is largely outside of the united states just in terms of consumer demand. i think that will open a more areas of growth and competition for -- i believe that will open a more areas of growth and competition for u.s. businesses and that is a critical part of our growth agenda for the next decade. quota system changes have been kicked around for quite some time. i think our international partners are growing weary about whether the united states is willing and able to make the change. there is a certain amount of skepticism and criticism in the u.s. about that change. hadi you anticipate that affecting the process here and
the consequences if the u.s. -- how do you anticipate that affecting the process here and the consequences if the u.s. doesn't act? the: let me start with consequences here. since the end of world war ii, one of the areas of leadership that the united states has helped shape in important decisions the world has made has been through the international financial system that evolved out of world war ii. i think our leadership in that set of critical institutions is at stake. weta reform is something lead negotiation on almost 10 years ago. it started in the bush and continued in this administration. there has to be some reallocation of shares. the united states share is held at a very high level and barely changed at all. it's really moving shares around other countries. this is a good deal for the
united states. it is something that protects the u.s. influence and veto in it'srganization, and something congress should have approved years ago. around the world, it's now being of whetherest another u.s. will stand up for its leadership and approach world institutions in a way that reflects the reality that other countries see the need to have a voice in a big way. i think if you look at our role if we don't get quota reform, everything we'd try to do internationally gets harder. ideal with it in every international conversation i have. even countries that would give up shares want us to approve this. i will be going to the imf meeting in a few days. the end all meetings are going to be hard. the world is going to start top -- annual meetings are going to
be hard. the world is going to start talking about moving on without the united states. that shouldn't happen. congress needs to get this done. and i should add on a slightly , i believestic note there is a broad understanding now if how important this is. it is, like many other things, a difficult thing to do because getting things done in congress's difficulties days. but compared to a few years ago, -- in congress is difficult these days. but compared to a few years ago, i think there is a broad understanding about the importance to our economic security. started, a video played about the save 10 initiative to get employers to enroll employees in a savings program. as we know, there are a lot of individuals in the country who do not have access to
employer-based savings. you have led some initiatives to address that need. jack: i applaud the effort the roundtable is making to move forward with your initiative. getting people to sign up early for retirement savings is just a critical part of making sure that people have the research as a need when the time comes. you cannot wait until you are on the eve of retirement. thatinitiative is based on principle. a way to deal with the one of the reasons people are uncomfortable saving. they are world if they will lose their money. fees and if they can get their money back. yourf you need to tap
money hopefully you will not. a very attractive product. we tested over a period of time with a limited pilot group of verynies and it works well. where looking at ways to expand it to make it easier for people to sign up. we will look area at in the coming year. getting people to start saving is the key. once people start, they tended to continue. starting at the beginning of your career or early in the middle of your career makes a big difference. we know that started with small amounts makes a difference. not that people have to put aside an amount of money putting a real crimp in their ability to meet their current expenses. even small amounts. you can put five dollars a pay period. in, the moreput you save. the critical thing is to get
started. it is a great initiative and will afford to spend a good deal pushing at. tim: are there other ways that people in this room can be helpful? jack: the more people know about it and hear about it, they tend to go to the website. when they go to the website, you can start getting enrolled. we would love to have helped getting more eyes on this option. we would be happy to work with you and anybody else, happy to help people become more familiar. tim: another one of your many roles is to lead the f stock. a number of years removed from the creation and sarah: operational experiences with it. some we do know what illuminated the f stock and it plays a valuable role. what's the process are, really is the record for decision-making?
is there enough transparency around the record? as the decision guesstimated to the extent the f stock has an interpretation of the facts, do you know what it is before the decision is finalized? is there a way once somebody is in the crosshairs, so to speak, could they preemptively the risk -- de-risk? or is there a clear way, timing amp to get out.fr suggestions or hopes of the f stock can play a role around harmonization of regulatory activity not as a hierarchical power but collaborative power the holyrager of regulatory platform more coherent and coal his -- cohesive. thoughts about that pretty jack: i have said any of us starting
from scratch would probably not to design the system we have today that has evolved over more than a century with many institutions and overlapping roles. f stock is an attempt to deal with africa first time by having a formal institution where all of the agencies responsible for financial regulation come together with a mission of worrying about addressing financial stability risk. for a young organization, and lot of mythology built up over -- methodology built up. 2007, no entity in the federal government charged singularly with worrying about financial stability and looking across the different platforms and asking what other risks should be dealing with. notion that we want to go back to a world where we do not have the radar and the
ability to see what is looming on the horizon would be a grave, grave mistake. 2005h we had in 2000 and at certainly going into the future. debate i think from the when it is heard over the questions you raise and whether there are process issues or risk of designation issues, you would think hundreds of non-banks have been designated. do you know how many have been designated? tim: three. 4? jack: not tens or thousands of institutions being designated, the careful process and takes not a week or a month, an average of two years of going through the review process. there is an enormous amount of back and forth between the f that and the entities ultimately are being reviewed or designated.
we went through and listened to concerns raised. five year, six-year-old organization and a is evolving. in my time, the three years i changedn chair, we have some of the procedural rules to address concerns about public notification process. i think that is a better process now. i hear questions raised about companies, how do they know how to de-risk if they want to be designated? when a destination estimated, not a two paragraph designation more like a 340 page analysis that go through in a firm, specific way what risks have been identified. and why the destination was made? those risks if change would lead to a new decision if the risks were eliminated.
now, there is a annual review other designations. if the facts have changed, the designation can change. there is a process for looking at firms and it is not as a goal to expand the number of firms regulated for any purpose other than to address issues of financial stability risk. that is why the number designated is relatively small. there are not that many firms that polls that level of risk. i think the practice has been a good one. an improving one and that is a good thing. i hope the facts of f stock breaking the methodology. what all of us shall worry about is a world where the radar shines. the privatet of sector seven years and back in government and your served in high rolls for 70 years -- seven years. let's end on a hopeful note as
you reflect on the servers in your personally put in and a reflection of the insights that give you hope for the future for our country, economy, financial services and their stability. give us some of your hopeful, optimistic thoughts. jack: tim, i am actually in optimistic. i do nothing you could do the work i do if you did not believe that most of the people working in our government and all bridges really want to move this country in the right direction. they do not always agree how to do it but they care about the country being the best and strongest in the world. i have worked in public service for 25 years. i have seen perio of political challengeds and one of the things i have learned over the years is exactly the political challenges you face tend to be
the worst ever faced. it is always worse than it was before. no moment where we cannot get things done. we could still do tax reform. we can avoid budget crisis. we'll have to avoid a debt limit crisis. people across party lines have to talk to each other. that is hard. that is hard because it are differences that are legitimate differences of belief. that has always been the case in this country. we have to find a way to solve the problem and we can. i am inherently more optimistic about to the ability of decisions to be made than the kind of 24 hour chatter suggests. let me give you an example in my world for it might seem going from a lofty 30 foot to something on the ground. we worry a lot about financial inclusion. i do not think it is an issue
that is right/left issue. everybody should want small businesses and individuals to have access to financial services and financial education to build a feature, economic opportunity by having access to the best financial system in the world. the kind of thing we should work together on even if you cannot do some big legislative things. i can give you a host of other examples of things we can make progress on. i am not going to be a pollyanna and say in the next six months to a year or logjams will be broken. will lay a we have foundation for decisions whether they are made in the next year and a half or after. what are infrastructure, tax reform, immigration reform, the big issues we know we need to do to move our country forward, the time was spent debating and working on it is an investment
in decisions that ultimately will be made. the sooner the better. fromlet's go to questions the audience. just raise your hand. there we go. a microphone. coming to you from your right. a halo over your head. [laughter] [laughter] >> good morning. one of the things we spend a lot of money on is cyber security and the cyber issue. i know you are involved. can you give us your latest thinking and the things you are doing with other governments and other peoples you talk with around the globe to help us with the issue that is critical to us. trust is what we offer our customers. issuethere is probably no that has changed more dramatically in terms of prominent in the attention of ceo's like yourself or senior
officials in government but myself over the last 10 years than cyber security. it is truly a risk of we have to deal with. it is also risk that is not something we will deal with once and put it aside but will consent to change. the risk will change. with a guys will come up new approaches. we know collectively we need to do better. i think the financial services sector and the work we do ofether is at the high end readiness to deal with it. we know there is a lot that we need to do. aboutuld make you worry everybody else. i do not think anybody in this room feels they are doing everything they need to do or the problem is under control. we work very closely with you in industry to make sure there's information sharing. we encourage you to report
problems because of more we see is going on, the more the algorithms can be understood and we can address things before cyberattacks hit. legislation is pending in congress. the sooner it is passed, the better. we are doing whatever we can. the existing board and the president put in place. short of changing the law. i hope congress passes cyber security legislation. second, we cannot wait until we figured out how to lick this problem before we start coordinating and cooperating internationally. domuch work as we need to when i go international, we are ahead of a lot of other countries. the g7 started the process which my deputy secretary is of the cochair of to bring senior leaders across the major economies together to share information and develop as best we can a common understanding
which hopefully will lead to more effective approaches. just anthing i think as unfortunate fact of life is this probably going to dominate the attention of all of us and that people take our places for some time. the more -- and are benefits from attacking information systems, the more people will try to attack them. and yet has will change. they will become more sophisticated and we want to defend and develop a resilience so even if there is penetration of a system, you can bounce back quickly and not have the result to be the kind of long disruption of service or loss of access to personal resources or information that is truly paralyzing. i do not think we could pretend nothing will ever hit. the vast majority of things we
catch. it is not as if we do not do a lot of deflection. that is not a standard any of us are happy with. the one that hits is terrible. we have to constantly. i wish i could give a simple answer. and i think as i've have talked to many of you in a different settings, nothing i am saying is not shared pretty broadly in terms of the level of the risk and the nature of the challenge. i hope we can break down the barriers that exist in terms of the stigma that is attached with saying we were attacked. the more we share information, the better we will all be able to protect ourselves. it is not something they either an agency or firm needed to feel singled out for it. the we have to do is do very best we can to understand the nature of attack so we can
stop them and remediate any damage done. my sense ofkind of where we are. great we needly a congressional help here. sharing is critical, especially among ourselves and with the government. thank you. >> thank you, john. >> thank you for being here. i agree completely with you and john. you are a driver from your days at the white house. liability sharing is going to be very important. on the sanctions, you have been a driver on that. how you feel how where doing in russia, the ukraine? where do you think it is going. i picked up on a recent trip some shaking on their side, on the future of that.
i am trying to figure out how you feel about that. jack: sanctions are enormously powerful tool. you did not ask about it run -- iran but the recent negotiation was something that proves the power of sanctions. iran came to the table because the most effective international sanctions put in place brought to their economy to a point where they needed to find a way out of sanctions. agreementll with an that will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon because of that effective coordination of. sanctions are a very powerful tool. i have always said that sanctions can put pressure on an economy but cannot force a regime to change its policies. thean create where rationale is to change. to do orany is ready
more pain, it will not necessarily accomplish the results. governmentsry, very do ultimately respond to that kind of economic pressure. in a case of europe and russia and you can test ukraine, -- ukraine, we have taken the most sophisticated sanctions program and not designed to hurt of the russian people but put pressure on the decision-makers in russian and that will bring russia to change its policies on ukraine. obviously, russia has not in a dramatic way changed its policies. i do not think the sanctions have been without a impact. it is that impact on the russian economy and curtailed perhaps some of russia's actions. if you look at easter ukraine, i
cannot sit here and say russia is where iran got to. what do we do to get out of sanctions? zach is a case for keeping sanctions in place because it is not the case that six months or a year from now things will necessarily be where they are. i think it is very important that russia understands that europe and the united states remain united because a, they need to not go further and b, step back. there is an agreement, an accord. importanceorcing the of living with the minsk accord. i've not gotten the sense you are describing all the europe stepping back from sanctions. i met with my european counterparts less than a month with themwill meet next week at the imf meetings. i have actually seen a
steadfastness in sticking with a tough sanctions program. a need for russia to change its policy toward ukraine. is also a need for ukraine to have an economic future where it can withstand the pressure and have a better path forward. the bright spot over the last few months, year, ukraine has thatked on economic reform are actually quite substantial. it is more than what would've been expected even without the pressure of the conflict with russia. and ukraine's economy while still very challenged, it is slowly improving. we have to the team to support ukraine. ukraine, you know, suffers a risk on both the military front and a financial front. if you lose either of those -- it isit is
tremendously damaging. ukraine andrtive of strengthening its reform and economy. we will continue to keep pressure on russia. tim: barber, you had in your hand up. >> i had a question about the international side. there's a growing number of issues weather derivatives, cross-border, or tax issues like thefts. weekill be at the imf next , what is the u.s. position on these kinds of issues? leadershipamerican to draw to a conclusion? jack: we have taken a active role on taking these international conversations to drive the world to high standards. we have made progress in the tax area and erosion. and progress in the financial
and through the asb focusing on bringing international standards up. what we cannot do is use an international conversation as a way to dilute the things were we are a world leader. that is a bit of a challenge. you bring standards up but you are still higher. that has led to some friction because there is a desire on the part of some of our trading partners to say what we do is good enough and you ought to recognize it as good enough. we try to work through it. if there is an area where there is substantial consistency of approach, we ought to find a way to respect each other's regulatory processes. if there is a difference, we have to be careful not to contract out our responsibility
to others. just as we were talking about f stop where there is a lot of mythology -- methodology, a lot of methodologies about these international conversations. legitimate is concern we have to retain control over making u.s. policy and if we have high standards, u.s. financial stability, and asked to be our fundamental driving concern. we subscribe to that 100%. hold the world to the high standard. we are making progress. i do nothing we will and donate all of the different -- eliminate all of the differences overnight. i hope you can reduce the friction. not good if there's any perception that international agreements are listening the steps we take to keep the united states safe. that is the approach we take. tim: one more. >> mr. secretary, suntrust in
atlanta. i am all strong personal i was notof the f and want to go back to the world where we do not have that accorded. if you go back to the financial crisis and the formation of f stock, one of the issues it was trying to get a handle on was counterparty trading risk on a global basis. would you comment on the progress made on that issue? jack: i think was made a lot of progress certainly in the united states that we had transparency where we had non-transparency, to use a polite term. we have the ability for both institution and regulators to see what is kind of under the hood and of these formally, opec transactions. i had of the rest of the world of the rest of
world so we now more reporting and we need to make sure other major economies catch up to us. one of the areas where if we were to use an international standard, it would be a mistake. we conduct a high international standard, that is a good thing. and causes and of the fact that cognizant of the fact because to clearing is taking place in centralized locations, we have to be attentive to what risks arise out of that kind of concentrated activity which is why as our public readout meetings have shown at f stop we have been looking at the question all risks associated with central clearing. did the right thing by creating central clearing. and by creating transparency and now enough to ask the question, what does it mean in terms of future financial stability risk?
and laughter may sure we address those which is what we're working on doing. houseet me make a quick cleaning announcement. in a moment, we will play a video to allow the press to transition and break down the equipment and that will take three or four minutes. if you can give us patience, we appreciate it. i will make another announcement and ask john to come up and lead the ceo panel which is one the favorites. please be a little patient for a few minutes during the transition. the panel will be a break for everybody before mr. mcconnell comes in. secretary lew, the scope and weight of his portfolio on these topics as some we do not address has enormous responsibility and he throws himself in to it with a terrific energy and passion and the heart for public service. we are grateful for him.
mr. secretary, thank >> next, a senate hearing on the epa gold mines bill. after that, hillary clinton and florida and then president obama on the resignation of arne duncan. he takes questions from reporters afterwards. "q&a," author of the companion book to c-span's upcoming series of landmark cases, tony morrow on the supreme court's new term. who did note judges get his office, position because of this suit and the print -- soon and the supreme court was called marbury versus madison.
marbury was one of the judges. basically that he probably deserved some remedy put the remedy that congress has provided for this goes beyond the power of congress, the authority of congress, so the supreme court was going to start this ist law and something the court had never done before. declaring an act of congress unconstitutional. >> sunday night at eight :00 eastern and pacific. on monday as the supreme court sides with any term, c-span debuts "landmark cases: historic supreme court cases." we take a look at the famous marbury versus madison case, delving into he did battles between old presidents like john adams, new president and john
marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution and his famous decision in marbury versus madison. >> marbury versus madison is probably the most famous court case this ever decided. >> yale law school professor and exploring cook slowly 12 supreme court cases filing -- revealing the lives and cases. for background on each case quality watch, order your copy of "landmark cases" $48.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org /landmark cases. on thursday, the senate small
business and entrepreneurship committee heard from scott tipton and other business owners about the cost and ongoing effects of the wastewater spilled kospi at epa cleanup team at the cold king line. this is one hour and 10 minutes. goldking mine. this is one hour and 10 minutes. mr. tipton: good morning. mr. gardner: i want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to share this hearing. without objection, it will be entered into the record before hearing from scott tipton from colorado's third congressional district. i want to mention the epa was
invited to testify this morning but was unable to send a representative. the submitted testimony and we have got before us and we ask it be entered into the record. also, i want to welcome to the committee senator bennett who will be here momentarily and will be joining us not as a number of the committee but member of the senate who will be able to participate and he will be here shortly. in the interest of time, i will with pulp my statement until congressman tipton gives his statement. it includes silverton, colorado with this boat occurred. congressman, your perspective on this bill is invaluable and we appreciate your service in the forward to your statement. thank you for coming. you,essman tipton: thank senator gardner and extend my
today'sor committing hearing on an important issue when it comes to the epa spills and questions left to be answered and economic impacts we will be feeling not only in colorado but adjoining states as well. i would like to also extend my thanks to the small business committee on what i believe is an important issue. i am grateful for your willingness to be able to work with me to the what will be a long, complicated process to obtain a picture of the economic impacts of the epa gold king what they haved been subpar and into the future. i would like to provide context for why the way in the wake of this disaster we focus on the impacts of small businesses and why it's crucial. without question, they will be a long-term impact on farm and ranch communities in