tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 23, 2015 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
should make is that isis is engaged in asymmetrical warfare against the countries that it its enemies. they will not just a within its territory in syria and iraq. it is not content to use the internet to help radicalize lone wolf kinds of terrorists. it is carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks by individuals who have been trained and radicalized in warfare and terrorist activities. the large-scale terrorist attack is the one that we need to be most concerned about. san bernardino is an example,
there was an interesting article in the new york times today abetter an aider and of the attackers, it appears clear that that was inspired at least in part by the sermons and lectures coming out of yemen over the internet. that radicalized farook. were still not clear on how her journey became to become a terrorist. they managed to kill 14 people are large-scale terrorist attack like paris where you had a 130 people slaughtered, mumbai,
madrid 191 people killed, simultaneous terrorist attacks executed by a half-dozen or more foreign trained terrorists. that presents the kind of terrorist attack that i would say is most consequential and we want to make sure that we prioritize and focus our efforts as a government and with other governments on preventing that. obviously we need to also prevent the san bernardino's, the chattanooga's. i have to tell you, no matter how good the fbi is, if you are talking about lone wolf radicalized terrorists being able to kill a number of people, that is going to happen and it is extraordinarily difficult to stop.
dena: general hayden, do you see this distinction between cells and lone wolf attacks? are there ways to stop lone wolf attacks? if conversations about an attack directly taking place over dinner? general hayden: you can reduce the likelihood and reduce the number of fatalities. this is below a threshold where you have any realistic expectation that your law enforcement of security services can get this to zero. these kinds of things will continue to happen. i think they are accelerated by but we see in the middle east.
you've got the inspiration coming out of isis. it is like the hand of god carrying out the will of god. a narrative that is genuinely underpinned by the battlefield successes. we're talking in our discussion a few minutes ago. in addition to whatever tightening we may be comfortable with, we need to kick the ball field. we need to get into the offense rather than restructuring our society, let's do a little reconstruction out there. this is a case where the physical destruction actually has a powerful ideological impact. very often chaotic success carries with it ideological
burdens. it might actually make the long deep fight a little harder to do. imposing battlefield defeats on these forces undercuts their theological underpinning. you get a victory not just tactically but strategically. i totally agree with the analysis that what happened and san bernardino is kind of what we were expecting from isis. charlie hebdo level. paris was a little surprising to me. it shows a growth in the ambition of isis and it was coming at us faster than i expected. it was more similar to al qaeda, in that it was directed, and complex, with multiple parts. in one sense we now have to do
with both ends. increasingly sophisticated complex attack which i think we better shopping. -- better at stopping. and the spontaneous attacks that may just be the cost of doing business. robert: i agree that this is not just about defense. the best defense is a good offense. the offensive strategy against isis is the subject for a whole other program. we're going to be focusing on when you are on offense, you still have to defend against these attacks by the enemy that wants to strike you in your homeland. it's what isis was able to do against the russians. that's the one we have to prevent.
we are doing better than most people think in the united states. dena: it is far from clear that san bernardino really had anything to do with isis. beyond a posting on a facebook page just minutes after the attack that said in broken english that tashfeen malik pledged for support. the criminal complaint in this case is absolutely fascinating. something very typically al qaeda. one of the shooters wanted to go and join the army in yemen. it is very early to talk about this being a isis case.
we may find out it is a tangential one. robert: apparently farook was radicalized going back to earlier days. dena: let's talk a little bit about how we come back something like this. there has been a lot of commentary on the role of the state department. whether or not they should be checking social media before they let somebody in the country. your views on that. jamie: i do think that we are surprisingly not great at social media. we are not great at surveying it or doing it. that is stunning to me. the enemy is way better at using social media to full maintenance
-- mount and inspire. we don't have a counter narrative. we don't have the same power in that space that we should. the two go hand in hand. you have to have a greater sophistication and governments along with the private sector to figure out what is happening. as robert said, when you have in asymmetrical warfare, we said this in the 9/11 commission report, your best tool is intelligence. proper boundaries on it but you have to use it. dena: i was looking at the ideas big data and intelligence. this was before the snowden revelations.
have you seen big data analytics being used in this space? how can it be used to prevent these kinds of attacks? general hayden: it follows the path of what we would call disambiguation. the whole universe of data points being boiled down into very specific things. we've gotten fairly good at that. disambiguating identities so that we can target someone either for action are for collection. or so they don't get on an airplane. we need to perfect that and use it better.
it's not a contrarian view of the complementary one. an awful lot of what now passes for analysis is disambiguation. going from the mass to the specific. that might be at the cost of broader strategic appreciation for what is going on. it was a mix of a policy problem and intel problem. we may have been so busy as an intelligence committee chopping down trees over here that we kind of missed the second growth forest.
the data is good that we have to do that effective disambiguation. don't forget you need to tell your policymakers to keep reaching nuanced strategic appreciations so that you are not forever in the loop where all you are doing is arresting or killing people. jamie: big data is being used by every american company to really great ends. we are capable of analyzing huge amounts of data. and citizens today huge amounts of data. in a way that we didn't to five years ago and certainly not 10 years ago. the ability to analyze and use machine learning to keep ourselves smart about what is happening out there. whether it is the micro of the macro. it is critical. when the government starts looking at lots of data, alarms go off about what the protections are.
i would rather focus on what the protections should be then say it is too dangerous and we should be hands-off. it is one of our key tools. if we are blind to what is buried in the data, we are not going to be as effective in protecting our country. as somebody who grew up in this environment, i would rather take the time to build a system that works appropriately then i would risk of not doing that and having the american people be so afraid that they wholesale throw out civil liberties. that is the real risk here. we have to appreciate that we talk about the massive pendulum swings that we've had in this country between security and privacy. robert: one of the most important things that we did
shortly after 9/11 was to essentially posit the question of how can we use data more effectively that we had. to better identify the small people that buy post terrorist a terrorist threat to the united states. that might attempt to enter the united states from abroad. if you've got people on the terrorist watch list, the real problem is the issue of have you narrow down the haystack of those under 1% of people and they are foreign nationals, some of them are now foreign fighters that are trained in syria. the potentiality that summary might fall into that category.
and use border search authority. the broadest law enforcement authority that any agency or government has. how do you use that to engage those small fragmented people in sophisticated counterterrorism questioning to determine if they do pose a risk. to deny them entry into the united states. that is using a lot of data, whether or not it is big data. it is part of the national targeting center that was set up by borders and customs officials. to ask him some questions for we allow them into the united states. if you are foreign national, you have no right to enter the united states. it is hundreds per year that we deny entry. they are put on it airplane and sent back. since the underpants bomber, we
are able to do this intervention before they get on an aircraft in a foreign airport. like heathrow. they don't even get on board the aircraft. if we believe and we assess them to be a security risk. we tell the airlines don't board that person. dena: one of the things that surprised me post paris was how there was such debate about syrian refugees. two of the paris attackers as far as we know came through greece. possibly with fake syrian passports.
let me start with general hayden. do we need to worry about the syrian refugees? general hayden: i was on a panel a year or two ago. we were talking about the nsa meta-database. eric was just going on about how we understand why they want to do it. you can learn this and that. we don't do that. the use of even that database is very narrowly circumscribed to simply querying whether a known terrorist has ever had a phone call that ended in the united states. private industry takes it as a given you would do it this way but the government, not so much.
there is no requirement to be stupid along with being generous. i would advise the chief executive to speak like mother teresa and then grab whoever's filling my chair now poke his finger into his sternum and say you make sure nothing bad happens. we can do both. we are talented enough to do this. dena: should we be worried about syrian refugees? general hayden: there is a danger. we should be prudent about it. just saying it is not happen is destructive of our security. robert: this is another example of overreaction in our country which we see after every terrorist attack.
congress also overreacts. it is axiomatic. the fact of significance is not that there were a couple of people with syrian passports came into europe. the fact is there were foreign terrorist fighters were belgian citizens, french citizens who had fought and been trained by isis and had european passports. they could go anywhere in the eu. the refugees, we are able to let people. it takes astute counterterrorism questioning. it takes a president who tells the department of homeland security make sure that somebody
who is a security threat doesn't get in. there is vetting. we've had people that went off to syria and are fighting for isis. now we know isis is intent on getting some of these people back asymmetrically to attack countries in the west. i do think we have some protections in the visa waiver program.
congress just strengthened these protections by making it clear to the europeans that if they want stay in the program they are not have to share information with united states. they are going to have to have the capability of knowing who they are. that is an intelligence issue. i'm not too impressed with what our eu colleagues are doing with respect to even having the data that we need to help protect not only them but to protect the united states. there are some sharing on the intelligence levels. if you're a german citizen and use it in turkey for six months they don't even know that the come back to germany. there is a random checking of passports. you could be a german who was radicalized and trained there. they are so far behind in terms of actually having the system in
place. their external borders are protected by the weakest nations in the eu, greece and bulgaria. their external controls in terms of border control and using their authority are almost nonexistent. so they don't even have the data to share with us. dena: what about the so-called brain behind the paris attacks? he was one of most wanted men in europe. let's talk about encryption.
not just in the san bernardino case, but in the paris case. jamie, should phone companies be required to respond to process? jamie gorelick: every citizen is required to respond to process. my law firm represents many technology companies and i understand there is another point of view. we have legislated that and was implemented which basically said to phone companies that you have to create the technical wherewithal so that the court a finding of probable cause says we need this information that could be executable.
right now what our technology companies are saying is that is commercially very problematic for us. therefore we're going to offer encryption across the board. it is true for telephone companies. there are any number of apps. this is a hard trajectory against which law enforcement is working. it is very difficult. it is not going to be perfect. but we should enable the people who are there to protect us to get information where there is a lawful reason for getting it. everyone else is free keep their secrets. but bad guys, whether it is a child molester or terrorists, should be able to have their communications discovered through lawful process.
you can see him, but he is vibrating. >> lets me sharpen that a little bit and ask you. the fbi director said that he thought this wasn't a technological problem. the encryption. it is possible to have a way to search that. it is a business decision that silicon valley companies are making that as a business decision. can you talk about that? general hayden: at the end of the discussion it is both. it is a combination of technology and business. creating a door for the government to enter at the technological level creates a
very bad business decision on the parts of these companies because that is by definition weaker encryption than would otherwise be available. you don't have to split the baby. both of those realities are true. if i was jim comey, this is more of a law enforcement issue than an intelligence issue. because intelligence gets to break all kinds of other roles. i am saying that to say that i'm going to speak in absolute terms. i get his point of view. jamie: he is responsible for us. general hayden: i don't think it is a winning hand to attempt to legislate against technological changes.
if you choose to criminalize it here in the united states it from happening. i just don't think it is worth the candle. even in the security lane, i think i can still win the argument. i'm joined in this by michael chertoff the former secretary of homeland security. we don't normally require citizens to organize the lives for law enforcement. we're going to guarantee that the chip would always be a way in.
mike used the same arguments and he fell on his sword and he lost. he will tell you now and thus began that they greatest 15 years of electronic surveillance in the history of the national security agency. we figured out ways to get around it. before any civil libertarians want to come up to be and get my autograph, let me tell you how we got around it. bulk data and metadata. there are tools that we can use at the intelligence level. jamie: if you are responsible for domestic safety, it is a really hard argument to swallow that don't worry about it because we can find out stuff outside the united states. it is not true that we don't
legislate to require people to organize themselves so that we can respond. we have all kinds of requirements on businesses that they have to be able to respond to certain inquiries that law enforcement makes. my view is similar to that. robert: i want to associate myself with the jamie gorelick view of this issue. we faced a very similar issue. technology does change. building off their switches and they didn't have any portal for authorized wiretaps. so you can intercept a phone call where there was probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. the user of this phone was committing it.
congress passed legislation mandating cell phone companies build in portals for law enforcement use so they can access with appropriate court orders. if there is a potential terrorists in the united states we have probable cause to believe that terrorists is in communication with another terrorist, i want to be of a present that evidence and get a tap on to that cell phone. with all due respect to general hayden, the fact that we don't have the capacity now is there are internet companies that want to sell privacy to everybody even to criminals and terrorists.
that is, if not outrageous, it is inappropriate. dena: we require united states companies to do it there will be companies elsewhere that wouldn't. robert: i think the chinese will do it anyway. jamie: the chinese are likely to do it as are the french and the germans. i don't think the mood france right now is too hospitable to the notion that you can sell encryption technology that will prevent the french from exercising lawful process to get access to that information. dena: just a reminder, when you ask questions this is on the
general hayden: there are some mistakes in the premise of the question. the director of nsa is confirmed by the senate. there is no requirement for the director of cia to be a civilian. in fact i was director in uniform for several months. nsa beyond its first initial being n is also a combat support agency of the department of defense. that does drive it in the direction of a uniformed officer. right now the director of nsa is
also the commander of cyber command. it is too much work for one person. as cyber command matures, you can separate the two jobs. you might want to give some thought to using a career nsa civilian as director of nsa. >> the panel began by arguing that we need to get off the defense and go on the offense. this is not just a u.s. isis problem. it is a very complicated regional problem.
what is happening in the u.s. and europe may be the smallest element of what is going on the offense mean? general hayden: there is a powerful kinetic element to it. the kinetic and the ideological elements are really conjoined. to break their narrative. let me go up further down the politically incorrect path. i do think this is about islam. there is a struggle within one of the world's great religions. it is not a struggle that we can determine. it has to be resolved within islam. we have to recognize that this
is islam's equivalent of the 17th century. it has a lot of elements of truth in it. i was listening to the ambassador to the united states who really talked about modern moderate islam. it is not just about beating these guys down. but creating a different vision for the islamic world. that is something we can't control. >> we have kept a thousand troops in afghanistan and that has been too few. we had a hundred thousand in iraq that was too many. it implies some kind of military
commitment in between. the old pottery barn rule, if you break it you own it. there is a fairly extensive amount of reconstruction required in these societies. are we really prepared to take the kind of improvements that are required abroad to stem this tide? general hayden: if it gets broken we appear to own it. we broke it in iraq and we were really involved. in libya we try to split the difference. in syria we were barely present at all and that is not ending very happily either. i think that the right number
for the american residual force in iraq is not a round number, it is not zero. the political commitment those americans represented kept the cork in some very powerful ethno-sectarian bottles and once we were gone we allowed to set in motion things that were not our fault that we do not create and has moved us in the direction we are now in. there's nobody in my experience calling for american maneuver units in the syrian desert. 3500 under resourced american forces is not the solution. there are many choices to the iraq occupation. they have a reasonable chance of making the situation better.
it would have been easier one year ago two years ago. it is easier to do it today that will be a year from now. robert: i don't want to engage in the beauty of hindsight. if we are considering just -- if we are concerned about large-scale terrorist attacks, it is very important that the u.s. play a role in defeating isis in its own territory. i think there are a lot of countries including a good many sunni arab countries that share our interests. france and the united kingdom and even russia. the key is how do we do this. can it be done without u.s. leadership?
i will leave that as a rhetorical question. we have to have a broad strategy. be with a lot of other countries and lead the effort to essentially remove isis because as general hayden is saying is important to defeat them and remove them because it also part of the, their ability to attract and finance themselves is the fact that they are holding a sizable chunk of territory in syria and iraq. we do need to do something about it but it is being debated and is worthy of debate. >> are there other questions? >> yes. people are literally jumping out of their's needs. -- there seats.
>> we bemoan the fact that there is this insidious power of extremism on social media. we are failing at that side. we know in communications, it is a big myth that isn't there is one message that persuades everybody. when you look inside the great spectrum that we are talking about in terms of creating a counter narrative question what have you learned from big data and your experience works and doesn't work as an effective counter narrative? jamie: i am not the expert on what the counter narrative is. i am not convinced that we are taking advantage of the best minds in the united states to develop that counter narrative or implement it. we are operating as if we don't have the best minds in the world.
i do think that the anti-muslim rhetoric is a disaster from national security. we have to be able to figure out how to get our message conveyed so that it underscores a values. the 9/11 commission report we talked about the benefits of leading with our values. we are not using all the tools in the toolbox. i don't have the answers. we are not getting the input from the right places. we are not being smart about using these tools. that is the only point i wanted to make.
we have a couple of questions. can i go to a second one? go ahead. >> this gentleman here. >> i'm with the american bar association. given the experience on the panel, we have a new administration coming in in a few months. what will be the organizational changes you would recommend to an incoming president that are the priority given the for threats that were confronting us? i'm sure people would like to hear what you have to say.
robert: i actually was involved in the biggest reorganization of our government since world war ii which was the homeland security organization. i was present at the creation though not necessarily responsible for every decision that was made. there's a question in my mind whether or not we needed to restructure as massively as we did. at this juncture having done it and not wanting to go through another one, i would not suggest any massive or significant reorganization of the department of homeland security or its alignment with the justice department and other agencies. why wasn't the fbi, the principal counterterrorism agency domestically, why is it not in the department of homeland security. there are some practical reasons for that. i'm not going to go into them now. the fbi should be in dhs is not
going to be. there is one small item i would say, when customs and border protection was created, they did make us more effective and more efficient, all of the special agents were taken out and removed and put into an agency called ice. mile analogy is a little bit like taking the new york police department and separating off the detective units and then expecting them to work well together. that isn't working very well. we need to look at the issue of reintegrating the office of
investigations that into customs and border protection. jamie: our instinct to reorganize the boxes every time something happens is not a great one. i was there at the creation of the energy department. i watched the creation of homeland security. i understand why each of those occurred. we need to examine that instinct. it sets us back when we do that. i think the director has been quite effective. here's what i would do. we talk a lot about private public partnerships but we do not do them very well. our national security sits on a bed of privately held assets and we have left those privately
held assets on their own. there are a couple of mandates here and there but we don't protect them and we'll utilize them in a major way. -- we don't utilize them in a partnership. we have to get over the notion that private is private and public is public and figure out mechanisms by which we can help each other in both sectors. we have been miserable at it. that has caused all manner of vulnerability in our society and it could be fixed if people who are experienced put their minds to it. general hayden: we have fundamental challenges. dealing with the new kind of security threats. our security establishment was hardwired in 1947. and it harvested all the lessons
of the last great industrial conflict in history. we are hardwired to defend you against malevolent state power. we just spent 52 minutes talking about current dangers and never whispered anything to do with state power. we are badly organized for the world in which we find ourselves. we even have the wrong people in the room. because we have the traditional power ministries in the world you haven't got the intelligence community and the department of defense now tasked with doing things that are well beyond their wheelhouse. and are against their nature. i agree we don't need to be
, moving boxes around. but the fundamental approach to security we are designed to go hereut the threats are coming the other way. all of the arguments we have been having with ourselves frankly are about killing the enemy. we are in a war. capture the enemy. what does that look like? guantanamo. you're making me uneasy. what about that espionage stuff? intercept their communications. that will be cool. everything edward snowden told you for two and half years. the arguments we been having with ourselves have to do with having a national security apparatus designed to do one thing but needing to do another. dena: do you have a suggestion on how to fix that? general hayden: not yet. [laughter] >> we have another question here
in d.c. yourwant to address question about the cantor message, sustaining the moderate muslims who reject violence. if you try to talk to them about kant and locke, it's not helpful. but if you talk about what the prophet really said you could make them progress. they are not doing it. allow me one more sentence. i'm surprised people talking about the chinese doing encryption. how many americans would want to rely on the chinese?
not putting in a backdoor or hold up the encryption to the light. jamie: they are going to put in encryption in a place that overtly has a backdoor in it. does anybody have a comment on how to deal with this intra-religious war? general hayden: we have to be careful. the tighter we hug it the more we own it. can we enable them to do this? somebody asked about the counter narrative. let me tell you the narrative. this is from al qaeda to isis to
the street, they have been born into a world of unrelenting hostility toward islam from the judeo-christian west. you and i know that not to be true. that is what they believe. it reinforced jamie's point. we are stupid when we say and do things that reinforce that incredibly faults narrative. that is one thing and our control. to do withhing has the prophet and the holy koran and those people who follow it. jamie, d want to call on somebody else? we've got some people here. go ahead. this gentleman back here in the blue shirt. thank you. >> i am curious in the political arena whether or not any of the three of you have heard any
credible strategy from any of the candidates for president, republican or democrat, to effectively handle the issues that we have been addressing today. robert: i am supporting jeb bush and i think he articulated a pretty good strategy in his citadel speech. i am not a political guy, i am involved in policy. a lot of the rhetoric is silly. there are some thoughtful good ideas that being discussed. by at least of the -- a few of the candidates and mrs. clinton. general hayden: i am an advisor to governor bush too.
secretary clinton's speech was also very good. jamie gorelick: magnificent. [laughter] general hayden: words like carpet bombing are offensive to anybody who really knows what that means. >> jamie, you want to go with brilliant? [laughter] jamie gorelick: secretary clinton put some really good ideas on the table. a very important speech, attended by people who were listening. it barely gets any coverage because real ideas are not permeating in the season that we're in. you can call it silly season, but it is very destructive. general hayden: it made america less safe.
>> this gentleman in the front. >> my question is the unintended consequences of our actions. even the way we are shaping the debate. with all due respect, the mention of the fact of san bernardino and paris and madrid and even mumbai, every day hundreds of muslims are being killed by the criminals in afghanistan and iraq and syria and pakistan. that is not mentioned. my question is this question of .he debate taking place it is helping isis.
that was a point everyone has been making. let me just tweak your question. because isis is killing so many muslims, this is what ended up doing.nother persons cannot happen without boots on the ground? robert: this is really a manifestation of al qaeda. there is a direct line. there was a falling out between bin laden and zarqawi. it really related to killing muslims.
it is not that we are oblivious to it. if you look at the subject matter of our panel. defense does start at home. you want to secure the homeland first. then if you can do something to make the world a better place, solve some of those issues, that would be great. part of that is removing isis. there is a shared interest by people in the region, including a good many peaceful sunni muslims. dena: i'm going to have to leave it at that because we try to end on time. i would like to thank the members of the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> tonight, the church that was the side of a mass shooting in june hosted a conference on gun violence. clergy and law-enforcement officials gathered to discuss the problem and solutions. a doctor tells the story of patients killed by a gun and how it affected her practice. i got involved in the issue of violence 25 years ago when an entire family of my patients were murdered. i had se the babies in the newborn nursery. i talked to mom about breast-feeding, about car seats and about immunizations. all of those things that i had been trained to talk about. physicians were not trained around violence.
that is changing and changing fast. she waserie decided going out one night and her husband killed to their hisdren, killed her mother, two-year-old nephew and waited for her to come home and killed a transition point . it was a point to say what could i have done differently? how could i make a difference in the lives of these patients? the lives of my community? you stand here, i will tell that because of screening people for domestic violence, sexual assault, guns in their homes, talking about safety, talking to ,he children and the teenagers
something called anticipatory guidance. i know i have saved lives. >> more on gun violence tonight from the charleston ame church beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> is an author.us thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate it. host: let me go to the premise of the book. of write the following, one the great ironies in modern america is that the less money you have, the more you have to pay to use it. 90 percent of americans consider themselves middle-class it anywhere from 20%-40% of the population must rely on alternative financial instruments. guest: a lot of us who have bank accounts and up operating in a digital world. bankve credit cards, the
, weles the auto bill pay connect to our service providers and shopping and all of this -- it is done through the network operated by credit cards and debit cards and bank operations. and those who don't have bank , or those who have to use other services, they operate in a cash economy. and that economy is expensive and stressful. so if you have to pay a bill and you don't have a bank account, you actually have to go to the water office, turn your paycheck into cash and then you turn the cash into a money order or take the cash to the water office and pay for it there. so there are financial services that we who have bank accounts don't think about because we
that worry about the way the cash from our accounts gets there. that's what i mean by it being more costly. there is another aspect besides check-cashing and money transfers, but the credit aspect. so if you are short three dollars or $400 and your tire needs to be changed, if you have cost,rgency or unexpected a lot of us can tied ourselves overthrew some savings buffer or credit card. but there are a lot of folks out there, and this goes well into the middle class, who consider poor, but you end up having to get a payday loan or a title loan. so if you need $300 to fix your tire, you end up paying something like $1500.
and that is a costly transfer. it ends up being the only option other folks have. the book starts with that premise because i think it is not just an economic problem, it is also a sociopolitical problem. host: you point out in the introduction of the book, that other -- that over half the people who had to take out $400 from their bank account would have to sell something or borrow money to come up with the cash. guest: it is a federal statistic. half the country doesn't have $400 in savings. go to a folks can friend or family member and get the money if they need it. but there are costs there. and some people don't just have friends or family with the excess money. so they end up having to go to a service provider, a payday loan,
and you see this industry is massive. so you have to think about how much demand there is. this is more than a mcdonald's and starbucks combined. this is a huge demand that is being served by this industry. host: we will put some information on the screen and remind the audience to get the calls in just a few moments. the book is called "how the other half banks: exclusion, exploitation, and the threat to democracy." about 20% of the population either have no bank account or rely on check-cashing store fronts. is average household income $25,000 and 10% of that income goes to fees or interests. also, the average customer is indebted for 199 days.
half of the loans are made in sequence of 10 other loans. can you elaborate on these points? guest: yes, the process of the payday loan is that it is meant to be rolled over. you are borrowing against the next paycheck. the folks were doing this have to have a bank account and they have a regular source of income. you can borrow against the next inflow. the problem is, you are never paying off the principal of the loan. in other words, the actual money you take out. but he pay fees as interest on that loan. so when the two weeks is up, a lot of folks and up having to roll it over. something like 20% roll it over around 10 times. these loans are meant to be a cycle of debt. and even the business model of
some of these firms put that in the management material. so this is where it becomes problematic. pr and seeeasuring a how much interest there actually have. a lot of the loans are from range of percent -- range of 300%-200%. are able to get around them because they can charter on a native american state or they call them fees. you end up paying a lot of money because of the rollover process. host: our guest is mehrsa baradaran. she is out with a new book called "how the other half banks: exclusion, exploitation, and the threat to democracy." are dividing our phone lines
differently for this segment. 202 is the area code here in d.c.. for those who earn immediate income of up to 50,000 a year. that number is (202) 748-8001. we also welcome our listeners on radio and on the iphone app available for mobile devices. let me ask you about traditional banks. this is a fascinating history. hopefully the readers of the book will also see that. throughout history there was a compromise, and understanding that government supported banks. without government support, banks don't exist.
the banks can be there on the ground to meet the needs of the community. so when we put geographic restrictions around banks up until the 1990's, if you were a bank, you could only be a bank in one community. you were in atlanta, you couldn't have a new york branch. the result of that was that most communities had a bank. the wealthys served and the poor in the community. so we had access basically nationwide. that's a start shift during the 1980's as we see regulating. that allows the money from atlanta to go to new york. and you have many different branches. so these banks get bigger and bigger. you see bank of america who has branches nationwide, and they are able to put money in the most profitable branches, you shut down the branches in areas
that are not profitable. what is not profitable? inner-city areas or rural areas. other banks, the savings and loans at the george bailey bank -- that was fictional. mess are involved in this exit is from these low income communities. happens, there is a direct correlation between those banks leaving and the payday lenders filling the void. is, it isn'tt it profitable to lend a $500 loan if you are a bank. you would rather loan a multimillion dollar loan because it is the same overhead cost but you are able to get much more interest. taking smallor
deposits doesn't yield much money. has tried tot enhance these banks and entice these banks and it hasn't worked. banks are not interested and it is not profitable. there is money to be made elsewhere. matt smith,s from he says, it is expensive eating poor in america. expensive being poor in america. guest: that's right. it is. it is hard to understand that .or people who aren't poor it takes a lot of empathy and living in someone else's shoes -- for a whilet but once you understand how many sharp edges there are two poor , and thatives financial aspect of it is not
the only one. there are many. things that happen, unexpected emergencies, they can really set people back. and once you take out one of these loans or even go to a family member, it can really snowball. and your life can be fragile. a lot of us don't spend the time thinking, what would i do if i money in mysome bank account that i could throw out if i needed it. host: another viewer says, payday loans are a trap. they need toe time avoid one fee by incurring another. from the book, "how the other half banks: exclusion, exploitation, and the threat to democracy," another point from the author. she says that the fight for was startedbanking
before the ink dried on the constitution. ended sometime in the last few decades as deregulation did away with attempts to restrict bank power. banks became large and powerful and stop serving a large section of the population. baradaran is joining us from atlanta. jack,go to rhode island, you make more than $50,000 a year? caller: yes. i worked on wall street for 30 years and i reached the levels of middle management. i was fortunate. i was trained by three very wealthy jewish gentleman. when i wasld me running the business at 25 years old, they said you have to bring value to the table. ok? once you reach a certain
, i was treated well, but i reached middle management and it was very difficult to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. that is controlled by a very small select international financial elite. they run the game in the world. it doesn't matter who is running for president, democrat or republican. will housesay, he the gold will will be world. money controls everything. and you have to hand that to them, the jewish people control world banks. from providence, rhode island. we will get a response. guest: he brought up wall street. it used to be that we separated investments and
trading from the banking industry. and as we have seen over the last 20 years, those things have merged. growing fury of wall street was that they were doing it, is financial innovation, to help us out and really after the financial crisis, it became apparent that wall street is massive. it is much bigger than it was. and the size and risk that comes with that isn't really helping us do anything better than we were before. it is really not a benefit to main street to have wall street be so large. risk,e of the heightened main street is threatened whenever the machine of credit freezes up like it did in 2008. freezes, we can't get the loans that we need to make our lives go. the other thing that became apparent was that wall street was also backstopped by the
federal government. and this is a point that a try to make in the book several times. to say, let the market handle people -- handle the poor. we do have a market for payday lending and i don't think those high costs are the market price. and i talk later about why but we don't have a market in banking the way markets of supply and demand traditionally work. we have a federal government backstop that doesn't allow the banks to fail. there are reasons for that, political but other reasons. we also have trillions of dollars of federal money going into these wall street banks. that is dependent on them lending it to the rest of us. it isn't being led to the rest of us. whether itable about is even benefiting fortune 500 firms.
it seems that money is circulated around and wall street through the derivatives and the trading. the question is, with putting so much money and wall street, is the money coming down to help us out as a society and economy? your mentioning before to the caller and i talked before about the evidence low in the u.s. history about the debate about what banks should do and we don't have that debate as visibly and as strongly as we did. there was andrew jackson who waged a bank or and thomas jefferson and alexander hamilton fought so vigorously about the banks. fdr wereilson and strong leaders who took on the banking industry. some of them make mistakes. maybe they didn't fully understand it but there was the exchange in the conversation and we don't see that as much these
days. before joining the university of georgia law school, our guest, mehrsa at brighamtaught young university. you make them between $25,000-$50,000? caller: yes, i do. i am a veteran. i average in the middle. my wife had to have knee surgery. and the insurance that she has , ther job only pays 80% , wethat we have to pay found out what we read for the surgery that i had to pay that before she could get the surgery. fromo i had to take money our bills from my check to pay
for the surgery that she was going to have. that is put me behind. from to borrow money different places in order to make up for the money that i had. and now i have loan bills to pay have got to cover other things that i have. and i find now today that the president or the government is not going to raise social security. the government is not going to vase the the a -- the payments that we get but everything else is going up. i just don't understand how the middle class is really the poor class now. host: thank you. guest: i'm so sorry to hear that. i agree with you that there are a lot of folks -- medical emergencies,.
my daughter also just had a i am fortunate enough to have insurance that covers it but i feel the same way, because if i was not, it is a high cost and you would look quickly to find that money. there isn't really an option to not get these surgeries that will save our kids lives or make your life better. so you make it work even if that means borrowing from a place that you know is costly. say: from the book, you french lenders are causing problems in our society that are cause for alarm. we might approach them with temporary solution and relief if we look deep enough we will find a cancer eating away our democracy. guest: yes, the point i'm trying to make their is that the payday lending industry isn't the problem. there has been a lot of talk about it.
i think it is a symptom to a bigger disease. becauseon i say that is i come at this from a banking perspective. i actually walk -- i actually worked on wall street and i said he banks. -- i studied banks. i understand help banks work and how the credit market functions and how they lend and the decision-making that goes into it. and also the government-bank relationship. so coming at it from that angle, payday lending is a symptom. the social contract that we have has been breached. banks to do something for us and that is why we support them. we have never been so supportive of banks in all of our history. we give trillions of dollars in qe and discount loans and all of these complex ways that we are
supporting the banking industry and there are not doing the thing that we need them to do. and the payday lenders are. so i don't think the payday lenders are -- they are sharks, sure. but that is a market void that was created by the banks. we just blame them and just try to stop them, it ignores the huge demand that they are meeting. and what it stops, they will come up in another form. so we had to take a look at the banking industry. a hard look at what the taxpayer money is buying. it is now in loans or asset purchases so we can say, we have made a profit. but if you look closely, these banks don't exist without huge federal reserve and federal government infusions of credit. what do we get from it? host: mary jane is joining us
from ohio. good morning. mom today is going in for financial advice from her banker. they contacted her and want her to take the money out of the savings account, and it is a sizable amount. she has money invested but she wants to keep a fluid part of money for her in case she needs it quickly. is there some reason why they would be paying so much attention to her lack of making money? is there something going on right now? she's older and they want to get the money out of the savings and into some other fields. i don't know what it is, i will go with her today. is there something we should be on the lookout for that might be a trigger? i don't want to end up like greece, where they take all of
the money that you have in the bank. if you could give me insight into that. host: do you trust your financial advisor? caller: well, i don't know. within thes changed last 1.5 years and it seems like bigger.eager -- it is i just don't know. i don't understand. i just know that there are different things that she could be invested in and she did call her broker to find out if there's something she could get the money out and still make money. right now she is making nothing on the savings account. host: how much money are you talking about? an estimate? caller: considerable. under what hundred thousand dollars but it is a lot. host: thank you for the call. i think something that i
hear a lot is that people don't trust their banks. you say it went from a little bank to a big bank. that is a common story. a credit union but it does get bigger and bigger all the time. so i think that you are pointing out -- i don't know who this bank is. i can't answer your question specifically. i know that the federal reserve has increased rates so hopefully your banker is trying to find a higher yield place for your mom. i hope that they have her best interests at heart. toefully they are not trying swindle your mom. ask a lot of questions and make sure you are comfortable. ask a lot of questions and go online. with thehe problems banking industry that i highlight in the book, i am not turkey -- i'm not talking about
bernie madoff. i think there are a lot of problems on looking at the whole large-scale thing. but i don't think that people are out there trying to steal money from good folks like yourself. i hope that is not the case. book, mehrsar baradaran writes the following. banking policy has always reflected the social goals and civic principles of each bureau. the state is shoring up a powerful banking industry that is, in turn, excluding those americans most in need. back to your phone calls. good morning. a ged teacher. one of the problems that i have is getting students to
understand the concept of percent. they recently had a student say that i said he had any idea how much that percent would be in a year? she had no concept of that. it is such an immediate need that they don't understand. not in their own self-interest. i wanted to mention that are representative, her largest campaign contributor is the loan offices. the ones that are ripping off these poor people. the last thing i would like to say is that i think it was
elizabeth moran who mentioned -- elizabeth warren that mentioned post offices could do a better job of providing -- they used to be postal savings. involvedices could get in low income people and their reasonable rates of interest. host: thank you from the call. you mention the postal service and this is a related tweet. " postal banking could provide low-cost financial services through the nation's 30,000 u.s. post offices." you response? guest: i'm glad you brought up postal banking. that is what the book is about. the conclusion of the book. i think there really is a solution here and i have worked with elizabeth moran and bernie warren andelizabeth bernie sanders.
they have supported this idea. i think this is the conclusion i came from. we need a public auction for putting all this money into banks. it supposed to get to the people and it is not. it's getting sucked into the middle man. let's have a direct route. i see that happening through the postal banks. the last two chapters of the book go through that history in united states of our very robust postal banking system and how well it works. folks, we, low income get it from 1910 until 1966. most developed countries have this system. it's a win-win. there are a lot of multiple parties winning. people don't have use of payday service. is this massive inequality we have in the banking system. we balance the scales a little
bit and that is a win. elizabeth warren is an advocate. we are waiting. the union just delivered 150,000 signatures to the post office inspector general's office this last week. the momentum is building on this idea and i hope it keeps going. i wrote an article three years ago advocating this. it was sort of an academic pie in the sky idea. i have been so happy to see how it is really gaining legs and people understand the scale of the problem and how common sense solutions postal banking is. i am glad you brought that up. you look at the theoretical foundation i lay out in the book because it really -- i usually don't come that problems with a solution. i tried to lay out the problem. that is what i did on the first go of this article.
i wanted to talk about the problem in the banking actor and the post -- banking sector and the postal banking was so obvious. i have not found a reason to put it aside. i think it's a good solution. host: the kansas bringing -- the caller ringing of the point that the representative getting support from these payday lender companies. how pervasive is that? guest: it is pervasive. they have not had the fight national yet. be -- cfpd, regulating consumer loans, they started to focus on payday loans. the rules are just rolling out now. the payday lenders have been really effective arguing state-by-state for their cause. and includes raising caps allowing products to be called different things. --georgia we don't have
payday loans are banned in the state of georgia but we have title loans, installment loans. they create some other form by which the land these high rates -- lend these high rates. we should watch these industries. we should see who is lobbying whom and how they are trying to get around these laws. what we really need is a solution. in so far is there is huge demand, there will be a supply that i did -- either the payday anders, or we push underground and have old-school loan sharks and i would hate to see that happen. host: we've been through a week of authors. mehrsa baradaran is our guest from atlanta on how the other half banks. we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. another half hour in our conversation on this book.
stuart from virginia, good morning. my money is inherited wealth most of it. i make money off of a check of the military and from the civil service. that's how i make the money i make. was $3500i live in when i bought it 60 years ago. i own everything around it. that is what aided me to keep late the wealth i've got. i paid for used cars. i lived below my means. and i intend to pass on my inheritance to the next generation. that's how i kept my head above water. host: thank you for the call. guest: you are very lucky you had property.
that is the number one way people accumulate wealth. you brought up the racial disparity, the huge wealth gap. african-americans have been excluded from property ownership by policy, jim crow, segregation, discrimination. when you don't have property you're not able to pass the wealth from generation to generation and that greeted acute problems. edc more african-americans percentagewise having to rely on -- paydays because they don't have intergenerational wealth. racial breakdown of debt and , as are anot equal lot of things in this country. host: we are talking about payday lenders and the friends banking system. zachary is next from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning.
i had a couple of questions more on the legislative point of view. is there any legislation in place or any champion for this in congress? or are these issues statewide and state-controlled? you are saying in georgia they banned, but didn't comprehensively cover the issue. guest: are you talking about payday loans or the postal banking? host: payday lenders. guest: they are regulated state-by-state. most of that action is on the state level. congress.s not in treatedagency that was during dodd frank and charged with regulating these types of loans. they are starting to look at it. there are champions in the senate and congress. sanders,arren, bernie
senator brown. b does have some champions in congress but the action is at the state level. and then in the agencies host: larry is following up saying, who is profiting and owns these businesses? guest: i talked about this in the book. there was this facade of informality. they look like neighborhood mom-and-pop payday loans. they have bright signs and usually kind of shabby and in low income areas. there are about five or six major corporations that own these payday loans. one was just purchased by one of the wealthiest -- four people in mexico -- for people in mexico. they are massive and highly profitable. a lot of them are public companies funded by wall street. organized and
quite large. host: roger is next from ohio. good morning. i did have a regular bank account and credit card bills. me to sell ited for $.25 on the dollar but i had come up with $2000. i did that by going to a payday loan people. mine was once a month to set of every two weeks. i did that for about a year until i got some extra money. i have a question and a suggestion. if i did not have the loan and i --nced a check at $835 fee, $35 fee, why is it interest? are they doing that on purpose to make the interest rate look
higher? host: thank you. guest: that's a great question. this is a lobbying issue. banks have succeeded in not calling this overdraft fees interest. they are fees. banksl cases where the would pile on the fees so you overdraw once and they would just charge you $35 and then another $35 the next day. that looks like a lot of interest but you call it a fee and it's below the use reason. that is why a lot of people choose wisely not to have a bank account. or to not use a bank account. they are scared of the overdraft fees. they are random and punitive and have no connection to the cost of paying for this overdraft. these are banks punishing customers and repelling small accounts. banks want small accounts so they put these fees on to give that message to customers that
they are small savings are welcome. they collect free checking but you have to have a minimum to put in a banker for the start charging you. the reason i know these charges are not the cost of the overdraft is because there are several. a bank was piloting account or you would pay a five dollars monthly fee. if you overdrew on your account they would freeze it. . anything to do that if you don't have the money in your account and you draw a check on it, they just won't honor the check. you can deal with that yourself and set of stopping the $35 fee. or they could let you overdraw and in charge of interest on the amount you have overdrawn. that is how the postal banks in the u.k. do it. they land in that way. he overdrawn by $30 or $50, and until you make good you are charged interest. it's a reasonable one and set of a random $35 fee.
host: our guest, mehrsa baradaran has written for vanderbilt law review. bankingy, a former professor and teaches law at the university of georgia. pamela and marilyn, good morning. caller: good morning. i did not hear the last two , but i can't understand why these payday loan banks or payday loan establishments are allowed to be in existence. basically aas said person that has five dollars in their account, they withdraw it and overdraw the account they can be subject to do all these fees. why is that allowed? guest: good question. to be that our culture
did not tolerate usery. many religions said you cannot charge high interest. -- every thing started happening will be deregulated in the 1980's. will make therket rules on how much interest there is. allow up to $700 -- 700% interest through these payday lenders. they are allowed because we as a society decided this is ok. and because there is a demand. i do want to be clear. if we shut it down and write legislators and say we want payday lending gone, that does not solve the problem. it solves one symptom of a problem. book, it'sght in the not the tumor. is the symptom of the larger cancer. host: viewers say it is hard for
young people to have bank accounts or established that it was all the punitive fees and catch-22's." host: guest: i think a lot of people are choosing not to bank at establishments. a lot of young people trust google and apple more than bank of america. they have gone and are putting their money in some sort of a paypal or prepaid debit card. they just don't trust banking institutions anymore. once they start earning more money and having to get a mortgage and things like that you will have to deal with a bank at some. point host: did people want to follow you on twitter? .uest: @mehrsa baradaran host: let's go to john from michigan. how much do you make a year?
125,000 dollars. i have a social security and small pension. before that you could write a book on this, easily, i owned the truck company and i was making wanted to $50,000 a year. -- $150,000 year. i was doing the payday thing. i was doing one credit card to cover another one. hit the recession immediately the bank she mentioned closed in on me. 9% toss account went from 33.5%. i thought them for a while and the comptroller in the treasury. eventually i wound up losing everything.
the trucks, the house, the new cars. it's funny she is out of atlanta because i ran from atlanta to miami a lot. i started listening to mr. ramsey on the radio. boy, what good advice. if you can't pay cash, you don't need it. aat i did is i bought foreclosed property appear for $7,800. really run down. pay cash. i fixed it up. it is beautiful, christine -- pristine. my vehicles are older but i know had a fix them. the parts are less expensive. if you can't pay cash, you don't need it. everything i have now is paid for. i sleep good at night. i'm looking at other properties now. host: thank you for the call.
guest: i think it's interesting. congratulations. i'm so glad you regained and that is good advice. i start the book with this, a couple of stories where someone similar to you. who strained financially has an unexpected expense or something happens and the end of meeting alone to make it -- needing a loan to make it. a $300 loan once of costing $2000. the other story and make up as a person named steve he was doing really well before the financial crisis. things are going in and out. they are operating under high leverage which seems like you are also -- were also. it looks to be balanced.
then the interest rates spike. some investments go really bad and they lose everything. that person finds a miracle over so theye them cannot lose everything. they know they are good for it. if they can just make it through this credit crunch, they can get there. steve is not a real person. it's a bank. this is essentially what happened. they were maxed out like yourself. investmentsot of they just figured would work out. they had revenue coming in that they were in heavy debt. lehman brothers was leveraged, aig had trillions of dollars of outstanding debt. they figured they would make. when they did not, people like yourself would go bankrupt. the banks don't. that's part of the problem.
society a moral ambivalence about debt. people like dave ramsey give also they saynd those that borrow are morally inferior to those who a in cash. -- pay in cash. but we have a banking industry and that is their motto. if we are going to be sanctimonious about those who borrow and say you've got it on yourself, then we should think about that with the banking industry and maybe say if you borrow too much and you fail, you have to fail. host: jim from cookeville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning and merry christmas. i drive a truck for a living. my total income is somewhere
between $90,000 and $100,000. i have a couple of rental properties. i know a fellow that has a degree. a younger guy. at the time he was in his late 20's. could not find a job and floundered around. himmother died and left probably 30,000 to $40,000. and life insurance. started lending money out of his pocket to people. interesting than 10% if they were able to pay back in one week. he did this for a long time. probably 10 years. this guy now lives in a multimillion dollar how that house -- house and he just
loaned money out of his pocket. smart guy, young kid. but totally unregulated, right out of his pocket. i know what he was doing was illegal, it has to be. the interest rate would cap out over 18% a year. be a highly regulated -- i think it's deplorable. it's embarrassing for a country to even be forced into something like this. host: let me get a response and thank you for the call. guest: it's perfectly legal. 18% is well below but the payday lenders charge. is itou are saying shouldn't be. it's immoral and wrong to charge people that much. i tend to agree with you. there is a sense that because you have money you are taking
advantage of those who do not. this is why a lot of religions, christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, hinduism outlawed usery. to charge someone who doesn't have money for the loan. we can debate on the morality of this. tohink a lot of people tend have his opinion there is something wrong with this. i don't feel good about this person doing that. i would say your friend is charging people less than what they could've gotten from the payday lenders. maybe they preferred to borrow from him. i don't know how he collected. i hope he was not using violence or extortion but that is a problem you have to deal with. it is perfectly legal unfortunately. when peopleote, " of lesser means than us borrow from payday lenders it reveals their ignorance. the richer guilty of financial
but financial mismanagement by the poor is seen as morally reprehensible." guest: i think we have a sense if you're borrowing from the dumby loan you are done -- or don't understand. if you had financial education, you would not make such a mistake. people who use these loans. i have studied them. in my experience it's usually not the case. they are actually more financially savvy. i have a buffer. i'm very lucky. i don't have to worry about feeding my kids for one month to the next. if i screw up, i can still feed them. some people don't. when you are balancing on that thin tightrope you can to take financial matters seriously. i think when people go to these payday lenders they had no other choice. studies prove this out.
they have gone to friends and family and tribe credit cards and they fully understand the costs. for those of us were middle-class or those that are wealthy to wagner fingers and say you were making -- you are stupid and making a bad decision, i think that is hypocritical. badlso make that b - decisions. plenty of people went underwater by buying big houses they could not afford. plenty of bank ceos did the same thing. i think financial mismanagement is not domain exclusively of the poor. i think the rich and middle class can all live above our means and we often do. host: mehrsa baradaran, explain the cover of the book. guest: i did not pick it. this is the cover and harvard press, my publicist, they take a picture. i think what it shows is payday lending establishment is usually
in a low-income neighborhood. this has become part of life and that is what is -- it is meant to represent. many of you have gone inside to observe. they are checkered all over certain neighborhoods. not another neighborhoods interestingly enough. some people have never passed the payday lending site. in some it's right next to mcdonald's. places you go everyday. host: dolores is next from tennessee. good morning. isn't ity question is true that all money is actually borrowed into existence? the federal government does not print its own money. it borrows it in that it brings into existence that way. it hase federal debt, been borrowed to cover the
deficit but if it printed money, they were just print money. host: we will get a response. guest: that is an important point. banksof people think of and bank loans is operating like deposits coming in and being out.-- lent that is not the way modern banks work. when banks make a loan, they treat a deposit. the banks multiply money. they make more money and this is not money -- this is electronic money. that is how they multiply it. the federal government is printing and borrowing all the currency you see. it's an iou from the federal government. initially how banks were formed in the bank of england is that the government put in money in the form of a loan to the banks. that loan is never been repaid.
he just keeps getting circulated and multiplies. i think people, it used to be we had a gold standard. that was never quite stable. when they talk about that now it's a misunderstanding of how money works. multiplies and that is what makes our economy grow. it is not a fixed number we have to balance and get within. it is treated or bank lending and that is how the federal reserve also pushes money out by lending. trillions of dollars. it's being linked to these banks -- lent to the banks and the way it circulates is quite complex but it's worthwhile to figure out. there is a lot of misunderstanding in the public. host: i want to follow up on how about the charges for those reports mortgages that many others are using with thousands in upfront
fees?" guest: that i find it be predatory and morally awful. a lot of these folks go out and find people. they give up a reverse mortgage and a big pile of cash in the own your home. the elderly you then cannot ask the home on, it's a bad idea. unless you have a plan on how you can pay it back and why you need that money. i think it is probably not a good idea. host: the. last call is from fredericksburg, virginia i'm from panama city. host: patricia you're on the air. caller: what i wanted to ask is my daughter had $10,000 in a money market account and it dropped down to $8,000 and now the bank is charging her $15 a month to leave it there. is that normal? guest: it's totally normal and happens all the time. she might want to change banks or find a credit union.
, i haven't talked about that enough. it's a way to solve these problems. not all of them but some of them. unfortunately, totally normal for them. it's probably in the papers your daughter signed. host: mehrsa baradaran in the book is "how the other half banks." thank you for spending this last evening at 7:00 eastern, honoring president capitol, with the unveiling of a marble bust at emancipation hall. when the vice president had his critics go off the deep end, as they often did, he asked lyndon's wife, does it often
buggy when people refer to me as darth vader? she said, no, it humanizes you. [applause] saturday night at eight: 30 eastern, an in-depth look at policing in minority communities. speakers included washington dc police chief. >> most people get defensive if they feel like you are being offenses. -- offensive. if it is not a crisis or a , requestssituation versus demands, those things change the dynamics a little bit. announcer: and sunday afternoon at 2:00, race and the criminal justice system. thisat 6:30, portions of year's washington ideas festival. speakers include virginia senator mark warner, former vice president al gore.
>> we've got to banish the word "he's helping" at home. taking is not actually the burden off you. you are still figuring out what needs to be done, and you are asking him to help. he is thethe agent, assistant. if we need to get where we need to go, men do need to be lead parents or fully equal coparents. announcer: for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. this holiday weekend, american history tv on c-span3 has three days of future programming, beginning friday evening at 6:30 eastern to mark the 125th anniversary of the birth of president dwight david eisenhower, his granddaughters gather for a rare family discussion at gettysburg college to talk about his military and political career, as well as his legacy and relevance for 21st
century americans. then on saturday afternoon at 1:00, 60 years ago rosa parks defied a city ordinance for blacks to leave their seats on a whiteus to make room for passengers. her stand helped instigate the montgomery bus boycott. we will reflect on the boycott and see what role lawyers played in the protest and the civil hear fromement, as we freddie gray, attorney for rosa parks, and montgomery bus boycott demonstrators. at 6:00, william davis on the little-known aspects of the lives in leadership of ulysses s. grant, and confederate general robert e lee. at 4:00, aafternoon 19 65 progress report on nasa's projects, including the mariner for flyby of mars. ont before 9:00, rick burns how the public learns about
history through film and television. american history announcer: tonight on c-span, up for him on gun violence on the anniversary of the charleston ame church shootings. we talk about the republican theidential race and discussion of sex and constitutional law. in june, a gunman killed nine people at the historic mother emanuel well ame church controlling, south carolina. six months after the shooting, the church hosted a forum. speakers include johns hopkins university professor daniel webster and the president of the american heart association. this is three hours.