tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 22, 2016 9:30pm-12:01am EDT
that's the accrual of social security benefits under section 1611(b). and the rulemaking order and we quoted this in our reply brief specifically says that although we're counting deferred action as lawful presence for the purpose of accruing social security benefits for the reason that if you can work lawfully, you ought to be able to accrue benefits. this does not confer any lawful status under the immigration laws. it specifically says that. and so we can argue about whether the executive has thewee executive has the authority in that narrow sense. we think we are right, but that is on the dog. if the phrase was stricken from the guidance -- justice alito: if the phrase was stricken from the guidance, for
eligibility, for federal benefits. justice alito: the only federal -- none, those two statutory references. gen. verrilli: as i said, that is the tale on the dog. if i can go to the merit. repeatedly, you have heard it referred to statutory observation, that is flat wrong. there is a district case and he can read the opinion in that case, which we referred to, is describing as extra statutory paid the other key point that statutory. the other key point mother theory about the scope of you can get work authorization is that either congress has to say to get work authorization. decideneed to get dhs to whether people in this category can get work authorization. forget about deferred action, there are millions of people to
now,ork authorization under existing law, who could not get it if that were the proper interpretation. millions of people are in these proceedings, for cancellation of removal. hundreds of thousands of people have parole and another of those people qualify. that is why in 1987, they rejected it. frankly is a reckless suggestion. asylum do notave have a pathway to citizenship. gen. verrilli: exactly. there are paths that have allowed people to get work authorization. >> how many people are we talking about? gen. verrilli: millions. there are millions. the adjustment of status?
gen. verrilli: 4.5 million. that is huge numbers. >> thank you general. the cases committed. >> now reaction to monday's argument from advocates on both sides. we will hear from members of congress. president's of the executive action and from an opponent of deferred deportation. and we would hear from attorneys who argued the case. this is a half hour. luis gutierrez. congress fromof the state of illinois. the case has been submitted to the supreme court. i think we did really, really well. we did well on the law and we
did well because the american people support this pathway. today, clearly, they had no argument. of peoples, millions live in the united states in the shadows, and they drive. they drive and they should drive with drivers licenses and insurance. the fact that millions of people in the u.s. work, they should work and pay taxes to the .ederal government and work it seems today, clearly the law was on the side of the people and the president of the united states has taken action. it was clearly established in -- the onlyat
difference today was that barack obama forced the issue. every time a state does not like what the federal, what the administration does or what this legislature does, the congress of the u.s., you can go -- cannot go into court and sue them. what the president did was lawful. it was passed by the congress of the united states. it allows the president of the united states to take the action that is being considered today. i will say to everybody that i am looking forward. i am very optimistic that next june, there will be 4 million people signing up not only for driver's licenses, but to protect their families. >> i thought the argument this
morning was very encouraging. i am the ranking member on the immigration subcommittee in the house of representatives. i thought the arguments were very encouraging. i think that the justice nailed it when he pointed out that this was a political dispute between texas and the president. texas is allowed to proceed every time the state disagrees with the president, and they will be filing a lawsuit. this should not be before the court, number one. number two, they made it abundantly clear the ability of the president to grant deferred and tois long-standing deny that would be an extraordinary departure from law and history. so, i am optimistic that the court will find that there is no
standing for texas to proceed and if they are allowed, that was what the president did lawful. senator bob menendez. i believe that many of the justices questioned exposed the political theater going on here. the reality is about the standing question, which dominated and amount of time for the justices, there is no question that for 50 years from , eisenhower to the current president, the president has used executive actions on immigration, time and time again. we see a set of circumstances that the argument that a potential cost to the state of texas, or to other states would , open the floodgates in which any action of an administration or for that matter and act of
-- any act of congress would then create a flood of lawsuits that would come to the united states supreme court. so i do not believe, and i think the justices will come to the conclusion, that texas and the other states do not have standing, on a question that is clearly immigration law and is use ofcussion of the whether or not to deport someone. and the second thing, congress has failed to act if in fact it wanted to limit this discretion, it could do so. but it has not and for various decades now, that discussion has existed -- discretion, has existed. i hope the justices will come to the conclusion the questions brought up in the first place, no standing. congress has -- no standing. congress has been silent on the issue.
we cannot have a floodgate of lawsuits at the end of the day simply because her as a cost. -- simply because there is a cost. if that is the case, it will become a pathway to give millions of people an opportunity to have some form of status while we find out in congress what our national law should be. thank you. >> ok. >> good morning. good afternoon. ok. >> two steps back, ok. >> ok. >> come closer. >> ok. >> i will open it up and pass it on. good afternoon, my name is maria and i am the executive director of the national immigration law center. this morning our communities,
, our families, we walked into the supreme court with so much hope. we are leaving confident. we know the law is on our side. the supreme court is on our side as many of the justices said, and we are on the right side of history and the law. there are some difficult questions. but again, we are leaving confident that the federal government made its best argument. and we will prevail. we have a number of directly affected individuals here that were in the courtroom. this is . this is probably one of the most diverse audiences in the supreme court. we had several dozen people whose futures are directly impacted by the supreme court decision. they sat there patiently hearing each of the arguments. we want to hear from them directly. first, we will hear from someone who traveled with her mother from los angeles and traveled here, because her mother is
eligible. sophie, do you want to say a few words? >> yes. [speaking spanish] >> hello. my name is sophie. i am 6-years-old and i am an american citizen. we are united by a mission. we want the same rights or all. we want protection for all immigrants. we want immigration rights for all. [applause] spanish] >> ok. >> hello. my name is sophie. i am 6-years-old and i am an american citizen. we are united by a single mission. we want the same rights or all. we want protection for all children and immigrants. we want immigration rights for
all. i have the right to protection. i have the right to stay with my parents. i have the right to to live without fear. i have the right to be happy. give me the opportunity to achieve my goals. lots of children have dreams like me. i have faith that you as parents and as citizens will make the best decision. thank you. thank you for listening to the voice of law. >> thank you for being here. i want to thank governor abbott for starting this. i want to thank my fellow attorney generals, some of whom are here today. thankically, i want to doug henderson from nebraska. this is an amazing opportunity and an amazing day for us.
our efforts to stop the president's illegal immigration to a simple idea one person does not have , unilateral authority to change the law or make a new law. today we argued the case strongly for the rule of law. if we allow a president, this one or a future resident, no matter the political persuasion or their party, to make changes to the law without congressional approval, we will end up with a perverted constitution. so today was a strong day for defending the rule of law and we are grateful for that opportunity. we are happy to answer any questions to scott keller or me. [indiscernible] >> we are here defending the constitution and we are here defending the constitution, so whether we have people out here
or not is not relevant. any other questions? [indiscernible] >> you know what, i am encouraged today. i feel like the justices are going to support article to of requiresitution which the faithful execution of the law and the president is not have the authority to make law. [indiscernible] >> we had questions from almost all of the justices. thomas did not ask the questions i am aware of. >> what about the question of [indiscernible] -- why not go after the -- you seem to be going about kind of -- why not challenge the memo itself? >> did you hear the question? she wants to know why -- can you ask it again?
why not challenge the november memo and the drivers licenses? >> this case has always been about the separation of powers. it transforms unlawful conduct into lawful conduct. thinks he has the power to do that and that you trouble every american. -- that should trouble every american. we have power from the congress to protect our liberties. i would like to read a quote. two blocks from here is a monument robert a. taft. , that is why we are here today. >> do you think the supreme court may have some bearing on whether they want to reach such a monumental decision? >> i do not have a crystal ball.
i know we made strong arguments today and we feel confident. any other questions? thank you very much. >> good morning. i am president and general and we were- granted argument time this morning and the joined solicitor general and defending president obama's use of his presidential prerogative, which has been exercised by many of his predecessors over the years to set priorities and immigration enforcement. his guidance issued in november 2014 was an exercise of that long-standing authority. the justices this morning seemed very concerned in vigorous questioning as to whether the state of texas had a right to be in court to challenge that exercise of discretion.
the questions also reflected confusion about what exactly the state of texas is challenging, since it has conceded in its briefing that the president has the authority through the secretary of homeland security to determine how to arrange and enforcement resources to determine that certain folks will be low priority and not to be removed even though that is a , protection that can be revoked at any moment. 90 minutes of argument went fairly quickly. because of the many issues involved, all of them revolving around why the state of texas having decided long ago, to have or provide subsidized divers licenses, determined to oppose those who would receive driver's licenses under the deferred action guidance. other revolved others revolved around whether the president has authority, given that it has historically
been exercised by 70 others and what exactly texas was -- they seemed to assign some magical importance to language used in the guidance. i'm available to answer any questions. >> what was your sense of the chief justice's comments and where he might fall? always hard to determine where a justice might fall, but he was very interested in the questioning, much of it surrounding the standing of the state of texas and work authorization. whether that relates to the and whether or not they dispute.rized to it was an honor to represent the three jane doe's. these are very hard-working mothers raising families.
and include a united states citizen in south texas who the -- want the opportunity provided by the guidance to step forward and to seek discretionary relief . that is all the guidance would provide and we are hopeful that in june, the president will be able to implement that guided and provide relief from daily fear. thank you. [indiscernible] >> i think it is possible the justices could move before june, simply the end of june is the outside of when the expectation will come. >> at this point there is no way to expedite their thinking. they have a little over two months to put it all together in an opinion. who knows how many. we certainly hope that was a decision comes, the opportunity will present itself to immediately implement the guidance. >> first and foremost, the standing issue.
will we know beforehand -- therefore the rest of the case is mute? >> if they decide there is no standing, then the case is over and the district judge has nothing else to do but district -- but dismissed. . it is our hope that they will struggle with the questions before standing and conclude that texas does not have a kind of concrete interest that is traceable to the guidance and is regrettable by their claim to strike down the guideline. no, not necessarily. it is a matter about however long the justices take to make their decisions into writing because we expect their supreme , court to justify their decisions in writing and release it. >> what are the real world impact for your clients? >> to be free of the daily fear that they may not come home one
day. childt the parents of a will be put into removal and they will be separated and they will have to make itself choice do you leave your u.s. citizen , children here, the country of their birth and citizenship, or do you take them with you to a country that is less familiar? it is that daily fear that ways weighs on the minds of those eligible for daca and this releases them from the daily fear. thank you. >> i am steve king of iowa. i serve on the house judiciary committee where i have since 2003. i also serve on the constitution subcommittee. i brought a number of the
amendments on the house floor , and also an amendment that passed the house to defund the administration's defense of this case that was just argued before the supreme court. i think these points are very simple. the white house has argued that they have prosecutorial discretion. when you read through their documents, it is her a clear that even from the beginning they created groups or classes , of people that would give why get amnesty by the president and the president went to chicago and said that he had changed the law. so this separation of powers argument before the court, you have the confession of the president that he had gone changedthe bounds and the law. the white house has obviously granted broad, sweeping amnesty to people under daca and the
memos and they cannot make the argument legitimately that this is an individual basis only, so they have already crossed the line on two big issues. they are not exercising prosecutorial discretion and the president cannot change the law. i have concluded and will take any questions. hearing none. [indiscernible] >> thank you. >> i would not agree. the federal statute declares that when an officer who is charged with enforcing immigration law, they shelled all place them up for review.
that is what the law requires. how does congress have to write a law to get the president to actually make sure this is executed? we have argued this sense brock -- since barack obama became president. i talk about this with conservative friends. tell me how the president can violate the constitution? this is a grievance to the supreme law of the land. carriesa president who zero guilt about violating his role in office. this is political and he gets away with it.
if he could, he would legalize millions of people that he thinks will vote for his party. this is about millions of undocumented democrats in the minds of barack obama and those on the left. for me, this is about conserving our country. [indiscernible] optimistic.that today. there we need more of a 5-4 decision. this is an example of what we will get if we let the president name the next justice of the supreme court. we will get another sotomayor, focusing on the policy and not be legal issue. it is important for us to hold the line until next november and the elected president can choose
who they want. if i were on the judiciary committee or even in the united states senate, i would vote no on the confirmation hearing on every one of them because the constitution is a living and breathing document. , if not, be understood the constitution will no longer are rounding fathers produced. america will pull out. [indiscernible]
>> i don't want to be critical of the argument presented by texas before the court. i am grateful that they are here. i have taken action against every single one of them. tried defund every single one of them. taxpayers are funding these programs. so, the minority in the senate can block action. if we had a vote in the senate, the president would have had to confess that the american people are right and he is wrong or veto a bill.
so, this is not hard to understand. what is appalling is that you can have justices in the supreme court you have difficulty understanding and interpreting the constitution, and how they can or will decide if policy discussions are part of a constitutional argument. that just saddens my heart thinking we could have another , justice that is arguing policy rather than the constitution when it comes to constitutional questions. that is not their job. [indiscernible] predict theu supreme court these days? when i came to town, i could. i understood the justices, the constitution, the case laws. i had a pretty good handle on being able to predict the
decision of the supreme court. now in this court it is almost , impossible to protect because -- predict because you cannot go back to the constitution as your guide. >> thank you all so much. we appreciate it. >> got to go. [loud chatter] ♪ >> the washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. morning, on saturday we will be joined by phone to discuss the impact of united health's decision to leave the affordable care act by 2017. we will examine the cost from both subscribers and insurers.
to then we will be joined talk about the recent policy proposal geared toward helping working women. also, the center for global policy solutions, the president her -- talks about boosting priority should. of discussing the role civility in politics and ways to restore it. be sure to watch the washington journal, beginning live at 7:00 a.m. on saturday morning. join the discussion. saturday, april 23 is the anniversary of william shakespeare's death. on that day, the boulder library dgers library in
washington dc will host an event commemorating his life and his impact on our language, politics and history. book tv will cover the event live, beginning at noon. afterwards, we will have a call in with shakespeare scholars, so you can join in the conversation as well. shakespeares was a buff, so he and his wife spent many years and dollars collecting memorabilia and artifacts, the world largest collection of shapes their related -- shakespeare related documents. beginning live in the -- live, beginning at noon. obama is on a trip
to the united kingdom, which included a lunch with the queen and a meeting with british prime minister, david cameron. after their meeting, they held a joint press conference where they talk about an upcoming referendum on written's -- britain's membership in the european union. president obama made an impassioned plea to britain to heed the prime minister's call tuesday in the european union. this is about half an hour. prime minister cameron: good afternoon and welcome. it is great to welcome president obama on his fifth visit to the united kingdom. barack has been president for more than seven years. i have been prime minister for nearly six years.
and our two countries have been working together through some of the most difficult and troubled global times. we faced the aftermath of the banking crisis, the need to revive growth and create jobs in our economies, new threats to our security from russia in the east to the rise of islamic terrorism in the south. and, of course, huge global challenges like ebola and climate change. through it all, the strong and essential partnership between our nations has never been more important. when 70 years ago last month, winston churchill first described the special relationship, it was not merely an enduring expression of friendship. it was a way of working together. it was about two nations, kindred spirits who share the same values and so often the same approaches to the many issues we face. and just as for our predecessors, that has been true for barack and me. whether we are working to deliver economic security, national security, or new emerging challenges.
today, we have been discussing all three. on economic security, we have succeeded in getting our economies growing and creating jobs for our people. the global economy still faces serious challenges. last year britain and the united states were the two fastest-growing major economies in the world. and we both know just how important trade deals are in driving global growth. so barack and i remain the most determined to achieve our vision of a u.s.-e.u. trade deal. we are working hard to push this forward because it would add billions to our economies and set the standards for the rest of the world to follow. on national security, together with our partners in the e.u., we have used our economic muscle to avoid the calamity of the an iranian nuclear weapon. we have delivered sanctions against russia in response to aggression against ukraine.
we've secured the first ever legally binding deal on climate change. being formally signed today by over 150 governments at the united nations. and we have transformed the way we use our aid, and our military together to make progress and -- on some of the most difficult issues of our time. for example, in east africa, we have helped to turn around the prospects for somalia. for instance, thanks to an e.u. operation, led by britain, its waters are no longer a safe haven for pirates. in west africa, british leadership in europe secured one billion euros to help the people to defeat the outbreak of ebola with britain taking the lead in sierra leone, the united states in liberia and guinea. just as we made progress in these areas, so there are many more that need a lot more work. there is no doubt that the situation in libya is challenging but we now finally have a government of national accord with whom we can work. while in syria and iraq, we are
continuing coalition efforts to defeat daesh. more than 25,000 daesh fighters have been killed. with the total number of fighters now estimated to be at its lowest for about two years. the iraqi security forces are steadily pushing daesh out of its territory. in syria, our partners have liberated the large kurdish areas in the northeast and cut off the main road between raka and mosul. we also discussed the migration crisis which does not directly affect the united states. in the u.k., we have maintained our borders and we will continue to do so, but we both know the challenge this poses to our friends and allies into the continent of europe. this is the sort of challenge that can only be tackled effectively through international cooperation. nato is helping to reduce the number of migrants in the eastern mediterranean and barack and i have discussed how nato
contribute to the e.u.'s efforts in the central mediterranean. we also need to do more to break the business model of the people smugglers. together with our partners and the libyan government, we will look at whether there is more we can do to strengthen the libyan coast guard. barack and i will discuss this further when we meet with the in hanover on monday. and this will be another opportunity to show how working together collectively we can better protect ourselves from the threats that we face. we also covered a number of emerging challenges that it is more important than ever that we work together to identify problems and deal with the rapidly. st as we have done with ebola, we now need the same international cooperation on dealing with the zika virus. on the challenge of antimicrobial resistance, on cyber security, and on tackling corruption. britain is holding a big summit in london next month.
secretary kerry will attend. and barack and i have talked today about some of things we want to achieve. one of the biggest problems as -- is if you are a country that wants to take action against corruption, you have to go all around the globe to lobby for help. so, we would like to see an international coordination center to help law enforcement agencies and investigators work together across different jurisdictions. if we get an international agreement this next month, both britain and america will contribute to set it up. all this work we have done together and at the same time i think we got to know each other very well. i'm honored to have barack as a friend. he has taught me the rules of basketball, beaten me a table table tennis. i remember the barbecue we had at number 10 downing street. serving servicemen and women who serve our countries together here and in the united kingdom. i've always found barack someone who gives sage advice. he is a man with a very good heart.
and he has been a very good friend and always will be a good friend, i know, to the united kingdom. let me finish by saying this -- in all the areas we have discussed today, our collective power and reach is amplified by membership in the european union. let me be clear when it comes to , the special relationship between our two countries, there is no greater enthusiasm from me. i am very proud to have the opportunity to be prime minister and to stand outside the white , and a thaty friend the special relationship has never been stronger. i've never felt constrained in any way and strengthening this relationship by the fact that we are in the european union. quite the reverse. we deliver for a people for all the international groups we are part of. we enhance our security to the
mentorship of nato, further a prosperity through the g-7 and g-20. like those organizations britain's membership of the e.u. , gives us a powerful tool to deliver on the prosperity and security that our people need and to stand up for the values that are countries share. now i think is the time to stay true to those values and to stick together with our friends and allies in europe and around the world. thank you very much. barack. president obama: as always, it is wonderful to be here in london. and to meet with my good friend david cameron. , i confess i have also come back to wish her majesty, the queen, a very happy 90th birthday. earlier today, michelle and i had the honor to join her majesty and his royal highness the duke of edinburgh as their guests, where we reconveyed the good wishes of the american people. i have to say i have never been driven by a duke of edinburgh before. [laughter]
or -- and i can report that it was very smooth riding. as for her majesty, the queen's been a source of inspiration for me. she is truly one of my favorite people. should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. she is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world, and not just to the united kingdom. the alliance between the united states and the united kingdom is one of the oldest and one of the strongest the world has ever known. when the u.s. and the u.k. stand together, we make our countries more secure, our people more prosperous, and we make the world safer and better. that is one of the reasons why my first overseas visit as
president more than seven years ago was here to london. at a time of global crisis. and the one thing i knew as green as i was as a new president was that it was , absolutely vital that the united states and the united together in ang international forum, tackle the challenges that lie ahead. our success depended on our ability to coordinate and be be able to leverage our relationship to have an impact on other countries. i met with david on that visit. he was not yet prime minister, but just as our nations share a relationship, david and i have shared an extraordinary partnership. he has proven to be a great friend and is one of my closest and most trusted partners. over the six years or so that our terms have overlapped, we have met or spoken more times than i can count. we have shared our country's beers with each other. he vouches for his.
mine. -- vouch for taken him to a basketball game in america. you should recall we were partners in a ping-pong game. we lost to some schoolchildren. i can't remember whether they were 8 or 10, but they were decidedly shorter than we were. and they whooped us. samantha and michelle have become good friends as well. and it is the depth and breadth of that special relationship that has helped us tackle some of the most daunting challenges of our time. around the world, our joint efforts have stopped the outbreak of ebola, helped iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. forged a climate agreement in paris that hopefully will help to protect our planet for future generations. and today, on earth day, our governments, along with 170
others, are in new york to sign that agreement. the u.s. is committed to formally joining it this year, which should help it take effect years earlier than anybody expected. we also discussed the full array of challenges to our shared security. we remain resolute in our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks against our people and to continue the progress we've made in rolling back and ultimately defeating isil. our forces are systematically degrading isil's finances as -- and safe havens and removing its leaders from the battlefield . and we need to keep working to improve security and information sharing across europe and to stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of syria. we discussed our efforts to resolve critical conflicts in the middle east from yemen to syria to libya. in order to increase prospects for stability.
in libya going forward, we have an opportunity to support a new government and help the libyans root out extremist elements. in syria, as challenging as it is, we still need to see more progress towards an enduring cease-fire and we continue to push for greater humanitarian access to the people who need it most. we have to continue to invest in nato so that we can meet our overseas commitments from afghanistan to the aegean. we have to resolve the conflict in ukraine. and reassure allies against russian aggression. all nato allies should aim for the target of spending 2% of gdp on defense, something that david has made sure happens here in the u.k. to meet that standard. we discussed new actions we can take to address the refugee crisis, including with our nato allies. because a strong defense relies on more than just military spending, but on helping to unleash the potential of others to live freer and more prosperous lives, i want to
thank the people of the united kingdom for their extraordinary generosity as one of the world's donors of humanitarian aid. we talked about promoting growth howugh increased trade and young people can achieve greater opportunity. and yes, the prime minister and i discussed whether the u.k. should remain part of the european union. let me be clear. ultimately, this is something the british voters have to decide for themselves. but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends, is to be honest. and to let you know what i think. and speaking honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep interest to the united states because it affects our prospects as well.
the united states wants a strong united kingdom is a partner. and the united kingdom is at his best when it is helping to lead a strong europe. it leverages u.k. power to be part of the european union. as i wrote, i don't believe the e.u. moderates british influence in the world. it magnifies it. the e.u. has helped to spread british values and practices across the continent. the single market brings extraordinary economic benefits to the united kingdom. and that ends up being good for america, because we are more prosperous when one of our best friends and closest allies has a strong stable and growing economy. americans want britain's influence to grow, including within europe. the fact is in today's world, no nation is immune to the challenges that david and i just discussed.
and in today's world, solving them requiresn collective action. all of us cherish our sovereignty. my country is pretty vocal about that. but the u.s. also recognizes that we strengthen our security through our membership in nato. we strengthen our prosperity through organizations like the g-7 and the g-20. i believe the u.k. strengthens our prosperity through the e.u. in the 21st century, the nations that make their presence felt on the world stage are not the nations that go it alone. but the nations that team up to aggregate their power and multiply their influence. and precisely because britain's values and institutions are so strong and so sound, we want to make sure that that influence is heard. and it's felt. that it influences other countries to think about critical issues.
we have confidence that when the u.k. is involved in a problem, that they are going to help solve it in the right way. that is why the united states cares about this. for centuries, europe was marked by war and by violence. the architecture that our two countries helped build with the e.u. has provided the foundation for decades of relative peace and prosperity on that continent. what a remarkable legacy, the legacy born in part out of what took place in this building. before we walked out, i happened to see enigma on display. and that was a reminder of the incredible innovation and collaboration of the allies in world war ii and the fact that neither of us could have won that alone.
in the same way, after world war ii, we built out the international institutions that, yes, occasionally constrain us, but we willingly allowed those constraints because we understood that by doing so, we are able to institutionalize and internationalize the basic values of global law and freedom and democracy. that would benefit our citizens as well as people around the world. i -- i think there is a british poet who said "no man's an , island." even an island as beautiful as
this. we are stronger together. if we continue to tackle our challenges together, in future generations we will look back on ours, just as we look back on the previous generation of english and american citizens who worked so hard to make this world safer and more secure and more prosperous and they'll say we did our part, too. that's important. that is important not just here. that is important in the united states as well. thanks. prime minister cameron: we have got some questions. we start with a question from the british press. from itv. >> thank you very much. mr. president, you yourself acknowledged the controversial timing of your comments on the e.u. referendum in the spirited debates we're having and i think you are right.
in the week before your arrival , leave campaigners have said you are acting hypocritically. america would not accept the loss of sovereignty we have to accept as part of the e.u. america would not accept the levels of immigration from mexico that we have to accept from the e.u. and therefore, in various degrees of politeness, they have said to you, you should really keep your views to yourself. with that in mind, mr. president, do you still think it was the right decision to intervene in this debate? and what happens if the u.k. does decide in june to leave the european union? president obama: let me repeat. this is a decision for the people of the united kingdom to make. i'm not coming here to fix any votes. i am not casting a vote myself. i'm offering my opinion. and in democracies, everybody should want more information not less.
you should not be afraid to hear an argument being made. that is not a threat. that should enhance the debate. particularly because my understanding of it is that some of the folks on the other side have been ascribing to the states certain actions we will take if the u.k. does leave the e.u. they say, for example, we will cut our own trade deals with the united states. so they're voicing an opinion about what the united states is going to do. i figured you might want to hear from the president of the united states what i think the united states is going to do. and on that matter, for example, i think it is fair to say that maybe some point down the line, there might be a u.k.-u.s. trade agreement, but it is not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the european union
to get a trade agreement on. and the u.k. is going to be in the back of queue. not because we do not have a special relationship but because, given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements, is hugely inefficient. now, to the subject at hand. obviously, the united states is in a different hemisphere, different circumstances, has different sets of relationships with its neighbors than the u.k. but i can tell you this. if right now i have got access to a massive market where i sell 44% of my exports and now i'm thinking about leaving the organization that gives me
access to that market, and that is responsible for millions of jobs in my country, and responsible for an enormous amount of commerce and upon which a lot of businesses depend, that is not something i would probably do. and what i'm trying to describe is a broader principle, which is in our own way, we do not have a common market in the americas, but in all sorts of ways, the united states constrained itself in order to bind everyone under a common set of norms and rules
that makes everybody more prosperous. that's what we have built after world war ii. the united states and the u.k. designed a set of institutions, whether it was the united nations or the, britain would structure, imf, world bank, nato, across-the-board. now, that to some degree constrained our freedom to operate. it meant that occasionally we had to deal with some bureaucracy. it meant that on occasion we have to persuade other countries , and we don't get 100% of what we want in each case, but we knew that by doing so everybody was going to be better off, partly because the rules that were put in place were reflective of what we believe.
if there were more free markets around the world, and orderly financial system, we knew we could operate. if we had collective defense treaties through nato, we understood that we could formalize an architecture that would deter aggression rather than us having piecemeal to put together alliances to defeat aggression after it already started. and that principle is what's at stake here. the last point i make on this until i get the next question, i suspect, is that as david said, this magnifies the power of the u.k. it does not diminish it.
on just about every issue, what happened in europe is going to have an impact here. and what happens in europe is going to have an impact in the united states. we just discussed the migration crisis. i've told my team, which is sitting right here, they'll vouch for me, that we considered a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into europe. not because folks are coming to the united states. but because it could destabilize europe, our largest trading bloc, trading partner, it's going to be bad for our economy. if you start seeing divisions in europe, that weakens nato.
that'll have an impact on our collective security. now, if in fact, i want somebody who is smart and common sense, and tough and is thinking as i do in the conversations about how migration is going to be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion and recognizes that immigration can enhance, when done properly, the assets of a country and not just diminish them, i want david cameron in the conversation. just as i want him in the conversation when we are having discussions about information sharing. and counterterrorism activity. because, precisely because i have a confidence in the u.k. and i know that if we're not
working effectively with paris or brussels, those attacks are going to migrate to the united states and to london. i want one of my strongest partners in that conversation. so it enhances the special i want one of my strongest that conversation. so it enhances the special relationship, doesn't diminish it. >> let me make one comment in response of that. the sovereign choice of the british people, as we make that choice, it makes sense to listen o what our friends think, to listen to their opinions and their views. that's what barack's been today.g about it's also worth remembering as we make this choice, it's a british choice about the british membership of the european union. we're not being asked to make a choice about whether we support style of membership
or the italian style of membership. ritain has a status in the european union where we're part of the single currency. we're able to travel, live and work in other european countries, and we've maintained our borders, because we're not in the no-border zone. and on this vital issue of barack has made such a clear statement, we should remember why we are currently negotiating this iggest trade deal in the whole world and the world history between the european union and the united states, is because britain played an absolutely leading part in pushing for those talks to get going. announced at the g 8 in northern ireland when britain was in the chair of that organization. we set the agenda for what could be an absolutely game-changing jobs for for investment, because we were part of this organization. those nted to add important points.
question. we have a >> following on that, do you opinion at the crisis point, what do you hope leaders do ering in germany can about it, and do you expect those nations to militarily support including the possibility of ground troops the new government in libya to keep that situation from further straining europe while we're talking about future summits, and i'm wondering if maybe you could talk about whether you hiroshima when you visit japan. man. ent obama: come on, >> this is for prime minister cameron. prime minister, coming to the u.k., and as a friend speaking honestly, that they should stay in the e.u., what would you advise american voters to do about donald trump, as ariend. [laughter] so ident obama: that was predictable. prime minister cameron: i'll one.up that last president obama: i wouldn't
unity as -- inan it is s, but i would say under strength, and some of that just has to do with the aftermath of the financial crisis and the strains that e're all aware of with respect to the euro zone. i think it is important to out, size, as david points that the u.k. is not part of the blow-back and so the to the british economy has been on the t than it is continent. some divisions and difficulties in the southern and northern parts of europe strengths.ted some i think the migration crisis amplifies a debate that's taking place not just in europe but in united states as well.
globalization, at a time when a lot of the challenges that we face are as opposed to just focused on one country, to want totemptation bridge, up the draw either literally or figuratively. some that played out in of the debates taking place in he u.s. presidential race, and that debate, i think, is europe.ated in the ties nfident that hat bind europe together are ultimately much stronger than the forces that are trying to apart.em an pe has undergone extraordinary stretch of
prosperity. maybe unmatched in the history of the world. if you think about the 20th century and you think about the the 21st century europe looks an awful lot better, and i think the majority of europeans recognize that. unity and peace as delivered sustained economic growth, reduced conflict, reduced violence, enhanced the people, and ife of i'm confident that that can continue. it's do believe that important to watch out for some of these fault lines that are developing. and in that sense, i do think the brexa vote, which if of u.k. i'm
thinking about it solely in me,ms of how is this helping how is it helping the u.k. economy, how is it helping create jobs here in the u.k. that's the right way to think bout it, but i do also think hat this vote will send a signal that is relevant about whether the kind of prosperity is we've built together oing to continue, and will weather the forces of division and will end up being more prominent. why s part of the reason it's relevant to the united why i have had the tomb tumerity to weigh in on it. what were your four other questions? [laughter] i knocked outgure two through that answer. libya, both to david and i have discussed our thistment to try to assist
mason government. and it's a challenge, but there in this government of national force that are committed to building backup estate. hat's something we desperately want because of both the united united kingdom, but also, a number of our allies are invest in prepared to helping create border security in libya and helping to drive terrorists from libya, and rying to make sure that what could be a thriving society, relatively small population, a lot of resources, this is not an issue where we should have to subsidize libya. much better lly positioned than some other countries that we've been helping. if they can just get their act together, and we want to help provide that technical that done.to get
there are no plans for ground libya. in i don't think that's necessary. don't think it would be weeke welcomed by this new government. it sends the wrong signal. libyans can if come together. what we can do is provide them our expertise. what we can do is provide them training. what we can do is provide them a oadmap for how they can get basic services to their citizens and build up legitimacy. but i do think that the one area where both david and i are heavily committed is as this we can't wait if a l is starting to get foothold there, and so we are work i working, not just with the libyan government, but a lot of our international partners, to make sure that we're getting the intelligence that we need and in actions to taking
prevent isil from having another stronghold from which to launch attacks against europe or against the united states. nd i think you have to wait until i get to asia to start asking me asia questions. prime minister cameron: the question you asked me, this is election.eral this is a referendum, and as arack has explained, it's a referendum that affects the people of the united kingdom very deeply, but it also does others in the european union, it affects partners like australia canada or and new zee zealand, and as i world, it is he hard to find -- so far, i haven't found one -- a country well that britain thinks we ought to leave the opinion. again, it's that's, our choice. we'll make the decision. e'll listen to all the arguments. people want the facts, they want the arguments and they want to and i'll onsequences
i can, but the companies that wish us well, listing them, is part of the process. s for the american election, i've made some comments in recent weeks and months. i don't think now is the moment or subtract from them. but i think just as a prime minister who's been through two general elections leading my party, you always look on at the u.s. election in awe at the scale of the process and the length of the process, and i marvel at anyone who's left standing at the end of it. president obama: fortunately, we're term limiteded. in awe at can look the process. another british question. >> thank you. your esident, you've made views very plain on the fact should tish voters
choose to stay in the e.u., but in the interest of good friends honest, are you also saying that our decades old relationship that's been through so much would be fundamentally damaged and changed by our exit? if so, how? and are you also -- do you have any sympathy with people who hink this is none of your business? and prime minister, to you, if i may, some of your colleagues utterly wrong that you have dragged our closest referendum e e.u. campaign. what do you say to them, and is it appropriate for the mayor of history in this debate. prime minister cameron: this is a british question. first. go first of all, questions for boris is a question for boris. for me.not questions i don't have some special power over the president of the united states. you know, barack feels strongly bout this and has said what
he's said, and as i said, it's our decision as the sovereign people. the choice we make about europe, i think it's right to listen to and consider the advice of your know, just to u amplify one of the points that made, you know, we have a shared interest of making sure robust approach to russian aggression. if you take those issues of the place ns that we put in through the european union, i put my hand on my heart and say that britain played a really important role play an nues to important role in making sure hose sanctions were put in place and kept in place. i'm not sure it would have happened if we weren't there. if it's in our interest, and it toin our interest for europe be strong against aggression, how can it be in our interest ot to be at that table and potentially to see those
sanctions not take place, and i it's been that working between britain and the united states over this issue that has helped to make a big difference. i would just say about the me, and relationship, to i'm passionate about this, and i believe it very deeply, for all reasons of the history and country, ture of our and it is this, the stronger britain is, and the stronger america is, the stronger that relationship will be. and i want britain to be as as possible. and we draw our strength in our country, sixth largest economy world, our armed forces, amazing how well they work together. people, ly talent brilliant universities. the fact that we're members of commonwealth.e but we all draw strength, project strength, and project andr and project our values project our people and make our
by try and people wealthier being in the european union. so i want britain to be as trong as possible and the stronger britain is, the stronger that special relationship is, and the more we can get done together to make sure we have a world of democracy, peace, human rights and the development we want to see across the world. so to me, it's simple. stronger britain, stronger that's in ationship, our interest and that's in the interest of the united states of america as well. president obama: let me start winston churchill. i don't know if people are aware residence, in the on the second floor, my office, the ivate office is called treaty room. right outside the door of that i see oom, so it every day, including on
going into n i'm that office to watch a the primary me, bus of winston churchi churchill. it's there voluntarily, because i can do anything on the second floor. [laughter] i love one ston churchill. i love the guy. now, when i was elected as resident of the united states, y predecessor had kept a churchill bus in the oval. here are only so many tables you can put busts, otherwise it starts looking a little cluttered. i thought it was appropriate and i suspect most people here in the united kingdom might agree the first african-american president, it might be appropriate to have a
bust of dr. martin luther king remind me of to all the hard work of a lot of people. allow me to ehow have the privilege of holding this office. that's just on winston churchill. that,nk people should know know my thinking. with respect to the special relationship, i have a staff member who will not be named, her, se it might embarrass who generally on foreign trips hotel or the the staff room, because she's making ly doing work this happen. she has had one request the entire time that i have been president. and that is, could she accompany
windsor on the off chance a peak at her get majesty, the queen. and gracious as she is, her majesty actually had this person, along with a couple of others, lined up so that as we emerged from lunch, they could say hello. who is as aff person tough as they come, almost fainted. [laughter] which was -- i'm glad she didn't, because it would have caused an incident. that's the special relationship. we are so bound together that impact the oing to motional and cultural and
intellectual affinities between our two countries. don't come here suggesting in any way that that is impacted decision that the people of he united kingdom may make around whether or not they're members of the european union. that is there. that's solid, and that will ternally, pefully, and the cooperation, in all sorts of ways, through nato, g-20.gh g-7, all those things will continue. of ourdavid said, if one best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their ower and enhances their economy, then i want them to or at least i want to be able to tell them, you know, i think this makes you
bigger players. i think this helps your economy. i think this helps to create jobs. and so ultimately, it's your precisely because we're bound at the hip. i want you to know that, before you make your decision. >> thank you very much, sir. r. president, vladimir putin hasn't stopped assad as he led you to believe he was and the cease-fire in syria appears to be falling apart. will you continue to bet on what looks to be a losing strategy? r. prime minister, the u.k. today warned its citizens traveling to north carolina and mississippi about laws there that affect transgender individuals. as a friend, what do you think of those laws? mr. president, would you like to weigh in on that and, sir, if us, prin ge
prince -- indulge all of us back u.s., sir, prince passed away. you were a fan. you had invited him to perform at the white house. can you tell us what made you a fan? president obama: i'm trying to figure out which order to do this. [laughter] maybe i'll start with north and mississippi. want everybody here in the united kingdom to know that the people of north carolina and mississippi are wonderful people, they are hospitable people. they are beautiful states, and you are welcome and you should come and enjoy yourselves, and i think you'll be treated with extraordinary hospitality. i also think that the laws that passed there are wrong in should be overturned and
part.nse to politics, in in part, some strong emotions generated by people, some of whom are good people, disagree with. respecting the equal rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation, whether they're ransgender or guy or lesbian, and although i respect their different viewpoints, i think it's very important for us not to send signals that anybody is differently. and i think it's fair to say that we're not unique among countries where particularly under a federal system, in which dispersed, that there are going to be some localities or local officials that put orward laws that aren't necessarily reflective of a consensus. but if you guys come to north
carolina or mississippi, treated well. be the second question, with i am deeply ria, concerned about the cessation of hostilities, and whether it's sustainable. keep in mind that i have always been skeptical about mr. putin's actions and motives inside of syria. he is, along with iran, the preimminent backer of a that i do not e, legitimacy regain within his country, because he's murdered a lot of people. having said that, what i also elieve is that we cannot end the crisis in syria without olitical negotiations, and without getting all the parties
round the table to craft a transition plan, and that by necessity means that there are some people on one i deeply e table who actions with and whose i deeply abhor. you s how oftentimes resolve conflicts like this, that have taken an enormous toll on the syrian people. the cessation has actually held expected.n i nd for seven weeks, we've seen a significant reduction in country, inside that and that gives some relief to people. monday, to putin on precisely to reinforce to him to importance of us trying maintain the cessation of asking him to put more pressure on assad,
indicating to him we would continue to try to get the moderate opposition to stay at table in geneva. hard, s has always been and it's going to keep being hard. in david and i discussed our meeting was that we will the war to prosecute will continue e o target those that support isis, we'll continue to make progress, but we're not going to overall problem unless we can get this political track moving. i assure you, we have looked at all options. we of them are great, so are going to play this option out out. if this operation falls apart, we'll try to put it back together again even as we continue to go after isis, and
my s in my belief, and it's belief that ultimately, russia just as thise that military olved by a we ory on the part of those support, russia may be able to on -- alongside iran for a while, but if you legitimate government, they will be bled as well. and that is not -- that's not speculation on my part. i think the evidence all points that direction. and finally, with respect to love prince because he and he was t music, a great performer. i didn't know him well. he came to perform at the white and was t year
extraordinary. and reative and original, full of energy. a remarkable loss, and i'm staying at winfield u.s. ambassador's residence. it so happens our ambassador has morning, ble, so this we played purple rain and delirrious, just to get warmed up before we left the house for important bilateral meetings like this. [laughter] prime minister cameron: great usic, and the ambassador brought a lot of brilliant talent. been to north carolina many years ago and enjoyed it. to not yet made it mississippi but one day i hope to. givesidance we've put out advice on travel and also deals with situations as they are, and it tries to give that advice as
passionately and impartially. does so. important it it's something a lot of attention is given to. our view on any of these things is we believe that we should be trying to use law to end iscrimination rather than to imbed it or enhance it, and something we're saying to countries and friends anywhere in the world, but obviously, the is a matter for their own legislatures, but we about the n views importance of trying to end discrimination, and we've made some important steps forward in our own country on that front, which we're proud of. with that, thank you very much. president obama: thank you very much, everybody. . pplause] >> coming up on c-span, an
interview with white house economic advisor jason fer min. court hears oral objects in challenge to presidential executive orders on immigration in the case u.s. vs. texas, and president obama visits london and holds a joint press conference with british prime minister david cameron. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]. >> saturday night at 10:00 eastern, we'll take a look at some of the speeches by president obama during his two terms at the white house of espondence dinner, one washington's premier events. this year will mark his final dinner. ce at the president obama: turns out jeb ush identified himself as hispanic back in 2009. which i understand, it's an innocent mistake. reminds me when i identified myself as american back in 1961. [laughter] saturday night at 10:00 eastern and join us for
>> national alliance on mental ceo. ss >> if we look at a murder columbine h as the tragedy, murder-suicide is a small subset of suicidality. 1-2% of suicides will result in the killing of someone else. o my recommendation is that we focus very much on trying to toderstand suicide and trying these suicide, so that
things don't erupt into a terrible tragedy. >> on sunday afternoon at 1:30 astern, booktv will air back-to-back programs. t.j. styles, this year's history recipient recalls the life of general custer, in his book "custer's trials." rick looks at black flag. go to booktv.org. >> the chair of the white house council of economic advisors, friday sat foron an interview with david cook of the christian science monitor. rules usses proposed fcc and the decision to put harriet bill.n on the $20 this is an hour.
>> okay, we're going to start nd have people join us in progress. i'm dave cook, the monitor. the council of economic advisors, last visiting here in february 2015. we appreciate his coming back. his first association with the during the in 1996 clinton administration when he was still a graduate student at harvard and was hired as a staff economist at the council. since then, he served as senior advisor to the chief economist at the world bank, a special assistant to president clinton policy at the national economic council and senior fellow and economic of the and director hamilton project at brookings. along the way here and three a doctorate uding from harvard and one from the london school of economics. visiting scholar at yu's public service and a visiting professor at yale and
columbia. in 2008, he was the economic policy director for obama for america. earlier in the obama administration, our guest was principle deputy director of the national economic council before being named to his current post in june 2013. we'll leave behind this aphy and move to morning's mechanics. as always, around the record, no blogging, tweeting, or this isf any kind while under way in an effort to listen to our guest. o help you resist that relentless salty urge, we'll e-mail several pictures of the ession to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends and as regular attendees know, if you'd like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a signal andhreatening i'll happily call on one and all. i want to start with our guest to make opening comments if he wishes and we'll move to questions around the table. us.nk you again for joining
>> great. thanks for organizing it, and hanks for everyone who's here, and we'll just start out briefly now seen 73 ve straight months of private ector job growth, which is the longest streak of job growth in this country, which is more than a half million jobs added by american businesses, but we need more more to make sure americans are seeing the benefit of the economy, building on the wage gains we've already seen and seeing even larger gains. the e state of the union, president began by talking about his economic strategy and he of ed about the three parts his economic strategy. the first, talked about strengthening education and training. the second talked about public programs to help people find from job to job with things like wage insurance unemployment
insurance and the third part of the strategy he outlined in the make of the union was to sure that the economy was operating on a set of rules of road thatrules of the worked for consumers, worked for small businesses, and worked for workers, rather than being set p for, you know, the large companies. this last week, we took an important step to flesh out that hird part of the economic agenda as outlined in the state of the union, when the president issued an executive order instructing all the agencies to they could at what o to ingest more competition into the -- inject more competition into the economy. together with that order, the president weighed in on the proceeding at the fcc and asked fcc to open up set top oxes, something we all have
sitting in our living room, 99% the cable box we rent from our cable company. a ple pay an average of $230 year. after four years, you've paid $1,000 and you still just rented it. you don't own it. the price of cable boxes has gone up. components have gotten cheaper. that's why we've asked the fcc to open up cable top boxes so that you could buy your own, have greater diversity and we think would lead to innovation. that's just an example. we've done many things like this before, whether it's cell phone requiring airlines to ree up slots at airports for competitors, or improving competition in defense agencies will d have 60 days to report back with additional ideas along these lines. the reason we think it's important is because of the
range of evidence that the council of economic advisors collected in an issue brief last week, that by a number of different measures, there's less competition in the economy today than there was several decades ago. there's fewer new firms entering. the average firm size is larger. the average market share of firms is larger. of return on capital, relative to the safe rate of return is rising. for some firms, rates of return are persistently very high, and all of those can both get in the way of efficiency and innovation. for example, set top boxes, the type of competition you'd like to see to make those boxes produce nd can also great raising n equality by prices for consumers or disadvantaging workers. talk about this general set of policies and ideas around competition, what what we can dond about it, but obviously anything on the economy more broadly.
host: let me start by giving you chance to respond to critics of the cable decision, the cable industry, the national cable telecommunications association, says that the white house has injected, quote, politics and nflammatory rhetoric into a regulatory proceeding by what is supposed to be an independent agency, and the executive roducer of "walking dead" breeding variety, which is something the guy from the monitor does every morning, says fcc goes along with the white house, it will make as easily -- as easy and as dangerous in the living as it laptops and mobile devices. mr. furman: the law makes it very clear that the administration can comment on fcc proceedings. there's a procedure for that, hich is filing a comment
through ntia, that is the s ocedure that previou administrations have used on this us occasions in administrati administration, this administration has used on numerous occasions. we had a very serious policy issue.sation about this felt that it was an issue that consumers, andto also to innovation and economic growth more broadly. and wanted to share those views and did it in, you know, in a way.y transparent we think this is important both because of this particular case. gain, you know, it is a fact that the typical household over spend ars is going to about $1,000, not get the mprovements in their table set top box that we see in lots of areas of our technological
own the nd won't even box at the end of that process nd it's a fact that incumbent industries want to defend the tying of that product to the of the the delivery cable service when in reality those are two very different products, so we wanted to weigh in on that. also wanted to use it as an example of steps that we'd love to see other agencies coming up ith that would similarly have tangible easy to understand benefits for consumers in the broadly. re host: do you have a list, sir, or an example or two that you could give us. say, you've seen an example in the blog post that cable thing a mascot for other initiatives. other examples that you could cite of where you would expect procompetitive decisions taken before the end obama administration? mr. furman: i don't have forward-looking examples because
the agencies are working actively on this right now and it's something we'd obviously talk to them about before the president signed his executive order. in terms of some of the past ones, we go to the example of unlocking. rather than having your cell phone tied exclusively to a letting you , unlock it and use it with different carriers. here was a "we the people" petition where tens of thousands of americans asked us to do studied about it, we the issue, came out in favor of it, ultimately, that required legislation, which we championed as well as actions by the fcc others, and now it's easier for you to move your cell phone to a different carrier. that helps, you know, if you change, it helps you get a better deal, or even if you threat ange, just the that you might do it helps restrain prices. slots is another one. they were using it just to foreclose on other airlines eing able to compete
effectively. dot required them to give up slots, let other airlines use it, and it's created more competition, lower prices, air travel.ns in so those are two of the types of examples, one at the commerce department and one at d.o.t., that we'd like to see more of going forward. host: i'll do one more, and 'll go to howard snyder of table.s to go around the the most likely democrat says i don't believe it's going to meet the high bar. the most likely republican candidate says it was a deal for china to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone. mr. furman: i do not believe that at all. in fact, i think ttp is very our economy. n fact, every year that we elay tpp costs us nearly $100
billion in present value of the foregone benefits that we would will get from that agreement. the support for it is growing. associations, business groups representing businesses rom large to small, have consistent consistently come out for it every week. new groups come out for it. to negotiate that agreement was passed on a in congress sis a t year, and we hear from number in congress that understand the importance of getting it done this year, so we're going to continue doing that. it continues to be economically important, and it continues to we know a g that majority of members of congress doing. principle open to host: we're going to go to reuters and r from then usa today. howard: two things. one is labor oriented and the
other market economy. the recent uptick in labor -- the vision of the labor market is fundamentally accurate. i'm wondering in your opinion, think that ther you drag go given the documented. secondly, i'm interested in your about the slow tepid growth of the recovery and whether or not that is a to the l upside there extent it's being caused by a -- you know, the stronger being put egulations in place and second, the sort of saving that seems to be going on in households, mortgage rates, mortgages, paying off companies are saving and it seems that's got the potential to lessen the reliance on external finance in the next recession and perhaps make it buffer.er, keep it as a mr. furman: those are two great questions. in answer to your first one, it's been really encouraging to see the increase in labor force
participation rate. in fact, it's increasing at the fastest rate that it has in over 30 years. but the underlying demographics, your question, still mean a larger and larger fraction of our population is of 65.o be over the age when you do the arithmetic around it, that is about a .3 decline per year in the participation rate just from the aging of the population. above and beyond that, there have been a long standing minidecade down ward trend, the condition on age, which would more.it down a little bit i think there's a little bit more space for cyclical recovery in the labor force participation rate. i think it's been especially ncouraging to see the broader healing of the economy in terms of long term unemployed and
abor force participation and discourageded workers. ut i think ultimately, you know, we're almost there in terms of the cyclical healing, left with the be demographic trend in that regard. in answer to your second i don't think that financial reform has played a rates.e in recent growth it's helped put our economy in a tronger and more sustainable position with $700 billion more in bank capital than we had in 2008. when people go through all the ifferent concerns about the global economy, i think it's encouraging that the united states banking system is not on and for good reason, because we've undertaken reforms that put it in much better shape than it's been in for a long time. but the productivity growth slow
down is something we've seen economies, ge of some of which did reform financial systems and some of which didn't. o i think something else is going on than financial reform. i think the deleveraging you eferred to of the high savings rates at the corporate level and the individual level was a particularly good important thing in the first couple of years of the recovery, but we're you n a position where if look at households, their interest payment is a shared disposable income, is the lowest it's been on record. you look at corporations, they have extremely healthy balance sheets. i think that's all encouraging, but it would also be encouraging see more consumer spending, which we have seen over the last year or two, but investment, siness which we haven't seen as much of over the last year or two. >> gone too far? mr. furman: i think on the side, there is definitely room for expanded investment above and beyond what
we've seen. host: greg cort of usa today. greg: i have two questions, first on criminal justice. event participating in an next week with douglas, and you made the case there are economic consequences to criminal justice reform. fiscal, sort of the cost of the taxpayer of this. for how ke the case criminal justice reform would affect the broader economy. gotten an: yeah, we've involved in criminal justice precisely because of the economic angle on it, not just in terms of the values and what type of society we want to be, but we focused narrowly on the economics, and the economics is there is broadnk bipartisan agreement on, so doug spend 2008 o
debating when he was doing economic policy for the mccain campaign and i was doing it for wasn'tma campaign, there a single line we wrote together that the two of us had to argue next week, he event it is at the white house, and it's cohosted by the american enterprise institute, which is a center think tank and the nyu is a more at progressive organization, and include doug, ll arthur brooks, dan lowe, from one side of the spectrum, and you'll be hearing the business and economic case. the issues that a range of that, ch has found is first of all, you know, making sentences increasingly longer rapidly diminishing returns in terms of deterring crime. and also in terms of keeping someone off the street from committing crimes because older
to le are much less likely commit those crimes. t the same time, it can have substantial collateral damage, reducing the skill someone has, and the ability to get a job when they come out, which can lead to more recidivism and more crime. having a devastating impact on the family of the person on children, and their conomic mobility, and economic future. do, without st counting the collateral enefits, council on economic advisors will shortly be coming out with a report on epic and finds, among other things, if you increase spending billion aration by 10 year, that would result in net benefit to society that range from negative 8 billion to positive 1 billion. spending t, increase on police. increased wages, including wage, a higher minimum
increased education. have, you know, positive net benefits in terms of just their impact on crime reduction. -- : can you greg: can you give me a percent of gdp? benefits? sure the mr. furman: i don't have a bottom line percentage gdp, but ly, and do very rigorous we do cost benefit all the time and regulatory and other budget analysises. we worked out quickly if you spend an extra $10 billion in this area, you end up most likely worse off, not better off, in terms of the cost of it. the other thing i'd note is you percentage of men between the age of 25-54 in our country who aren't in the labor force. they're not in the job and they're not looking for a job. 3% of men.s, it was weren't in the labor force. now it's 12%. it's increased four-fold.
more in the d much united states than almost any other advanced economy. different t makes us from the other advanced economies, it's mass incarceration in the united states, of the type you don't see in any of the other countries, that appears to have in the fact that a people who on of could be contributing productive to our economy are not doing so today. greg: and then on competition, there's also a proposal for the broadcasters to open up to do 40 tb, interactives and those kinds of things. a little bit like what you're trying to accomplish with the set top box proposal, why not -- would the administration and i guess hat, the broader question of that is adopting these procompetitive policies, do you risk picking picking nd losers in one industry or technology over
another? mr. furman: so that's not something we've weighed in on. although, we have played a role policy, including schachli championing the legislation that m eated two-side spectru auctions which will happen this year, that will buy up spectrum from broadcasters who buy it and sell it and place a higher value on it, mostly in mobile broad band. in on the rules for the spectrum option to make sure they were consistent with promoting competition, and competition policy is precisely ners pposite of picking win and losers. set of ut creating a rules such that there's competition and the winners in boxes will be picked by consumers. they'll be the set top boxes that consumers want to use that have made themselves cheaper or
better in some way, as opposed to the current system where the ules essentially ordain who those winners are. host: we'll go to cheryl from bloomber bloomberg. > the competition executive order, when that first came out, i had trouble with some of the usiness groups getting a read on that, whether that was going to be good for them or not. indicate seemed to that some regulations might be then it also t sounded like a lot of agencies were going to be doing some rule makings. so in terms of the regulatory outlook for businesses, what should they -- how should they read this executive order? mr. furman: this executive order economy, od for the and a lot of things that are are, you the economy know, good for existing businesses. n some cases, you're trying to do something that might take away from some of the market
power of an incumbent business and create opportunities for new competitors and for small will be goodo that for the small businesses. it will be good for the new ompetitor and i think ultimately, you know, that competition leads to more innovation by all businesses as well. >> do you anticipate a lot of regulations this year? mr. furman: in some cases -- we anticipate-- yes, we a number of actions to come out have, s and as i said, we you know, the process that nvolved talking to a number of agencies before this executive issued, so we have some idea as to what might be coming. ome of that work had already begun and it's certainly intensified since the order but i wouldn't describe it as regulations. in some cases, cell phone unlocking, that was in a way getting rid of a barrier you face to moving your phone, the
airline slots. wouldn't put these under the heading of more regulation. i'd put them in the heading of whatever steps you take to create more competition. in fact, sometimes, if you look at -- this is a state issued one, that we have encouraged states to take a hard look at, but not something we have a is ral legislative nexus to occupational licensing, where it used to be about 5 percent of occupations, you needed a license, a doctor, a lawyer. now it's up to 25%. harder to move across states, harder to move etween jobs, can disadvantage consumers. that would be an example of what we think you should be getting rid of some of those regulations to create more competition. so sometimes, incumbents can use their power to create a barrier to entry. another example would be local restrictions, is a regulation that we'd like to see less of. of it, if you had less you'd have more mobility and competition. this isn't more regulation or less. competition.
next.l clear politics, >> jason, as you know, the peaker and his conference are going to put forward an issues agenda, which they have to do before the fall. nd part of it is going to be tax reform, and there's a ton of interest on both sides of the aisle, so i wanted to ask you, do you think that the effort hat the speaker is making is going to be helpful to the debate about tax reform, which ill be engaged next year and beyond? mostly u see it as politic political, you know, trying to provide some specifics to the candidates? effort ou look at the that they've made? mr. furman: i think it's always out policy ople put ideas and are specific about those policy ideas. in some cases, those policy an issue. advance in some cases, they help clarify a choice and help sharpen a
debate. so you know, so that you could have that debate in the legislative process and decide. i'm obviously not privy to any of the details of what he's release. but i think anything that, you know, continues a conversation on a substantive policy level is important. on business tax reform, chairman kemp had put out his proposal, i guess, about a year and-a-half that was veryught helpful and constructive for the debate. it had a number of good elements. it had a number of problematic elements, and you know, just level, it technical helps address a number of issues. on tax reform in general, i n is, are big questio we addressing a genuine economic country,we have in this which is a tax rate for businesses, it's too high, able to with businesses take advantage of too many loop holes. or are we trying to cut taxes for high income individuals and incomes ir after-tax and potentially do that at the
expense of the deficit. former, which is about our competitiveness and creating a level playing field on, businesses can succeed you know, i think that's something that's promising for the future. another way to cut taxes for high-income individuals and raise the deficit, you know, i don't think that's going anywhere this year or beyond. >> just because i'm curious, you now everyone in the clinton campaign on the economic side, policy people. how often do you talk to them? or often do they consult you seek the information that the cea has put together? mr. furman: in my job, i have othing to do with the campaign but, you know, i've certainly enjoyed going to a wedding this past weekend, with my former chief of staff, who's married to someone that does economic i icies in the campaign, but don't remember at that wedding talking about a whole lot of economic policy issues. >> so you don't
really -really -- mr. furman: i have friends. i have ongoing conversations with friends. helpful? u try to be mr. furman: i don't -- i've have spent a lot of time on campaigns in the past and i'm completely thrilled not to be on one now. [laughter] host: we're going to go to angela clean from bloomberg next, angela. >> thanks. going back to the bigger economic picture, there's been news in a lot of good the labor market. you talked about some of the downsized wages and underemployment, but overall, a lot of good numbers. but at the same time, we see some very concerning trends in manufacturing and housing. what would you say, if you were story, you know, turn the tables, you're the one writing the lead, how do you see right now? mr. furman: the u.s. has been the biggest success story of any of the economies in the world in
rebounding from the financial crisis. nd our growth continues to be considered by people around the world as one of the bright spots in the global economy. the unemployment rate has onsistently come in below expectations. it's been accompanied by a labor healing and markets. wages are up at the fastest they've been since the financial crisis. i think the biggest concern that is the or our economy impact that the rest of the world will have on the u.s. economy. subtracting -- slow own in our exports to the rest of the world, which is a function of slower growth in the rest of the world. a pointing about 3/4 of off of our growth rate right now. so this isn't enough to have a massive change on the u.s. economy but it is persistent on the economy.
you know, a sector like housing, i actually think is one of the bright spots in the economy with potential. a lot of certainly in the last month, you saw housing permits fall but over the last year, they're up. it's a volatile series. i wouldn't look month to month. i'd like at a period of over a year, and we're still building less than the number of houses i we need ast us, that a country demographically. so housing i think is actually a in the economy. manufacturing is facing a muchenge, and that is very a function of it's an industry that disproportionately relies and when the rest of the world is weaker, you have a harder time exporting, big acturing, again, picture has rebounded to a izable extent in the economy, sectors like autos have been particularly successful, in art, because of the actions we've taken. but until we see stronger growth around the world, it's going to be hard for american
manufacturer manufacturers. >> one other topic, social security. you mentioneded that you see it strong g a relatively future. some people -- around this table that huntsman lieberman spoke, one of the ssues for the next time is social security. they're looking at the numbers and seeing a crisis and see it very differently. how do you address that? mr. furman: i didn't see what they did yesterday, so i can't comment on that. but social security has sufficient resources to pay full come, s for decades to and thereafter to pay about 3/4 benefits. it has certainly been this administration's view that it would have been better to act sooner rather than later to deal with it. we put out a set of bipartisan principles for dealing with social security years ago, and president ing the would have been happy to have
done. urgent issue ost facing the country. they're getting the economy to recover, getting productivity getting the labor force participation rate up. down.ng inequality ll of these are much more urgent and pressing issues. lso would say when you're dealing with social security, i don't think you want to frame terms ofnow, solely in solvency and green eye shades. whatnk you want to look at we're trying to accomplish, which is we've been enormously poverty l in reducing among the elderly but you still have higher poverty rates for the old-old, people over the age you , for single women, have a lot of aspects of the rogram that were, you know, based around patterns of work and family that have long since passed. so when you think about social security, you really want to
make sure you're also thinking how it can better serve its fundamental goals in dealing ith issues like poverty, retirement, security, and fit into the modern framework of not just, you , now, maniacally focus on solvency. host: mr. lane from the hill. in the -- the resident addressed that he would like to work on an antipoverty measure, that could antipoverty f agreement and between him and speaker ryan, that actively sought out and pointed out this is something we need to work out together. i want to know has there been this.ork between them on have they been engaged at all or any sort of ground work being something? on mr. furman: the president certainly highlighted that he speaker have the same proposal to expand the earned income tax credit for workers without qualifying children,
either because they don't have children or because they're noncustodial parents. this would help address a perversity in our system that right now, you can be in poverty, and we actually tax you deeper into poverty. instead, the tax code for people without qualifying children does for what it people with children, which is if you're in poverty, help lift poverty rather than push you deeper into it. so i think the common sense sensible idea that the president proposed a number of years ago, the speaker adopted that proposal on something, you know, on.could work together we certainly have conversations at the speaker's office about a policy e range of issues, where he's looking for cooperate. ut i think at some point, you know, they're going to need to decide -- legislation on tax initiated and has
representatives and they'll need to decide is this something they want to initiate, is this something they want to initiate in a manner that's not paid for people elsewhere to working to get themselves out of poverty. host: financial times. >> thanks very much. you were talking earlier about spot, this a bright success story amongst advanced economies. learly this story of this presidential election campaign is that american voters feel it's not a bright spot of recovery. is there a risk that the administration is a little out mood ch with the public about the u.s. economy at the moment or are we overestimating ust how negative people feel about the economy? mr. furman: i don't know, you -- i look at evidence from congress es that a ooks at about how people feel about the economy, the consumer index from the boards and the university of michigan.
when you look at measures like hat, you see that confidence has been consistently rising since the recession and last levels we hadn't seen in over a decade. i see a number of ways in which both in e positive, their situation today and the outlook. we also certainly hear and understand the frustrations areas have in terms of like wage growth, and so the president's message that you saw in the state of the union, you a really tently, told optimistic story about the american economy, how it's done, its successes, and also talked challenges and problems that we face and what it is he wants to do about them. he's not walking around saying, mission accomplished, there's done, g else to be everything is perfect. that is not remotely the message. in fact, the message, if anything, is the opposite. here's all the things that we
still need to do. that measure of confidence would be consumer spending. it has picked up a little but this has still been a very sluggish consumer recovery. hat's your analysis as to why consumers are still saving so significantly? oil he big fall, and the price hasn't been given its boost it's been waiting for. the caution in terms of spending is quite palpable still. r. furman: i mean, consumer spending did grow three percent in 2014. and 2015. one of the bright spots that was helping to raise growth.gdp so i think you have seen, as consumers, deleveraged, that savings rates have risen a little bit in the last year but they've stabilized more than
they had before. when we look at the oil shock, we see it as having raised consumer spending, cut business investment, and the net of the wo of those is i'm still a small positive for the economy. i think when you look at consumers, part of it is having been through a very traumatic economic experience that is only eight years past us, and you look at the great depression and the impact that that had on the way people thought about saving thought about le places, n in other hyperinflations, those effects decades and can affect the way you think. i think there can be some of that. wage growth has only recently picked up and consumers want the confidence that that wage growth will continue and oil prices will stay low as opposed to being transitory, that you don't want to fully adjust your consupgz sumption to.
wage growth rising becomes clear that this is more durable, then to ink you would continue see strong consumption growth but again, it is 3 percent, not, you know, which is pretty good for consumer spending. host: times. >> my question was, i want to circle back to the competition issue, and you mentioned set top boxes, which is interesting, because i forgot exactly what i think stic is, but it's about 40% of people don't even have a choice of what cable company is their provider. so if the idea is to address competition, how do you sort of address the front end, not only ddress, you know, can i buy comcast box a or comcast box b? nd on that same level, there's been a lot of criticism from the
a t -- about antitrust, failure to pursue antitrust on the d a criticism rights in the business industry, the obama administration is not that way. how do you kind of thread that antitrust, pursue especially at a time when we're seeing these massive mergers, walgreens, rite aid, heinz, aetna, cigna, whatever. humana and something else. massive seeing these mergers, and how do you deal with that? mr. furman: uh-huh. you're ur first, precisely right, that there's an intersection between these two issues. 100 u had a choice of different cable companies, probably we wouldn't need a rule because one boxes of those cable companies would compete for your business by top boxyou have any set you want or a better one. when you don't have competition in terms of the cable wire going into your house, that makes it
that much more important to make sure that you can't leverage the market power you have in the wire to the house into what is product, which is the set top box. so there's an intersection those. e've tried to take up steps to free up spectrum for mobile broad band, which would create more competition in that area, make sure the rules of those actions are consistent with, you an't just have the biggest player buy all the spectrums and foreclose on the opportunity of market.o enter the we've weighed in on municipal broad band as another way to competition. but there's only so many tools that we have. of your in terms second question, you know, we have nothing whatsoever to do white forcement in the house. that's a matter of the nforcement agencies, dha, antitrust and ftc, in this case, enforcing the law. we don't get involved in particular cases and don't get involved in the broader policy
issues. antitrust e that enforcement under this administration is up. the number of criminal is up.tions time,al penalties, prison and in non-criminal cases, there's been a number of quite important enforcement actions they've taken to preserve nt areas.on in differe t is the case that it's not illegal to have a monopoly. it's illegal to take your monopoly and build on it by merging. or extend it into another area. and set top boxes is similar to the -- that's not illegal. that's a similar economic principle of you have lots of power in one area, make sure you can extend that into market another area. times.new york >> as you get to the end of the
administration, from the beginning, can you address what many see as a missed opportunity, not for lack of some trying, but maybe not trying hard enough, in getting spending.structure you had all these years when it as next to zero interest rates when the hardest hit labor sectors, with construction, what could you have done, the 2011 american jobs act, which didn't the transportation bill that was linked to construction, again, didn't go anywhere. what more could you have done and is there any opening between a and january 20th to cut deal to get more done? certainly: now, we've got things done under infrastructure. he recovery act, we got a substantial up-front investment in infrastructure, and then just this last december, we got a five-year highway bill that's a
oughly 5 percent inflation adjusted increase in spending, as well as more certainty associated with it. but it certainly has been disappointing that we haven't done even more than that. and it's not for a lack of effort on the president's part. year after year, really substantial ambitious infrastructure. he had one way to pay for it related to international tax, which was something that you chairman kemp adopt in his plan and this past year, termsposed another way in of an oralcy, which is an idea economists and other experts from both political parties. i think in some sense, your question is one better addressed because ss than to us, we certainly agree that economically, both to help demand today, to help expand our productive capacity in the
uture, given the low rates of interest, the economic argument s completely clear, and would like to see, you know, congress doing more. republican view. mr. furman: i don't have any great inside into that. >> any negotiations? r. furman: a number of republicans will privately tell you how much they wanted to do it, and then when it came down to it at the end of the day, they did come through and they did a five-year bill and did an increase, and that was good, but way too long, seven years to get to that point, and big enough. it created a base to build on. the you have an idea like infrastructure bank that the chamber of commerce that the afo behind, i thinkh it stands to reason it's probably quite a good idea, and disappointing
having congress take it out the door. >> was it before january 20th. mr. furman: i haven't seen congress moving further on this one. host: before i weigh in, anybody wants n't had one that one? let me ask you briefly then about the wall street pay regulations that were much in the news yesterday. i wanted to see, a, if you support them, how you respond to ritics, some who say that it will drive people out of the industry, or sort of another perverse effect might be that the banks and other affected institutions are going to have to pay people more because of fear that money will be clawed back. on the wall ake street regs? mr. furman: the goal of dodd strengthen the financial system and to deal ith a range of the different problems that led to the last crisis. one of those problems was the
perverse incentives created by ay incentives that led you to riskier action, that heads, you get your bonus and tails, you walk away, so that on average, you come out ahead. that type of option is an extremely valuable option and i street, if e on wall i understand anything, it's option value. so the legislation right ly askd regulators to do something about that. we have been encouraging the to come nt regulators out with those regulations, and did that most recently in the president had e with the regulators in march. o we were very pleased to see that they've come out and would move as them to quickly as possible to complete the rule making process so this effect.e put into i haven't studied the details of what they've come out with. there are independent regulators
who are going to design those details independently. they're going to accept input in terms of improving those rules and i'm sure there's all sorts of, you know, ways that one can handle any of the different ssues that have been raised, but ultimately, you know, the goal that is trying to be accomplished here is a really important one, which is to reduce overly risky behavior hat comes at the expense of taxpayers and the economy more broadly. >> we haven't asked about the weeke biggest story of the which will affect the politics of america, and that is harriet tubman on the $20 bill. i'm also sort of curious about if you have any thoughts on, i guess, micro economic monetary policy, if that's a real thing, the way we change the way we money when moving from paper currency to electronic. what are the consequences of
that in the economy and what is the policy in terms of what we should be thinking about. what should sort of broaden our scope on this. mr. furman: sure. on the first question i was to see what rilled secretary lu decided. he didn't consult me. consult my children. if he had, one of them strongly tubman and theiet other was in favor of rosa parks and they had a big debate yesterday about them but i guess the tie breaking vote and our treasure's decision. i think that was important and exciting to see. on your second, the shift from has, you edit cards, now, had some impact on the conduct of monetary policy. it's one reason why the has become f money less stable, which is one reason why the monetary authorities don't target the money supply,
hey instead target interest rates. and that shift has happened over decades, and many once you do that, it doesn't complicate your monetary policy at all and doesn't have major changes in the way the economy functions. it just, you know, the feds sets money supplys, the and velocity sort themselves out have an nterest rates impact on the economy. i think there's some other questions of, you know, to the degree you have easier access to borrowing, that there's some led to that that has some smoothing of shocks, that you get a shock and you can it and our way through it doesn't propagate as large in there's evidence most noticeably from the financial crisis that it can fies shocks because it lead to overborrowing and a larger correction and how to get ome of the benefits of
consumption smoothing without getting the benefits of what -fueled cycles and the world of public policy in that i think is important. i'm probably not fully answering your question. >> going back to the competition g licy, should we be thinkin about more ways to pay for should we example, be encouraging that, discouraging that? neutral? mr. furman: i think we'll leave that up to our agencies who have 60 days to report back to us. >> teddy davis from cnn. clinton is ary nominated and then you're asked thought wereat you the three most effective economic policies of obama and he three most disappointing economic policies, what would you tell them? mr. furman: the recovery act, going efully, she's not to need to do something like that. he affordable care act, and there's a lot left to do to
implement that, both encouraging medicaid, take up using extraordinary numbers of secretary uses, and the high premium excise tax, cutting taxesd be households, which was done over a number of pieces of legislation, made permanent reducing r, and poverty for 16 million people a year. in terms of the other three, it's just disappointment we didn't get more done on infrastructure, that disappointment that comprehensive immigration reform didn't happen, which would be the single largest thing that you can do for the economy. and probably, disappointment business tax do reform, which is one of the more obvious steps that we could take given every other country in the world has done
it. > you're going to have two minutes. minutes. >> from abroad, had frustrated the economy, what are you warrant the w that most between now and the end of the administration? europe has growth in picked up a little bit, but it is still way too slow. the unemployment rate in the 10%. zone is above seen its growth slow. japan has seen its growth slow. emerging a number of markets like brazil and russia is negative. so you know, we're not in the year 2009. this is not a global financial crisis. but most anywhere you look in the world outside the united
growth is coming in a decent amount below what people and by just about disappointing. it's pretty much just the low income economies that have seen in r growth rates pick up recent years. just about everyone else has not. host: last question quickly, alexis. planning, ransition can you describe what the economic team is doing how far you are in thinking about transition planning, coordination, information gathering? mr. furman: i can tell you for the council of economic advisors long standing a tradition of we hire our staff mostly one year at a time and they work from summer to summer. so i am right now hiring the taff that will work for me for six months and work for the next president, whoever he or she is for the first six months of their term.
certainly in my experience in this administration, president whole had an extremely effective transition and one to emulate, like and i know the council of economic advisors, it's always worked well, and it won't be an exception this time. >> is there one person for the economic team that's coordinated -- who is the designated -- mr. furman: i don't have anything for you on that process. >> you can't say? we're doing y what at cea, which is we're hiring people to work hard both in this administration and the next administration. host: thanks for doing this, sir. appreciate it. thank you. mr. furman: thank you. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and
policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, kaiser health news senior gallwitz dent phil joins us by phone to discuss the unitedof the decision by health to leave most of the created by xchanged the affordable care act. sabrina schaefer, executive director for the independent join us to m will talk about the iwf's recent policy proposals geared toward by ing working women shifting responsibility for family lead programs from taxpayers to companies to the individual. global center for policy solutions maya rockymoore on s about her report boosting minority entrepreneurship. carolyn lukensmyer, from the university of arizona, for civil stitute
discourse, ways to restore civil politics. let's join "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. morning.saturday join the discussion. >> american history tv on c-span 3, this weekend, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the historian edward book, mper discusses his the myth of the lost cause. warthe south lost the civil and the north won. seeking to justify their split from the union and their defeat. among the disputes, myths of the civil war, including the reason it started and how it ended. >> southerners felt compelled to explain why it was that this and tation had occurred that, for example, 25% of outhern white men between the ages of 20 and 45 were dead. not just casualties. they were dead. as a result of the civil war. morning at sunday 10:00 on road to the white house
rewind, the 1988 campaign of democratic candidate gary hart. we begin with the former colorado senator announcing his candidacy in denver. and sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts. the curator on the life of civil rights activists, laura swea uerta. themey begged them to send any one but heard. -- but her. >> at 8:00, on the presidency -- >> he said those sons of