tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 14, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
you know, donald trump's ability and an eighth grade mentality. tell me, you know, he already says, if they hit me first. what if he gets mad and nukes or denmark, who's going up.lean this mess i'm 85 years old, and self. i think he pushes hard on some things. read the posture of letting something that pass. i'm hopeful and encouraging. i believe that donald trump can't adjust his persona. i think it would be needed for
him to adjust his persona to make it more acceptable. i like your statement that your 85 years old and not afraid of any ring. as you said, you're the former cochair of senator ted cruz's race, he seems to be leaving the door open for return. is there any possibility of that? all things are possible, and nothing is predictable. the likelihood is very small. not atell you that it is strategy being worked or pushed at all. ted was asow of articulate about it as he usually is about everything else. most important things are this. he made some statements about the nomination. some of us believed there was a viable path. i would have liked to see him stay in through california, then count the chips and the game was
over run. they made a decision. he was in a better position to evaluate that. strategy is not a being worked to try to put him back in as a candidate. are some things, there are ted cruz delegates open across the country. he was going to cleveland. that we have a platform needs to be ratified and rewritten. and, we need to write be andral's that will guide not govern the convention in 2020. it is important that we maintain a representative view of government. we are the republican party. delegates aref needed to nominate the
candidate. he had, the platforms need to be pro-life and probably -- pro-marriage and pro-constitution. ted cruz is urging the delegates. hoping cleveland. host: there is a piece in the hell that talked about ted cruz's allies gearing up for a convention. are there specific things in the platform now that you would like to change echoed i know we had some principles that were important. guest: somebody will need to bring a bathroom plank. up, i thinkpic came that is one of the things of be happy to see or introduce.
it is something i would want to be supportive of. we need to hold together pro-life and pro-marriage. we do not know what might come along. we usually see a presidential candidate that would try to amend the platform to fit more closely with their particular positions. that might be the case. i do not know. right now, i do not see and the indications of a platform change. you know, he has said that the system is rigged. it you can only interpret that means he believes the results of the primaries and the state would dictate the nominee and that the delegates would have as much of a say about who would be our nominee. furthermore, when you vote in a primary in february versus january, lots of things change.
i also am concerned that there will be some rules changing. there will have changes that will allow the crossover vote to dictate our nominee. people who figured if they would take a republican or a democratic ballot. republicans to choose the nominee. then, i want americans to choose the president. host: we're talking to congressman steve king. he was there for the agriculture and small business committees. he was therefore executive overreach. beverly is here. caller: i cannot understand donald trump.
the only thing he has going for him is that wall. i agree with that. we have people coming over here and getting jobs and not paying taxes. we all have to pay taxes. that is the only thing i like about donald trump. but, i would like to see somebody get in there who really cares about this country. do you have a specific question for the congressman? caller: what will we do about this bathroom thing? you know, the short version of that is that i would like to see resolution brought under the florida house. we definitely have legislative authority existing with the micromanagement of signs on bathrooms. i would like to see that. i would talk to some of my colleagues on this.
i get a sense of what they think and how we can come together with a unified voice. on the ad also that when the own thing is going for his the wall, of course there is more. i do not think people understand how effective a wall would the. of the illegal drugs consumed in america come through mexico. this would at least reduce their supply routes. and, it is tens of millions of dollars of his miss. they say we cannot build a wall that is 2000 miles long. donald trump said the great wall of china was 13,000 miles long. they had no machines to build a company us we can build it to the cost of the wall would be less than building interstate highway. we are building the four-lane interstate highways through the cornfields by the land. we have all the design and
building. we get all that done for $4 million per mile. six point $7ending million per mile just to watch the southern border. getting 25y percentage rate down on the border. so, we can take two thirds of the annual budget that protects that border and build a whole wall for two thirds of what we're spending now. it, it will return our investment. it is a good idea. his other ones as well. let's talk of the task force for executive overreach. it is temporary. tell us about it. years, i have brought amendments to the floor of the house with an attempt to limit the overreach of the executive branch, but also come with the judicial branch of
government. in 2005, there is a key decision made by the supreme court. that drivers ruled could confiscate private property and headed over to other private interest. violation ofar property rights. court pulled out that the language for public use. we had a resolution with an approval to the floor. proposed an amendment that cut funding to the administration of the supreme court. it was a nominal fee. it is what they confiscated in that decision. one of the first things i tried to do was limit the legislative power. ,s we watched the president's they have brought amendment after amendment.
hold a record over the years of building their principles and defending their legislative authority. so, as i got worse and worse, president obama is not the only one. he does have the most aggressive overreach. , when paul ryan heame speaker, i believe said out the chairman committee. he made the proposal that we needed the task force. and, then, they asked if i would share that. it is the full series of amendments i have brought over the years. we address a number of different topics. we are on foreign policy overreach, and, the funding for the operations in libya with andy that was appropriated
skilled with other funds, we have gone with that. we have addressed domestic overreach. and, with the court case yesterday, i had it john boehner initiated a lawsuit, he was with the house of representatives. and, that's when the obama administration decided to fund the risk quarters under obamacare. so, those are some of the things that take place. i think immigration was where he had the most overreach. times, i doid a 22 not have the constitutional authority to pass that. of giving up times this constitutional law lecture, he decided he could get away with it. so, we have the more memos. they have millions of people being told that he is now
legally president. democratic colleague comes men scott peters said needsically that congress to look in at a mere before it says in the obama administration. billd 13, senate passed a which was significant. people, the have the specific gang, but, it included a lot of people that will give congress a chance to deal with it. we do not even get a vote on it. so, all of us have different views. theever even took it up and house. we're not even allowed to talk about it. yet, we're hearing that the president has taken on too much power. that would have provided a 13 year path to citizenship.
if you're in 2012 with no felony and a job and application fees, it would have provided a legislative path to citizenship for dreamers, they would've had u.s. 416. e-verify, which is something that a lot of people have been calling on to make sure we have proper enforcement would have allowed a greater number of visas. they will have substantial border security. border,gents in the 70,000 increase. 350 miles of new fencing. technology cameras drones, helicopters, and checking at aaron seaport. all of this with the legislature. this is in the halls of the united states congress. host: is there congressional
overreach? guest: i believe that is an overstatement. i have heard each of those points. i would say that marco rubio is likely to be the nominee for the president if you oppose the bill rather than supported it. the american people rejected that bill. it tollion was added to make it difficult to get it moved off the floor. they have a fencing. they have 2000 miles of border. for an alternate enforcing the law today, there is no will. if that is what you are interested in, you need to get a different job. so, as much of that with the arguments he is making, there is a consensus. if it worked, the american people have called for. the house of representatives with past it. there is no such thing as legal
authority for president to be a legislator just because he asked congress to pass a law. that is a decision also. congress made a decision. the house of representatives said we will not take that up, it is bad policy. the senate thought it was a good idea. the president agrees with the senate that they should be able to have the effect of law. that is the definition of executive overreach. i be happy to have that discussion with the judiciary committee. host: we're talking the steve king. up next, we have a call on our democratic line. you are on with congressman king. i appreciate you allow me to speak. first of all, i have a couple of questions. have you been a strong democrat? i believe in sharing. i think this is a joke. to have donald trump is a
president. this does not make sense. i want to know how you feel about that? guest: we just received that question. host: essentially, donald trump is a reality tv character. is that a concern for you? guest: i have seen him in the rain. it is hard to stay that he does not do reality tv. as a large part of what he has done over the last 15 years. at that point, she is right. i do not want to compare donald trump with ronald reagan. there are two completely different people. there are things about ronald -- they said the middle east he was and were not complementary to the presidential demeanor. i'm hopeful that donald trump will establish a presidential demeanor.
do happen to see, even though i have been a longtime supporter of ted cruz that donald trump showmanship as led him to be the nominee today. that is a skill set that can possibly turned to a new good. next, we have byron calling in from cleveland, tennessee. you are on the congressman. trump. i like donald he sounds just like me. i am not politically correct. people that the few has the guts to bring this to the table. about this crony capitalism. is going to do something about this crony capitalist? voting forir time of hillary clinton. i think you should take him out of the republican party is my personal opinion. host: let's give the congressman
chance to respond. guest: you know, some of this discussion would depend on how we define crony capitalists. beennot one who has supported by big money in the party. rather see the grassroots build up the party. things the strongest we've had. there is an establishment wing doese party because it take resources to run this. especially the presidential campaign. also many presidential campaigns. we need to be involved in a broad party. we cannot let the party's wishes be dictated by just the people with big checkbooks. that is why i always talk about the power of the grassroots. money is free speech. the more grassroots people we have involved, the more delegates and principal we have showing up. the more activist we have, the
less influence the crony capitalists have. i think that automates you a little happier. we will get more grassroots involvement. deborah next, we have calling in from virginia. deborah, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for being here with us this morning. i have a question for you in regards to something i watch last month at the house, it was a vote, i believe you call that the hb one bill with immigrants coming in who are high-tech and have to sign a form saying that they will work for two thirds of what an american worker would get in the job. and, i need for you to explain to the american public how that possibly helps americans whose children's are just children are paying back college loans when you know that those jobs will be going to the lower paid workers.
they are just coming from another country. supporterl, i'm not a of expanding. that is the highest for skilled workforce. we are seeing stores across this country where they have hired and requireome in americans to train them and then left the americans and put to work cheaper workers from the other countries. usa wrote anrom article a few years ago. why is it that the eastern shore has a stronger connection to poland? plenty of workers are here right now. and, yet, they are recruited to work along the shore areas. that goes on and hotels across this country. that there opinion of 100 to million americans
working age or simply not in the workforce. it is around 94.6 million. there suddenly not the workforce. quite 9to that not million are also unemployed, ofn, if you look at people all ages, 16 years old and upcoming take that down to 74. sell, from that age on down, it eliminates those who are physically or mentally disabled and cannot work, you still have 82 million americans who are not the workforce. that is the workforce of americans we can reach into philadelphia have this country. anybodyo not believe really believes 11 million illegals are in america. it is probably above 20 million. and, seven out of 12 of them have a job. when you force immigration laws, you are opening up millions of jobs for others to do that work.
we know the law supply and demand. there is a hard law supply and demand. so, if the demand for labor goes up, so do wages and benefits. we have plenty of people who can do this sitting on the couch. host: thank you congressman. th>> washington journal continu. us now is tim ryan from ohio. a member of the budget committee. we'll be discussing the massive defense budget that will reach the house for next week. congressman, thank you for joining us. of this us an overview budget. what should we be looking out for specifically? guest: we are talking about dealing with all the complexities in the world. all our citizens are here to recognize where we are.
obviously, we have many problems in the middle east. turkey,n syria, iraq, refugee influx come into those regions, and over into europe. we have china expanded in the south china sea, which is an issue that needs to be dealt with. we have russia once again involved in the middle east in a way that they have not been for a while. we have issues with north korea, iran testing missiles, and really pushing the envelope wherever they can. wes bill is about how do address all these major issues? and, how do we have the strength that we need to be able to deal personnelaling with on the ground. how to make investments into our claims and planes and trucks and satellites and all of the technical expertise that we need
, whether it is ballistic missile's or ballistic missile defense, and, how do we make sure we take care of our soldiers? all these different areas need to be addressed. also, we're doing the research to make sure we have the technology as we move forward. all of this is in the package. that is why, inevitably, a gets as big as it does. it is a package of 575 million dollars spending bill. a little bit more about that from this piece from the hill, earlier this week is that it would provide more can you talk a little about the
base operations versus the other part of the object and why that's important? guest: this is a big problem. we have been doing this with continuing resolutions and shutting down the government in the past and they have been detrimental to the entire federal budget but in particular to the military. one of the things the military needs consistency. they need a consistent budget with long-term projections in the budget for training, for example. we have men and women flying missions now in iraq and syria but we also need them to be trained for missions that may be in china or russia or maybe and the korean peninsula. we need training happening and we need equipment to happen. you cannot go to boeing or lockheed martin or someone who makes airplanes for you and say
we have enough money until april of next year but then we've got to do this all over again. there is no long-term projection because of the gridlock in washington. i think we are doing a real disservice to the men and women fighting on our behalf and we are doing a real disservice to our long-term, short, midterm, and long-term shenanigans. the countryefend and have an awesome responsibility around the world. i just got back from the persian gulf a few weeks ago. see the reliance upon the united states in that region whether it's israel or the united arab emirates or any of these other countries in the persian gulf, they rely on us. if we are going to be relied upon, we better have our stuff together budget terribly, strict rily as we move
forward. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] timre talking with host: ryan about the budget bill and his recent travels overseas. democrats can call in. republicans can call in. and independence -- you mentioned you took a trip overseas visiting several middle east countries. where did you go and what was the purpose? guest: the general purpose was to look at our missile defense issues not in the united states but how we help countries in that region. anytime you going to the middle east, it's more complicated than just one issue. we went to israel. we went to united arab emirates,
and we wentbahrain to the uss harry truman who are flying sorties and dropping bombs in that region. we went into iraq. barwent into baghdad and an province to me with soldiers and sunni leaders in the northwest portion of that region. these are very complicated issues but people rely on the united states. or making's equipment sure our men and women are properly trained, whether or not our airplanes are in the kind of condition they should be in and the most powerful military in the world, do we have enough we are doing with cyber security kim again our message out because iran is getting their message out in that region.
it's trying to completely understand all of the intricacies of what's going on in that region. that these thinking kind of moves that the republicans are making now are really a disservice to the men and women on the ground out there. host: you expressed for -- support for increasing operations in the middle east and recently the obama administration increased by 250 the number of special operations forces. that has drawn some concerns among some of your more dovish colleagues including representative barbara lee --
do you think the authorization from congress is necessary and are you worried about mission creep? guest: i would like to see it but the president has the authority to make these decisions now. the alternative is we continue iraqiow syrian and fighters, isis fighters, to continue to take ground in iraq and then leave that area and come up through turkey and go west and plan attacks in western europe like we have seen or potentially in the united states. that is the alternative. i consider myself a piece loving human being. but when someone is trying to kill you, you've got to be aggressive and you have to be assertive.you have to be smart. you cannot just do it willy-nilly but you have to be aggressive and in this instance, it means special operations
forces and making sure we are helping the iraqis coordinate and work with the kurds and all the rest but we cannot be passive because if we just remove ourselves from the situation, we will leave an area for training. we will allow them to take more territory and they want to get here and i want to kill us. it's that simple. we've got to be very strategic. it also means development, soft power with development in this region and making sure we can build up their economies and be smart with education especially with women. that needs to be a piece of the strategy and we clearly spend a lot on war but we don't spend enough on the soft power that would really lead to long-term development in those regions. host: we are talking to congressman tim ryan, democrat from ohio, a member of the appropriations and budget committees about the defense spending bill.
and his recent trip to the middle east. up next we have may calling from ardmore, oklahoma on our independent line. caller: good morning. i am so glad that somebody is addressing this. -- there was a piece on fox news and our planes are older than the guys flying them. instead of getting the 18 hours they were supposed to have, they are getting 4. our military has been decimated. the ships have been decommissioned. we don't have what we had in world war i. there is something that's extremely important. i'm glad you said it. you don't want to let people in that kill us. the refugees coming in undercover knotting living -- not including cubans given a bag of cash for eight months which our veterans are not. heading we are furious what is happening with our military and
how the special forces are being overused. if you send them out on these missions were they are lowing people up all the time, they are not going to be there when we really need them for things only they can do. host: let's give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: i'm not sure what the question is but i agree. i think we are not doing the job the way it needs to be done right now. sequestration to where there were cuts in the military as well as domestic programs which are vitally important. since we are talking about the military, yes, i think we've got to make sure that we have the kind of equipment and technology and training necessary to be the leading world power. i knowrely on us and it's difficult and i know it would be easy to ban people from the country and build walls and pull the covers over your head in the morning and call for your mom.
that is the alternative. we are the united states. we have a responsibility. we have to help. look at what is going on the european union with regard to technology and trying to integrate their intelligence apparatus in the european union. they cannot do it. they have 35 organizations collecting data and they call the united states. keeping europe safe is about keeping us safe because people tend to leave europe and get to the united states if they can to commit a terrorist act. regardlessobligation of what happens, regardless of how we got here and how the car got into the ditch, now we got to get the car out of the ditch and that means stemming the tide in the middle east, making sure we have special operators and the force levels we need to rotate fresh troops in and out of there and have the technology and the planes in that region to stem the tide of them getting to orkey and then going west
getting out of syria and going west into europe and here. that is an awesome responsibility. i think our conversation in the united states right now politically especially on the republican side is not anywhere close to the maturity level of the actual challenges that are presented before our country today. talking about special operations forces, do you have a number in mind that smart? guest: the 250 number from the president is adequate and then let's see what it looks like. we have to constantly evaluate this and this is a military operation. you are reviewing this daily to see what is happening there. i am concerned that we need to have fresh troops there. we need to have fresh people there. i'm not saying we need more but the ones we have come i hope we withotate in and out shorter commitments from them.
soldierso think of our because we have respect to them that they are robots. they have families and bills and they are getting divorced, there are suicides. these are human beings we are dealing with. we need to make sure we treat them like human beings and not 5 rotations. we have to make sure the resources are there in the end strength level is there to deal with this in the way it needs to be dealt with. host: we are talking to congressman tim ryan about the defense spending bill and his recent trip to the middle east. jacqueline on our republican line from california. caller: hello. you are talking in line with everything donald trump has been saying and i agree with both of you. my father is a retired lieutenant colonel in vietnam.
i was a nurse for 22 years. my concern is, i watch the committee meeting yesterday. talked about mental health and suicide prevention. i hope there will be enough funding for this for when the veterans come back and help them. no doubt i agree. one of the caucuses that dealt with military mental health and i work with veterans a lot. there are alternative approaches we are not taking advantage of right now. i think we have to quickly defaulted on to what prescription drug we can give somebody. i have met more than one veteran over the years where they are on up to 12 prescription drugs and i think there are programs out there that are helping veterans
heal themselves. we just did a yoga session on capitol hill the other day with a veteran who came back with posed traumatic stress. he is an amazing guy and came back, double amputee, no legs. he found that practicing yoga helped him heal. here we are in the capital, a veteran who was kicking down doors not so many years ago in the middle east and is now helping other veterans get rid of their posttraumatic stress without medication, without high expenses, with a practice that's been around for a long time. how we cantalk about really reach out to these veterans and we have 22 that's per day killing themselves -- vets per day killing themselves. they have other modalities that we need to address and these vets who take on and try these
alternative actresses, they go from 12 meds a day down to one or two. factor that cost savings into a long-term budget at the va and we will have more money for mental health, prevention, treatment, addiction, recovery for the vets if we are smart about it. host: the hearing on veterans affairs can be seen on www.c-span.org if you want to see more of that. line,t on the democratic anthony from st. paul, minnesota. caller: good morning, i am glad we started talking about vets. i have been a vet for 37 years. it took me that long to get the disability from the va. have more accountability and we need to take care of the vets when they are here. all i keep hearing about is
people talking about war. in 37 years, i have never met any vet with more than 10% disability and it's ridiculous that a vet serving the country has to take out of his own pocket to give money to a doctor or an evaluation that can cost thousands of dollars when he was presumably hurt serving the country. if this was the private sector and it was workmen's comp., it would not happen. it is absolutely ridiculous. the other thing i want to say is this thing about the mental illness, when you get 10% disability, it's $1500 per year, you cannot live in anything but a tent so you see a lot of people out here. why don't we address that? host: let's give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: i agree, we have a slightly different experience. in my congressional district,
more than 10% and sometimes a lot more that you are talking about. a lot of that comes through my office. people call for help and we work closely with the veterans service groups locally. there is some level of success getting that number up for a lot of our vevts. your point is we are not doing enough in your absolutely right. we need to do more especially with regard to mental health and mental illnesses, posttraumatic stress, the kind of things these veterans are dealing with. in the bills we are passing this week with regard to the heroin epidemic, there are programs in their that are geared toward helping veterans like the veterans court initiative where we can diverge that to someone who has a drug problem and commits a crime but instead of going to jail, they are diverted into programs.
we are starting one in trumbull county and that's a great thing happening. the judges are helping us in the mahoney valley region with diversion programs. they are great alternatives. the vets should not be thrown into jail. they have a problem and i got that problem probably from serving our country. we want to make sure the folks with mental in the get the kind of treatment they need. host: we are talking about the defense spending bill, one portion as we noted earlier will call for women to register for the draft in 2018. it's a step toward the day that young americans of both genders can be subject to a draft. do you support that measure? serve,if women want to they have to be eligible like everyone else. i think it's a step toward equality. host: up next on our independent line, chuck from saint
augustine, florida. um - we have been there for 16 years now. and we still don't know who the hell our allies are. israel took care of these people and fought the mall in six days and wiped them out. this place is a cesspool over there. you say we need more money for arms. we supply 80% of the arms in the whole middle east. then -- excuse me, i lost my train of ought. -- of thought. host: do you want to respond? guest: i understand the sentiment, i really do. it's frustrating. i get it.
the cold war was frustrating. the hot war was frustrating. do reality is we have to what we need to do now to fromnt really bad people wanting to come to the united states and kill us. that means trying to stop them where they are now so that they cannot make her wait back over here. if we don't take a strong position on that, as complicated as it may be and try to do it as intelligently as we can, and we are going to open the door for them to come here. there is no other way to do it and we are looking for other options area trying to stop there -- them there when they are training and taking over territory, in iraq and syria is where we need to be. with the conjunction
other troops that are there from iraq and syria or whatever helping us do it. , we coordinated and provide special operations so it's essential for us to be there. host: let's look at the presidential race. you support secretary hillary clinton. does it concern you that the democratic primary is still in sightwith no end and we see republicans yesterday getting together in an effort to unify and look forward to november. good i.thinkk it's the primaries can be good and secretary clinton is starting to hit her stride. with 3h is in her favor million votes over bernie sanders and she has the delegates and the superdelegates. she will be the nominee, there is no question about it. bernie sanders is bringing in people that are interested in what he is saying and doing and i think that will be great because we will need all hands on deck as we move into the fall. we will be able to unite the party and you are already hearing ernie center say things
like hillary clinton can beat donald trump and we cannot allow donald trump to be president of the united states. if you look at donald trump in the context of everything we just talked about, the complexities, the details, the knowledge, you look at hillary clinton, she can go into any region of this globe and know who the players are and know the dynamic and i trust her. i trust her judgment and ability to get things done. i trust her to be a good president and help position us to stay in be a strong country. host: you wrote a piece in support of her saying she is best for ohio manufacturing. the polls show heard a dead heat in ohio with donald trump. she has had some trouble resonating with some of the working class folks. are you concerned about that? you either run scared or
you run unopposed so we will run hard and everyone has their game face on but she one ohio and be bernie sanders there and beat him 55-45 among union households and did well. manufacturing help her do well. it's not like there is a steel mill around 40 years ago but it's about the future. over the years in ohio, we have had politicians go through making big promises about how they will bring this or that job back. hillary clinton won ohio. she talked about manufacturing. she talked about clean energy. she did not talk about clean energy in the context of global warming but that is important. she talked about in the context of if you build a windmill, there is eight housing component parts. ande is a mile of rebar concrete and gearshift and hydraulic, there is steel.
that will be made right here in the united states of america. the maintenance of the windmill, states,re in the united the grid right here that needs upgrading and the batteries made in the united states. if you look at a place like germany, it has about 370,000 removal jobs right now. they are projected to have about 500,000 in 2020 and they are projected to have 700,000 renewable jobs in 2030. hillary clinton is saying i have a plan, a real plan in my clean energy program, to make sure the united states is ahead of germany, head of china where 2/3 of the solar panels are made. we will make them in the united states and we will make them in regions that used to have steel, used to have coal. we will drive these new industries, this new manufacturing, into the regions that need it the most.
she has real plans to do that and that's why she one ohio. host: up next we have richard calling in from massachusetts on our independent line. ryan, do you know the speaker of the house? the speaker of the house is paul ryan but there is lots of confusion. host: do you have a question? do you ever have a conversation with tim ryan? guest: i am tim ryan and i have lots of conversations caller: i mean paul ryan. guest: yes. caller: my question is, i'm retired. i travel all over the country. objectives is that it seems like you want the police to be on the people's officersthere are some that need to watch out what the
word control is and how to treat people. host: we are talking about the defense budget. did you have a defense related -- caller: i'm talking about the defense in military and defense in how you treat yourself when you never been to a particular state. it seems a little bit uncomfortable because you don't know what the rules of engagement are. host: ok, i'm not sure i understand the question. do you want to give it one more shot? caller: i want to know how you can trust the people -- say you go to california and you have never been. how do you know the people are really with you questio? host: we will go on to sun city, california on our democratic line. do you have a question? kidsr: yes, i have three
who are currently serving right now. one will retire in about three years and has been going to school. he is going into debt because of school. all the military spending, what about helping them out with their student debt? it would be beneficial for the family when he gets out. give me a thought on that, thank you. guest: i think it's great. we have the g.i. bill that can help pay. i might recommend giving your have congressman a call or your son give their local congressman a call and see how they can be helpful with getting him plugged into the g.i. bill. host: up next we have russ calling in from clarkston, michigan on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. ryan, i see you seem to be a pretty upstanding young man.
i have a son that's in the army. about -- young sound like what donald trump has been going on. wondering how far mrs. clinton will tear down our military like the president right now has. her husband closed tons of bases in the 1990's. why do you think 250 special ops forces -- they cannot handle this job on their own. to helpother forces these people getting their heads cut off. we had sequestration that because ofhe pike his big demand to try to balance the budget in the short term,
getting out of the financial crisis. in my estimation, it was not the proper way to do it. those were agreed upon between democrats and republicans. the deep cuts in the budget over all were being pushed in many ways by the republican party. there is a lot of blame to go around there. here we are now and i think hillary clinton will be very interested in making sure that the technology equipment and training is being able to be funded and executed because we need that for the war on terrorism and these other challenges we have like china and russia and these other areas. that is really important. the 250 special ops forces are not doing hand-to-hand contact. -- combat. they are cordoning airstrikes and working and training the iraqis and syrians and others
who are interested in fighting on our team against isis. they are there to help coordinate and lead as opposed to straight ground forces. we have had two people comment on this, the bombast from donald trump is not a solution to the challenges we face right now. it's got to be an intricate and thoughtful and detailed, understanding the complexities of this issue to put a game plan together to move us forward. host: "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday, amy goodman, co-author of the book "democracy now," and
host and executive producer of democracynow.org, will discuss independent media and its role in the candidacy for 2016. and the president of judicial watch. the group has filed multiple lawsuits in the clinton e-mail case. he will talk about the latest developments. watch c-span's washington journal saturday morning. join the discussion. on "american history tv" on c-span3 -- therefore, this committee has undertaken such an investigation. americar: on "raillery -- on "real america," a committee to investigate the cia , the irs, and the nsa. the commission questions staffers, detailing fbi abuses
including attempted intimidation of martin luther king jr.. >> painted, there's -- king, there's only one thing left for you to do. you have 30 days left to do it. it was 34 days before the war. you are done. announcer: then, james adams admits to some of the excesses ofle defending a number other fbi practices. then at 8:00, on "lectures and history" -- see hundreds. they are the first seeing patterns or shifts in how people are going out of the world. they are the ones who sounded the alarm. ofouncer: the university georgia professor on the role of a coroner and how they shed light on the emerging patterns of death within a society and spot potential threats to public health.
at 6:30, john kerry, who later served in the vietnam war and local -- and later became a vocal opponent, shared his views on the war at the lyndon b. johnson library in austin, texas. secretary kerry: our veterans did not receive the benefits nor the treatment that they not only deserved, but needed. and the fundamental contract between soldier and government was not honored. announcer: 10 at 8:00, on the presidency -- >> what other person sitting at home on the tv watched reagan deliver the speech? it was dwight eisenhower. he immediately called his former attorney general and said, what a fine speech. former speciala assistant and said, what an excellent speech ronald reagan had delivered. dwight eisenhower wrote back a multi-step political plan for
ronald reagan to follow. reagan would follow eisenhower's advice to the letter. ofouncer: an investigation dwight d. eisenhower's behind-the-scenes mentoring of ronald reagan, and the critical role former president played in reagan's revolution. for more, go to c-span.org. announcer: c-span.org is a video-rich complement to your c-span viewing. most of our government related programs stream live on the site. if you are away from your television, you can watch on your desktop, laptop, even your smartphone or tablet. c-span archives all of its programs on live in the c-span video library, so if you miss an episode of "washington journal" or any program, you can find it online and watch at your convenience. in fact, the library contains 200,000 hours of
c-span programs, and its powerful search engine helps you find and watch programs going back many years. to watch on your television, c-span publishes its on-air schedule for networks and its radio station. c-span.org is a public service. if you are a c-span watcher, check it out. >> treasury secretary jack lew discusses the global economies that shot a breakfast hosted by the "christian science monitor." this is moderated by david cook. it is just under one hour.
secretary jacob lew. his last visit here was in july 2015, and we appreciate his coming back before his trip next week to anchorage and then to the g-7 foreign ministers' meeting in japan. our guest flirted with a journalism career while he was the editor of the forest hills high school "beacon." he evidently thought better of it and while in college caught the washington bug working for representatives bella abzug and joe moakley, earned a bachelor's degree at harvard and a law degree at georgetown. between 1979 and 1987, he learned politics from a master in his role as principal policy advisor for the house speaker tip o'neill. as a speak assistant to president clinton in 1993 and 1994, our guest played a key role in helping design americorps. he was later deputy director and then director of omb. between 1998 and 2001, when he led the clinton budget team, the united states government posted a surplus for three consecutive years. he was chief operating officer of new york university and then chief operating officer for two different citigroup business units before joining the obama administration in 2009 as deputy secretary of state for
management and resources. he became omb director in november 2010, white house chief of staff in january 2012, and treasury secretary in february of 2013. thus endeth the biographical portion of the program. now on to the riveting mechanical details. as always, we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. the embargo ends when our guest stops speaking. to allow you to file before the market opening, we will stop at 9:20. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures at the end of the session to all the reporters here as soon as the breakfast -- ends, and, as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on as many reporters as we can get to in the time we have this morning with secretary lew. we are going to start by
offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments, and then we will move to questions around the table. thanks again for doing this, sir. appreciate it. mr. lew: thanks so much. thanks for having me this morning. i feel like i'm 90 years old after hearing that biography. i wanted to touch on two things just at the top and go to questions. and i will start with domestic and talk about the g-7 a bit. domestically, what i want to talk about is puerto rico. we have been working very hard to try and address the growing crisis in puerto rico. it is not a crisis of the future. it is a crisis of the present. i was there on monday, and i saw firsthand with some of you what is going on right now for about 3.5 million americans who live in puerto rico. i mean, there are children's units where 2-week-old babies are waiting for dialysis because dialysis has to be ordered cash on delivery with wire transfers on a daily basis to keep
supplies in the hospital. it is not a future crisis. it is a current crisis. we saw schools that start out in terrible conditions where deferred maintenance is raising questions about basic safety. there is a solution. the solution is that puerto rico needs to restructure its debt. puerto rico does not have the ability to do that without legislative action, and we have been working on a bipartisan basis trying to reach agreement so that puerto rico can get the tools it needs to get its fiscal house in order, to have an oversight authority that makes sure that puerto rico stays on a fiscally sustainable path. time is very short. the conversations have been making good progress, but they need to go from making progress to crossing the finish line, and that means that there needs to be a restructuring and it has to be a restructuring that works. it cannot be something that is just called a restructuring. let me shift, if i can, to the international and talk a bit
about the meetings we are going to be having next week in sendai, japan. you know, it seems like every time we approach these meetings it's the right time for finance ministers around the world to be getting together. i think right now it is particularly so given the tremendous need to make sure that we all stay focused on growing global demand, using all the policy tools that we have to accomplish that and, equally, to refrain from the kinds of things that could be harmful to the global economy, things like exchange rate policies that are getting the world into a place where you go from market-determined exchange rates to competitive devaluation. we have strong agreement in shanghai where the g-20 countries agreed to refrain from competitive devaluation. it is very important that that be reiterated at the meeting we have with g-7 finance ministers.
a number of important and timely issues, ranging from the vote in the united kingdom on brexit to resolution of the greek debt problems, terrorist financing, cyber security, and financial regulation. i look forward to another productive set of meetings, but, as i say, i think it is an important moment for finance ministers to check in with each other personally. why don't i stop there, and happy to go to questions. mr. cook: let me do two quick ones and then we will go around the table. i've got a list of folks i'll read as soon as i do mine. you made your trip to puerto rico, the second of this year, and obviously, you have spoken about it very strongly this morning. do you have any news to share with us this morning about progress in terms of getting something through congress before the july 1 deadline for their $2 billion payment? mr. lew: look, i think there is progress being made. i think that the discussions continue to go forward. you have democrats and
republicans in congress trying to reach agreement, but you have a lot of forces on the process that make it challenging. there are a lot of individual interests that are making their views very clearly known, and i keep stressing to all the decision-makers that this is only going to work as a solution if it is a solution that is in the public interest, if it is in the interest of 3 1/2 million americans who live in puerto rico, if it is in the interest of having a stable financial outcome. i believe that is possible. i do not want to say that we are 100% there because obviously the talks are still underway. our team has provided an enormous amount of technical input, and the leaders, particularly in the house on both sides, are engaged. i do believe it is a good-faith conversation. i do believe that there is an understanding that there is a crisis in puerto rico, and i hope that this is successful.
what i know is the only way to solve the problem is for congress to act. so the time is now, and the stakes are quite high. mr. cook: let me ask you one other -- it won't surprise you -- it will veer into trump land -- you asked -- you said that it's -- the finance ministers should refrain from the kind of things that could be harmful. how much have you heard from your fellow ministers and or how much do you expect to hear about comments regarding renegotiating the u.s. debt and economic downturn, holding down the value of the dollar, or printing dollars to avoid defaulting on the debt? mr. lew: so i'm not going to comment on the political debate. one of the attributes of being treasury secretary is you do not engage in politics. one of the things you do as treasury secretary is spend a lot of time making sure that we have the deepest, most liquid markets in the world, that our treasuries are the definition of safety. and that is something i have devoted the last three-plus years of my time to doing.
it is what i will continue to do. i think the rush to safety when you see it in markets goes to dollars. dollars are the definition of safety. we have spent hundreds of years building that reputation, and is an important element of our economic and national security. mr. cook: we are going to go now to a reporter from bloomberg, sam fleming of the "financial times," kevin hall of "mcclatchy," heather scott of market news, jackie needham of "the hill," zack warmbrodt of politico, jon sopel of bbc, john gizzi from newsmax, and don lee from the "l.a. times," and laura barron-lopez of huff post, to start. >> hi. you are heading to china next month for the strategic dialogue for the economic relationship, and i would like to ask, against the backdrop of slowing global growth, china's increasing clout, and the u.s.' slight pivot toward a harder line toward china, what are the challenges you think the u.s. faces in regards to this relationship over the
course of the next year? mr. lew: i think that the u.s.-china relationship -- i will limit myself to discussing the economic relationship -- but the u.s.-china economic relationship is one of the most important economic relationships in the world. we are the two largest economies in the world. the global economy will do well if we do well. it will suffer if we suffer. we have made clear in our dealings with china that they have to take steps that are good for china, but also good for the global economy, that there is a responsibility that comes with being one of the two largest economies in the world. i think we have made progress in the economic discussions, but we have a lot more progress to make. i believe that the chinese economic policymakers understand quite clearly what they need to do to have a strong economic path for the future. i think their challenges, not surprisingly, are political, not analytic.
they know that having excess capacity that is distorting both chinese and global markets is not a sustainable economic path. on the other hand, they also have the challenge of how do you reduce that capacity and manage the human consequence of millions of jobs being lost. i am encouraged by the fact that the economic policy experts there are not doing it because they think we want them to do it, they are pushing it because they believe it is in china's economic interest. i do not take enough comfort to stop pressing because i think these are hard -- china is in the middle of one of the most difficult economic transitions that any country has ever gone through. to stay on the course of reform, to stay on the course of opening to market pressures, both in terms of exchange rates and goods and services, is going to be very hard.
i think that we have to continue to press as we meet at the strategic and economic dialogue and in other settings, and, you know, we have made progress, we will continue to make more, but it's going to require ongoing engagement. mr. cook: we are going to go to sam fleming from the "financial times." >> good morning. a couple of questions, if i may. one interpretation -- mr. cook: let's start with one just until we get around, and then have a followup, maybe. >> one interpretation being put on donald trump's comments about the dollar is that he no longer believes in a strong dollar policy and would move to a more competitive approach on currency. would that be the wrong path, and does that make it harder for you in your dialogue with other ministers when you have a presidential candidate making these kinds of comments? mr. lew: i speak for the administration based on the policy of this administration, echoing policies that have been consistent u.s. policies for quite a long time. you know, i think we have watched over the last couple
of years where the u.s. economy's relative strength compared to other economies has led to a stronger dollar. the answer is for other economies to strengthen. it's for regions like europe, countries like china and japan to take the steps that they need to take to have their economies producing enough demand and enough economic activity so that the exchange rates naturally equilibrate through market mechanisms. we have urged -- and "urged" is a soft word -- we have exhorted countries to adhere to the commitments that we have made in the g-7 and the g-20, because if other countries start moving towards competitive devaluation, it will start a chain reaction, and if country a does it, country b will do it, country c will do it, and pretty soon you
are in a battle over shares of a shrinking global pie. that will not help the global economy. it will not help the u.s. economy. i believe that message has been very much embraced at the g-7 and the g-20. really, since 2013, we have had strong agreements, and we have seen countries keep their agreements. we have also been very clear that if we see countries deviate from the agreements, it would be a very damaging thing and it is something that would do real harm to the global economy and to relations. so that's the position we have taken. it's the position we are taking. and as i said earlier, i'm not going to comment on any political things. >> do you want to do a followup before we go ahead, go to the next -- >> if i would, that would be great. it was actually more specifically on japan, if that is possible, and currency policies. clearly, you gave a very strong signal to the japanese at the imf spring meetings that markets
were orderly and that it was not an appropriate time for them to be intervening. do you think that message has been heard, and what will your message be at the g-7 meetings on the same topic of the yen-dollar situation? mr. lew: you know, i addressed the issue just a few weeks ago. my view has not changed. i think that the challenge in japan is a much deeper economic challenge. japan needs to bring all of its policy tools to bear. they have had a long period of economic challenge, either negative growth or flat growth. and part of the problem is they have not brought to bear all the tools, fiscal policy, monetary policy, and structural reform. they have used the tools, but have not done them in a coordinated way. you know, we have urged japan over the years to try to bring those efforts together. i think it is reflected in the policies that prime minister abe
has announced in the three arrows. we have seen alternately more emphasis on one arrow than another, but an awful lot of emphasis has been on the monetary arrow. fiscal policy, you know, they have real challenges. they have a deficit -- a debt of roughly 200% of gdp. on the other hand, if they put the brakes on fiscal policy too soon, it will have a very negative impact, and they need to have a medium- and long-term approach to bringing their debt under control, but not to bring on short-term economic decline. structural reform is an area that has been very slow to make progress. one of the major elements of structural reform is really contained in the tpp, the pacific partnership, where they would undertake reform of their agricultural sector as part of their tpp commitments. i think it is one of the reasons why it is so important to maintain our unity in pressing forward on having the
implementation of the agreement, but japan needs to do it for its own sake. they cannot just rely on one of the levers. they need to use all of them. so my view on japan has remained the same. >> kevin hall from mcclatchy. >> i was prepared to ask several questions -- [indiscernible] the two-pronged question about the panama papers and what keeps you up at night, separate from that. on the panama papers, why did you choose -- or, more broadly, beneficial ownership -- why did you choose not to support the existing legislation on the hill that is there, that goes -- most people think goes deeper than what yours does, and who is going to carry it, your water, on the hill, who is going to push this new obama proposal on the hill? and then on the what keeps you up at night, the front page of "the new york times" today talks about swift, the second breach of the swift code, the swift system, rather. were you aware of this? how concerning is it? and hedge funds losses are also piling up.
how much does that trouble you -- mr. cook: that's three. >> three related questions. mr. lew: so let me start with the question about beneficial ownership. we have, i believe, been one of the leaders in the world in making strides towards transparency in tax and beneficial ownership issues. we passed faca with congress and created a standard globally for the sharing of tax information so we could get at the question of tax evasion that is associated with the concern over beneficial ownership. countries around the world are adopting that standard. we actually need more legislation in the united states in order for us to be able to exchange information fully, so we have gone from being the leader to now needing to take steps to make sure we can take the meaningful next step to make that regime most effective. on beneficial ownership, we
issued rules last week which, using authorities that we have under existing law, do a great deal to give us the ability to get more information on who the ultimate owners of various things are. on the legislative front, it is not a new proposal. we have been proposing legislation for some time. we very much want to work with congress to come up with an approach that will have bipartisan support, and enact it, because there's limits to what we can do using administrative authority. and i hope that the focus on this issue, which is not new for treasury and it's not new for the administration, but is somewhat expanded in terms of global discussion, creates an opportunity for us to make progress on that issue, even this year. you know, i am asked what keeps me up at night, and i have to say, given the days i lead, i sleep at night. so i never can answer that
question in its literal form. i think we live in a world with considerable tail risks, and that is why you see, i think, volatility in so many moments in the markets. i think it is a mistake to focus exclusively on risks, because i think that if you look at the base case, the base case is pretty strong. it's the u.s. economy is doing well. the global economy is continuing to grow. and we cannot define the risks as the base case. on the question of cyber security, we have focused on cyber security very closely. treasury is the lead agency in the financial sector. we work closely with industry in coordinating with the department of homeland security and other federal agencies as issues arise. we share information and get our hands around it. i am not going to not comment on any specific matter that is under investigation.
i am just not going to comment on any specific matter that is under investigation except to say that when i meet with ceo's, you know, it is telling that for myself and for them, this is one of the issues that we are on a daily basis aware of what is going on in the areas of our responsibility. that was probably not the case 10 years ago. i think this has reached a level where it is an issue that leaders of organizations have to focus on, and that is a message that gets down deep into the organizations, that when you have an issue, you have to resolve it. you can build your defenses up to a point, but you also have to have an ability to manage, because financial institutions like so many others are faced with thousands and thousands of challenges every day. when one gets through, you need to fix it and make it harder the next time. but we have to keep up with it. we do need to make sure that information sharing is in a
place where when a problem occurs, it is surfaced and shared so that others do not have the same exposure and so that you get to the root cause as quickly as possible. mr. cook: heather scott of market news. >> thank you. you mentioned that you want to see the g-20 -- or g-7 reaffirm its commitment to avoid competitive devaluations. this is something you said before, including -- mr. lew: we have achieved it, actually, at the last two meetings. >> correct. you said it before, because you mentioned it here in washington after the imf meetings. but you said it needs to be reaffirmed, which indicates you're concerned about possible slippage or -- in that commitment. what is the level of concern that the economic problems might lead to? mr. lew: look, i think that meetings are not just about communiques. meetings are about having frank conversations by the people who make these decisions. and in shanghai, there were two elements to the agreement. one was strong language agreeing
to refrain from competitive devaluation. the second was an agreement to communicate so that there would be no surprises amongst the g-20 countries. it is very important, because there can be no miscues and missed signals, and there are legitimate concerns that many g-7 and g-20 countries have about their own domestic economies. and we have been clear since the agreement was reached in 2013 that domestic tools that are used for domestic purposes, like our quantitative easing, are different than exchange rate targeting to gain competitive advantage. and that is just a very important conversation to keep fresh, because economic conditions do not remain static, the pressures are not the same from month to month and year to year. but the concern to have a stable global economy in a system where we are working together to try and increase growth and grow
demand and not taking actions that will have a contrary effect is very important, because when we have around the table the key finance ministers and central bankers of the largest economies of the world, the decisions we make actually have an impact. >> thank you -- [indiscernble] drawing in the markets, that that might be a real risk -- mr. lew: you know, i have been focused on this for the last 3 1/2 years. you can fill in the blank as to where the concern is based on what current events are. but it is a deep conviction. you know, one of the things that was part of passing the trade promotion authority in the house was giving us new authority to expand our foreign exchange report to look at the kind of leading indicators of what might be concerns in terms of currency practices. we put out our first report. it did not find that any country
had crossed all of the lines. but it put some kind of yellow lights up there which have caused a lot of, i think, constructive international discussion. i suspect i will have conversations about that. mr. cook: vicky needham from "the hill." >> just a quick followup on what dave asked you earlier. are you optimistic about this puerto rico bill going through the house since it kind of keeps getting delayed? and, two, how are things going with the financial services industry on the tpp provision that they have trouble with? are you optimistic that tpp will still get through this year in congress despite all the political rhetoric? mr. lew: so i think the substance is more important than the schedule as long as it gets done in time on puerto rico. i think rather than have a bill that there's not agreement on a day earlier, it is better to wait a day and try to reach agreement. so i would not confuse delaying a day with lack of progress. sometimes a delay can be a sign of progress if you're getting close to something. what the jury is still out on is
whether we will get to that point where we can all agree that there is a restructuring package that will work. our standard has been quite clear and quite simple. there has to be enough of the credit in the restructuring for the restructuring to work, and the mechanism has to be clear and certain enough that it will work. and there's a lot of technical detail behind it. but that is what we are struggling to achieve. there are a lot of stakeholders out there who do not want to have their debt part of the conversation. if they succeed in pulling their credit out, it might be called restructuring, but there's not enough on the table to effect a restructuring that works. so that is what this is really about, and it is not nothing unusual. i am not shocked that there are individual stakeholders who want to have a provision that protects their interests. but if those interests get protected, 3 1/2 million american citizens in puerto rico will not have an economic future. and that is what this is about.
we have to make sure this is in the public interest, not just in some private interest. that restructuring is not a radical idea. restructuring used to be considered a conservative idea. it is a way to avoid bailouts. it is a way for the people who have taken risks to bear the burden of their own risks. puerto rico is an unusual spot because as a territory it does not have access to any orderly restructuring process. the alternative to an orderly restructuring is a chaotic unwinding. that will hurt puerto rico, but it will also create risks. we have not had a chaotic unwinding of a municipality or a sovereign entity in the united states in a very long time. that is more of a risk to the kind of confidence markets than a restructuring is, because a restructuring will create confidence if there is a clear and sustainable path forward. so that is what we are trying to achieve. i do believe we're making progress. i do believe that there's a shared understanding that it is urgent.
we're not yet at the point where everybody is together. hopefully, we will continue to make progress even over the next days. time is of the essence because july 1, there is $2 billion of debt that comes due. and between now and then, the pain will increase in terms of day-to-day life in puerto rico, but come july 1, that will be a default of tremendous size. getting at credit with a character that is constitutionally protected, which will force the commonwealth to make very dire cuts. if this gets to the point where they cannot pay their police and fire, you will ratchet it to a whole new level of crisis. i did not get your second question -- mr. cook: tpp -- she wanted to ask about tpp -- mr. lew: can i take a minute on that? mr. cook: sure, and especially where you have both hillary clinton and trump saying negative things about it. mr. lew: on the data localization provision, which is
what you are really asking about, let me start by kind of just defining why it is challenging, but i believe there is a pathway forward. there are two competing positive objectives that i believe we share with, certainly, the regulators and most of the financial industry. one is data localization as a general principle is something we oppose because it is a nontariff barrier to try to create local jobs by having server farms in your country. in the financial services sector, there is a real need for domestic regulators to have access to information in real-time. and that is something that the industry recognizes and regulators feel very strongly about. there has been a history of where it has been a problem for regulators to get at data when they need it, even during our financial crisis. the challenge here is how to find a balance where regulators have the information they need when they need it, and you cannot have frivolous claims of
the need for data localization just in order to create a nontariff barrier. i believe there is a path forward. i have been working closely with the regulators. i have been working closely with the industry. you know, this is not a case of a radical difference of objective. it is just hard because it is technically a complicated area. and regulators i think appropriately are concerned that we not open up a space where in the next financial crisis they do not have access to the data that they need when they need it. we are working toward a solution and making real progress, and, you know, i do not believe it will ultimately be an issue that is an obstacle to making progress on tpp, which i believe we will get done this year. mr. cook: zack warmbrodt from politico. >> thank you. could you talk about how the united states is going to allow more investment in iran without allowing dollar clearing? and do you want to respond to the hsbc legal officers' op-ed
in "the journal" yesterday saying they plan to do no new business in iran? mr. lew: i think the policy of the u.s. government has been very clear. we have worked across the u.s. government to put the maximum pressure on iran for a long time to come to the table, to negotiate a resolution of the nuclear issues, and to get iran to step away from developing a nuclear weapon and to close all the pathways. we achieved that in the negotiations, and the purpose of sanctions is you put sanctions in place to get an outcome -- in this case, the nuclear agreement -- and then you have to remove the sanctions, or else there is no incentive for sanctions to produce the policy outcome that you are looking for. we have been very clear. i have been very clear. the nuclear sanctions were lifted on implementation day because iran complied and we complied. we make an agreement, we keep an agreement. that is critically important. we have gone around the world to
make clear what that means, what sanctions have been lifted, and what that permits. it is not our job to tell businesses what business decision to make. but it is our job to make sure they understand what the risks of sanctions are and what they are not. now, iran obviously continues to be subject to sanctions for other reasons. they are subject to sanctions for their support of terrorism, for their regional destabilization, for the human rights practices, and those are very important issues. we have continued to designate entities under that even in the last several weeks. that doesn't mean there is not a space where the lifting of the nuclear sanctions opens the possibility for firms to do business. that is the message we are conveying. there are different rules for u.s. firms than there are for international firms because we have an embargo and other countries do not have an embargo. and it is understandably a complicated terrain.
i believe that, you know, we have to keep our part of the bargain in the iran deal as long as iran keeps its part of the bargain, and i think we have to be clear in communicating that, but firms have to make their own decisions as to what level of risk they are willing to take and who they are prepared to do business with. mr. cook: we're going to go next to jon sopel from the bbc. >> can i ask you, your assessment of brexit and whether you think it could tip the u.k. economy into recession, and what headwinds it might produce for the global economy and the u.s. economy. mr. lew: you know, i have been clear in my comments over the last few months. the president was very clear in his comments recently when he was in the united kingdom. it is a decision for the people of the united kingdom to make, but our evaluation is that it is both economically and in terms of geopolitical stability in the best interests of europe and the
united states and the kind of global stability for the u.k. to stay in. we are talking a few minutes ago about the tail risks that are in the world. many of those tail risks are not economic. many of them are geopolitical. europe being stable and strong is a source of strength. europe being more challenged and threatened is a source of anxiety. one can get specific about what the economic consequences are. i know that her majesty's treasury has put out some analysis that i have looked at that suggests on a household basis there is substantial risk, that there will be shrinkage in u.k. economy. whether that drives you from growth to recession, i do not know. but we all in roles like mine look to try to grow economies grow household
income and to avoid policies that shrink economies and shrink household income. so it seems to me to have a powerful message there. the future of a negotiation like ttip offers a lot of benefit to europe and the u.k. i think there is a host of reasons why, from economic to geopolitical considerations, it is better for the outcome to be the u.k. staying in. but again, it is a decision the people of the u.k. have to make. mr. cook: john gizzi from newsmax for our next -- >> thank you, dave. mr. secretary, i know you said the secretary does not get involved in politics, he stays away. so would it probably be a waste of a question to ask how the credit markets and central banks internationally would react to a donald trump election? mr. lew: well, now you are in two areas i do not comment on. >> that is what i thought. but give it a try.
mr. cook: a sneaky way to get a third question. go ahead. >> third, ok. the other question i did want to ask was, you talked about the u.s. economy, the global economy growing, and yet the simple way of asking questions, why aren't americans shopping more? macy's has had a 60% drop in retail, as you probably have read, and americans are simply not shopping and purchasing right now. why, and will this change? mr. lew: well, first of all, i do not think that is an accurate description of u.s. consumer. we have seen from the beginning of this year a strong u.s. consumer. we have seen very strong automobile sales. we have seen strong retail sales. i am not going to comment on firm-by-firm earnings, but while we have been sitting here, the retail sales numbers come out, we will see what the latest numbers are. but the trend in retail sales has generally been quite positive. the u.s. economy is 85% consumer
driven. the consumer is driving the growth against pretty substantial international headwinds in terms of demand that is weak. so i actually think that both in the united states and globally the description of u.s. consumer as weak is not correct. you know, there are different experiences in different sectors and firm-by-firm experiences based on their businesses. i am not going to comment on that. but i do not think that that is an accurate portrayal of where the u.s. consumer is. >> don lee from the "l.a. times." >> the administration and your department in particular have issued a number of administrative actions, gulations -- [indiscernible] including protection -- mr. lew: i can't quite hear you. >> i wonder if there are more, especially consumer protection regulations, that you would be rolling out and what kind of legacy the administration would
have on terms of defending consumer protection? and then, and if i may, mr. secretary, on puerto rico, i wonder if you have concerns about the rescue package, what implications or what precedent that it may have for a state like illinois, which is in dire financial straits? mr. lew: in terms of consumer protections, there are many parts of the government that address that, but we are particularly focused on at treasury is the consumer financial protection bureau how important the work that it does is. there was not an agency before the creation of cfpb that watched out for consumer interests the way cfpb does. if you get a mortgage today and you see the documents that go along with that mortgage, people can read them and understand them. they could not before. there are practices that contributed to the financial crisis that may not have happened if people understood
what they were buying and what they were committing to. i think the cfpb in so many areas has done important work, and not just that it has done important work, it has done work that has been widely seen as constructive by both consumer and even business groups, that i find somewhat perplexing and confusing the attacks on the cfpb that continue. we will continue to defend the work that is done there and the agency and resist attempts to roll back something that we think has just been incredibly important, and i think director cordray has done an extraordinary job establishing the cfpb with a high standard of quality of work and outcomes that make a difference in a way that actually, when you talk to people in business privately, they are pretty impressed by. in terms of puerto rico and the precedents, i do not believe that there is a risk of this
being something that triggers the kind of reaction that some of the very deceptive advertising has created fears of. first of all, the markets understand that puerto rico is different than other municipal credits. the spreads for puerto rico credit have not been spilling over into other issues. in the municipal market, credits are looked at really within the four corners of the risk that investors are considering. as far as whether this is a precedent for states, the legislation is territorial legislation. it does not apply to states. the territories are exempt from our current restructuring laws because of a provision that frankly has no legislative history, that it is hard to get an explanation of why. and i think that the lack of a restructuring authority in puerto rico is something that has to be fixed.
if you are a governor, you have quite a lot of tools at your disposal to solve a debt problem and an economic problem. a territory by virtue of its size and the scope of options available is fundamentally different. it has a status that is unique, and at the moment it is neither fish nor fowl. it does not have the tools that a state has. it does not have the tools that his city has. if congress does not respond and give puerto rico the ability to restructure its debt, the only alternative it has is a chaotic unwinding, and then question of a bailout will be presented, and i do not see any support for a bailout, which means the only solution in puerto rico is orderly restructuring. i do not believe there is a governor in this country who would voluntary step in to the kind of oversight and challenges that is involved in what puerto rico will go through if this
legislation, when this legislation is passed, you know, because they have a different kind of tax base, they have a kind of spending base. mr. cook: we've got about eight minutes left -- mr. lew: and excuse me, puerto rico is unique in terms of the amount of debt it has and the extent of the insolvency. mr. cook: got about eight minutes left. we're going to go to laura barron-lopez of huffington post. >> hi, thank you. going back to iran for a second, they suggested that u.s. primary sanctions have prevented them from accessing frozen assets, and i am just wondering is there any consideration of granting them access to u-turn transactions to address that? mr. lew: yeah, we have not given any daylight on this question of u-turns. i think you have to distinguish u-turns from foreign banks doing business in dollars. the dollar is the world's reserve currency. financial transactions in financial institutions around the world take place in dollars. that is very different than a
u-turn where our financial system is part of the transaction. and i think some of the opponents of the iran deal have tried to conflate the two. you know, as long as the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, it will be used in financial systems other than the united states. that is very different than opening the u.s. financial system. mr. cook: david lawder from reuters. >> thanks, dave. i just want to come back to the swift network. is the swift network safe? has the treasury tested it and did you find that it is secure? also, on the g-7, a lot of these countries are having very much difficulty with china's imports from china right now. a lot of their overcapacity is coming to their shores, including ours. what sort of message will the g-7 have for china, given that china really will not be at the table. mr. lew: i am not comment on any of the specific investigations that are going on now regarding the cyber issues other than to say that every time there is an incident, it is taken very
seriously by all of the relevant authorities, and there's no exception here. in terms of china and its impact on markets, we obviously have conversations in different groups at different times. we are going to be meeting at the g-7 next week. just a couple of weeks later, we will be in china for our strategic and economic dialogue, and later in the summer in july, will be back in china for another g-20 meeting. we will have many occasions over the next several months to continue this conversation in appropriate settings. you know, i think that the impact of china on the global economy has different ramifications depending on what your economy is doing. if you are an emerging market, the impact is largely the slowing of demand for commodities.
if you are a manufacturing economy, it is a question of whether chinese economic conditions are distorting global markets like steel. i think there's a pretty broad concern that china's overcapacity in things like steel and aluminum is distorting global markets. that's why there has been so much focus in bilateral conversations with china on the need to continue the reform program and to put in place policies that will start to shrink the excess capacity. and in the week after that g-20 meeting in shanghai, china had a meeting of its national people's congress where they unveiled policies that would shrink their excess capacity. the challenge now is to implement those policies and to do it in a way that is effective. they will have to worry about the human impact, you know, just as when we talk about trade policies, we talk about things like trade adjustment
assistance. they will have to take some measures to cushion the blow for workers, but it cannot be by propping up industries that are producing excess capacity or it will backfire. now, they have to take the steps in their system, which is complicated, because the state- owned enterprises and the local governments and the social structure are all closely connected. but it is not all that complicated. if they do not reduce excess capacity, they won't stop distorting global markets. mr. cook: we're going to go next to ian talley of "the wall street journal." >> thank you. there has been some disagreement, it seems, between tokyo and washington over the yen's movement. you have said it is orderly. tokyo has said it is disorderly. "disorderly" is the appropriate term for intervention under the g-7 agreement. do you think if tokyo were to intervene now, would it be an inappropriate intervention? would it be competitive devaluation?
and, secondly, on greece and its debt, the imf has been pushing for a credible program that adds up. is there risk that a compromise between germany and athens could breach this credibility exercise, not getting enough debt relief, not having credible exercises on a fiscal policy? is the u.s. going to support only a credible exercise? mr. lew: i think on the question of exchange rate policy, we have been crystal clear about our views, and, more importantly, we have strong agreements in the g-7 and the g-20. japan is a signatory to those understandings. they have kept their commitments. it is important for all countries who make commitments in the g-7 and g-20 to keep them, and we will continue to have discussions. it is important, as i said earlier, that one of the things we agreed to was to consult with
each other so there would be no surprises. on the question of greece, i believe that debt relief is a critically important part of the conversation. the time for that is now. it should not be put off. greece is enacting legislation to implement very difficult provisions of the program that they agreed to. they have more steps to take. i have made it clear to greece that they need to continue to take the steps that they have committed to. but i have very much indicated to all of the parties that we believe that debt relief is necessary. i think the imf has been advocating a number of things, both in terms of the need for debt relief, but also they have argued that the targets for savings are too high, that you have a tension here where some of the europeans are looking for very high savings, resisting debt relief, and in that world
it is a hard problem to solve. there will have to be some give in these conversations. i think that there is a space where the parties could agree. there is some optimistic news coming out of conversations that happened at the finance ministers' meetings this week, but, frankly, one of the topics that i will be talking to people about on the sidelines of the g-7 meeting next week is exactly where they are, because one of the things we have made clear is that it is just not going to be a good thing for the global economy or for geopolitical stability for there to be a repeat of the kind of dramatic crisis that we have seen in greece in the past. you know, particularly at a time when you are approaching a vote in the u.k. on brexit, it would be a very unfortunate moment to have another round of high-wire
negotiations on greece. all the parties have said that they believe this can be resolved in may. i have yet to see where that point of agreement is, but, obviously, i hope next week to -- that we see the signs of progress there. mr. cook: we are at the time we agreed to stop. i want to apologize to colleagues who did not get a question, and i want to thank you, mr. secretary, for taking the time to do this. we really appreciate it. mr. lew: thank you. good to be with you. mr. cook: hope you come back. thank you, sir. [indiscernible]
>> we will have more on puerto rico's debt crisis on this week's newsmakers with our guest congressman rob bishop during the natural resources committee which is drafting a debt relief bill. here's a preview. >> you have tried several different versions of legislation to try to leave the territory with $70 billion in debt. is this something you think that you can get past? rep. bishop: yeah, all the versions that have been out there that people are referencing, the fundamental issue has always been the same. there needs to be some way of providing security so there will be an oversight board that will go down there, work with the government to come up with a plan in which they will get their financial house in order,
they will be able to pay off their debt and then they will work with the creditors who, by and large want to save puerto rico. they want to get their money back so they will be able to come up with that plan. the board will have the ability of making sure that plan is it hereto and followed through. that gives the security to the creditors so they can stay involved and they may have some readjustments or restructuring of the debts they have, most of it will be voluntary. we can get some kind of financial order going forward. that is based on precedent. it has been done in the past. i'm confident it will work here. the basic concept of what we want to do has been agreed to by everybody that is a player. i think regardless of what the final version is, that basic structure will be there. >> is the something -- you have had a lot of opposition from different sides and it has been not to the central structure of the bill but to smaller parts. creditors are concerned they
will not be a priority. democrats in congress are concerned about a couple of provisions involving lowering minimum wage for younger workers. what compromises have you made to some of these people who are concerned about this bill and do you think that your final version will be able to make it through congress? >> each draft was a compromise. the common bond is the underlying assumptions that there will be no bailout, they -- there will not be government money going down there, taxpayers will be held harmless but everyone will get paid. the investors will get paid whether it is pensions or the bonds, the ones that are general obligation bonds, all those will be made whole and property rights will be respected and the constitution of puerto rico will be respected at the same time. all those things have not
changed and that will be the basis of what is going on. >> you can watch the risk of our interview with congressman rob bishop on a newsmakers on sunday here on seas and. -- here on c-span. >> coming up on c-span, questions about transgender students at the white house press meeting. then, addressing opioid abuse. meet nordic leaders president obama at a state dinner. >> this sunday night on q&a -- the american involvement in the spanish civil war in the late 1930's. >> this coup attempt happened in spain when all over the country, right-wing army officers tried
to seize power and in parts of the country succeeded in seizing power in 1936. it sent a shockwave of alarm throughout the world. here was a major country in europe, the right wing military quickly backed by hitler and mussolini who sent arms, airplanes, tanks, tankers and mussolini eventually sent 80,000 ground troops, here was the spanish right making a grab for power and people all over the world felt it ought to be resisted. it is not here, where? otherwise we are next. sunday night on c-span's q&a. josh earnest describes -- answers questions about the recent white house directive on transgender students. this is one hour and 20 minutes.
mr. ernest: happy friday. glad it is finally here. i do not have any announcements to begin so we can go straight to your questions. >> thank you. i will start with the letter on transgender and bathrooms in schools. >> i thought you might. there was -- [indiscernible] called the letter blackmail and said the administration is doing everything -- she said this is about to divide the country and has everything to do about keeping the vote away from local issues. mr. ernest: this is about electing a right-wing radio host to a state-wide elected office. let's just walk through the facts here. the first is this is a guidance issued by the apartment of
education and the department of justice in response to a request for information and guidance from school administrators. week, the national association of secondary school principals put forward a specific formal request to the department of education about how to create the kind of respectful, inclusive environment that school administrators across the country are seeking to maintain. these principles are interested in making sure they are acting consistent with the law. they sought guidance because they are not interested in a political argument. they are interested in practical suggestions about how they can confront this challenge they face every day. so let's just be clear about what is included in the guidance. the guidance does not add additional requirements to the applicable law. the guidance does not require
any student to use shared facilities when schools make alternate arrangements but what the framework does provide is advice for how school administrators can protect the dignity and safety of every student under their charge and that advice includes practical, tangible, real-world suggestions to school administrators who have to do with this issue. they cannot rely on political arguments that are framed as a solution to a problem that nobody can prove exists. they actually have to deal with the responsibilities that they have to promote an inclusive, respectful environment for all of their students and with the department of education has
issued today is specific, tangible, real-world advice and suggestions to school administrators across the country about how exactly they can do that. >> it seems as though the administration is trying to paint this as a major civil rights issue. it is not just pragmatic everyday guidance. the attorney general compared it to racial segregation. the attorney general to aalking about regard specific law passed by the state of california. this does not add any additional requirements to any school district or state under the applicable law. this is in response to extensive requests for guidance and for