tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 21, 2016 12:42am-6:01am EST
-- [laughter] isresa may: all i can say such matters are normally never discussed in public. [laughter] >> welcoming the announcement of phase two to manchester airport to piccadilly among bringing jobs and prosperity. therefore closing the north-south divide. my honorable friend has championed it for a long time. i welcome the announcement on this. where willing to take the big decision to help the full economy and support the economy in the country he represents.
special relationship between the u.k. and the republic of ireland has worked over the years. the major part of that is my constituency. the reason for it has been travel. they both joined in 1973. now the u.k. has voted to leave the european union. can the prime minister in assure us there will be no extra barriers in welsh ports to threaten tourism and that special relationship? theresa may: referring to the free movement arrangement and 1973. the common travel area was started 50 years earlier and 1923. before we were in the european union that travel area persisted. i will repeat it you are working the republic of ireland,
with the northern ireland executive. that weery clear recognize the important that order. >> you've been watching prime minister's questions. at 4 am live wednesdays pacific on c-span2 or at c-span.org where you can find a video of past questions another british public affairs programs. washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. nationalrning,
cannabis industry association cofounder steve fox will talk about the future of the marijuana legislation effort and cannabis regulation. adam brandon will discuss the goals of president-elect trump. live at sevench eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. president obama held a nude conference following the close of the asian pacific economic conference in lima, peru. this is just under an hour. obama: let's me begin by thinking president kitchen ski and the wonderful people of peru theirpe -- hosting us and hospitality. one of the united states in the americas.
this summit has been a success thanks to the work of our peruvian friends. us, which isall of gracias. a backdrop of the broader debate over globalization and trade. said, over the decades our global integrated economy has helped to improve the lives of billions around the world. historic gains in prosperity, health. when jobs and capital can move across borders. when workers have less leverage. when wealthy corporations and global elites play by a set of rules, workers and communities can be hit especially hard. the gaps between the rich and everyone else worldwide.
that's can reverberate through our politics. i firmly believe one of our greatest challenges ahead will be to make sure that the benefits of the global economy are shared by more people. that's the negative impacts such as economic inequalities are addressed by all nations. when it comes to trade the answer is not to pull back and .rect barriers the answer is to do trade right. labor,sure it has strong environmental standards. that it addresses the ways in which workers and ordinary people can benefit rather than be harmed by global trade. work. this is the central
as this debate moves forward in the united date is important to her how vital the asia-pacific is to america's prosperity. economiesa-pacific represent nearly 3 billion people. a majority of the middle class. six of america's top 10 trading partners, more than half of the global economy. the world's fastest-growing region. representountries tremendous opportunity for the u.s. economy to support jobs. part of the rebalance of our foreign policy in the asia-pacific is to boost exports by 50%. nearly 60% of our exports go to the region. this is part of broader progress. i made it a priority to open new markets overseas.
during my administration we have increased exports more than 20 -- 40%. more than 11 million american jobs. tend tos that export grow faster and hire more employees. pay their workers more than companies that do not exports. exports drive our economic and company. it is why we have created more than 15 million new jobs. the kind of progress that trade, when done right, can do. that is the kind of forget tried to do at this summit. we are to make it easier to do business between our countries and we are creating even more jobs. civil fine the process of creating a new business, increasing access to credit, all to help small businesses get up and running.
so that they can access the global market even if they can't we arefancy lawyers bribery and are committed to making it easier to trade services as well as goods. even as i have argued that we cannot engage in protectionist measures, my administration has been at the forefront of cracking down hard on fair trade practices and brought thosetently cases against engaging in unfair trading practices.
we have had a great track record of trade enforcement as part of this process. excess capacity is not the result of market forces but is the result of specific government policy and it needs to be fixed. to startking steps addressing these issues in a systematic way. the digital economy, we endorse rules to protect personal and information. he discussed the importance of her mating the moratorium on custom duties for digital goods and innovation, and given growing cyber threats, our 21 apec economies affirm that no one should conduct or support cyver-enabled threat of intellectual property. we are also moving ahead with making our economies more inclusive.
when particular area of focus is making sure that women have fair access to economic growth, expanding education, expanding access to careers in science, technology, engineering, math. helping more women entrepreneurs to access finance and integrate their businesses into the global supply chain. according to one study, if women around the world participated in the labor force, it could add up to $28 trillion of additional output for the global economy. when women are more prosperous, the families, communities, and countries are all more prosperous as well. my meeting yesterday with my fellow leaders at the transpacific partnership was a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the tpp with its high standards, strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and human rights. our partners made clear during the meeting that they want to move forward with tpp.
preferably they like to move forward with the united states. a number of countries are starting to read i tpp. we are already hearing calls for a less ambitious trade agreement in the region with lower standards, lower protections for workers, lower protections for the environment. that kind of agreement would exclude u.s. workers and businesses and access to those markets. for all those reasons, i believe that tpp is a plus for america's economy, america's workers, american jobs. not moving forward when undermine our position across the region and our ability to shake the rules of global trade in a way that reflects our interest and values. finally, our cooperation with apec has been critical to our historic progress in fighting climate change. bringing the paris agreement into force, agreeing to limit
aviation emissions, phasing out dangerous hfc's. in lima we continue our work to phase out fossil fuel subsidies and new countries make commitments towards their goal of doubling a renewable energy over the next few decades. as i wrap up my last summit, i could not be more proud of the progress we've made together. the work is never done, and given the prosperity and security we seek for not only the united states but our allies and partners, i continue to believe that america will have a vital role to play in creating and sustaining a strong, enduring leadership role in the asia-pacific. with that, let me take some questions. i will start with darlene of ap. >> thank you, mr. president. you have been telling world
leaders this week that president-elect trump is unlikely to govern any divisive way he campaigned. but i'm wondering how can you be so certain of that given the first group of people he has chosen for top national security and law enforcement positions hold the same views that he espoused as a candidate. to follow up on your meeting earlier today with president putin, did you discuss with him russia's alleged meddling in the u.s. elections? are you concerned that the involvement we saw in this year's campaign will be the new normal going forward in future u.s. elections? pres. obama: well, what i have said to world leaders is the same thing i've said a number of press conferences, which is, the president-elect now has to put together a team and put forward specifics about how he intends to govern.
he hasn't had a full opportunity to do that yet, and so people should take a wait-and-see approach in how much his policy proposals once in the white house, once he is sworn in, match up with some of the rhetoric of his campaign. my simple point is that you can't assume that the language of campaigning matches up with the specifics of governing legislation, regulations, and foreign policy. i can't be sure of anything. i think like everyone else, we will have to wait and see. but as i've said before, once you are in the oval office, once you begin interacting with world leaders, once you see the complexities of the issues, that
has a way of shaping your thinking and in some cases modifying your thinking because you recognize this solemn responsibility not only to the american people, but the solemn responsibility that america has, the largest, most powerful country in the world. and i can't guarantee that the president-elect won't pursue some of the positions he has taken. what i can guarantee is that reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues. that's just the way this office works. and i said before, if these
issues were easy, if ensuring prosperity, jobs, security, good foreign relations with other countries, if all that was simple, then it would have been done by every previous president. i'm a pretty good presidential historian. i've looked at my 43 predecessors. it seems that for all of them, even the best ones, that you end up confronting realities you did not anticipate. i think the same will happen here, and that's a good thing. that is an important thing. with respect to president putin, i didn't have a meeting. we talked briefly while we were in between sessions.
the conversation i had with him was consistent with the conversations i've had with him over the last previous months, indicating we are still deeply concerned about the bloodshed and chaos that is being sown by constant bombing attacks by assad and the russian military against populations in aleppo, and the need for us to arrive first at some sort of humanitarian cease-fire and begin moving towards a political transition of some sort. i talked to him about ukraine. i urged him to instruct his negotiators to work with ourselves, with france, with germany, with ukraine to see if we could get that done before my term is up. as usual, it was a candid and courteous meeting, but very
clear about the strong differences we have on policy. d not, because that's behind us, and i was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward. i already made clear to him our concerns around cyber attacks specific, as well as concerns we had surrounding the dnc hack. then't think this will be norm, but as i've said before, the concern i have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that is being put out by any particular party, and a greater
generalabout the misinformation from all kinds of sources, both domestic, foreign, that make itia, very difficult for voters to fi gure out what's true and what's not. and let me put it this way, i strong, ac have a press, and responsible and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much. it generally we've got elections and are focused on issues
are full of fake news and false information and distractions, issue is not going to be what's happening from the will be, whatssue are we doing to ourselves from the inside. the good news is, that is something we have control over. garner harris? mr. president, thank you for holding this press conference. willif you had hotels, real es, and other businesses around the world prior to becoming president, would you have thought it appropriate to sell them off and put the cash proceeds in a blind trust or is it ok for the president of the united states to be personally vulnerable to the policy decisions of the foreign leaders he meets and in the foreign-policy decisions he makes as president? and also, just briefly, what is your complaint about how the nsa and cyber command have done
their job, and are you considering firing admiral mike rogers? pres. obama: that was a rhetorical question, that first one. [laughter] rather than comment on hypotheticals -- let me say specifically what i did. wereusly, my assets significantly smaller than some other presidents, or president-elects, but we made a decision to liquidate assets aboutight raise questions how it would influence policy. basically had our accountant put all of our money in treasury bills. the yields have not been massive over the course of the last 8 years.
just because it simplified my life. i did not have to worry about the complexities of whether a decision i made might even inadvertently benefit me. that is consistent with the broader approach we have taken throughout my administration, to not just meet the letter of the law, but to go well beyond the letter to the .pirit of the law not just for me, but for the people in the white house and in positions, we have established a whole set of rules, norms, playbooks that just keep us far away from the line.
early on in the administration there would be questions about person go to this conference, or what should they do about this gift that was provided? was maybe our first general counsel who is responsible for setting up our guidelines and rules inside the white house that said, if it sounds like it would be fun, then you can't do it. that's a general test. if it sounds like something you would enjoy or appreciate, no go. and the consequence -- i will knock on some wood here because we have two months left -- i'm proud of the fact that over 8 years, we have not had the kinds of scandals that have plagued other administrations. when i met with the
president-elect, i suggested to him that having a strong white house counsel that could provide wouldguideposts and rules benefit him and benefit his team because it would eliminate a lot of ambiguity. i think it would be up to him to make determinations about how he wants to approach it. i know what works for us, and it served the american people well. because i had made a promise to the american people that i would not fall into some of the familiar habits of washington, that i wanted a new kind of politics, this was one indicator, and at the end of 8 years i can say the american people, i delivered on that commitment. with respect to cyber, the nsa, admiral rodgers is a terrific patriot and has served this
country well in a number of positions. i generally don't comment on personal matters here. i can say generally that we have spent a lot of time over the last several years looking at organize our cyber efforts to keep pace with how rapidly the environment is changing. criticalgly, our infrastructure, government data, financial systems are vulnerable tack, and both state and nonstate actors are getting better and better at it and it is becoming more and more rampant, and it is inevitable that we will have to modernize and update not just the tools we
andto defend those assets the american people, but also how we organize them. it is true that we are exploring a range of options in terms of how we organize the mission the currently exists. -- that currently exists. >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. earlier this year former president george w. bush reportedly said he warned he would be the last republican president. now republicans have won back the white house, controlled house and senate, 2/3 of state legislatures, 34 governorships, and there are charges of a shallow democratic and behind you. are you worried that you could be the last democratic president for a while? speaking of your predecessor, he made sure to offer essentially no public racism of you during your time in office. criticism of you during your
time in office. criticism ofhold donald trump, even if he attempts to dismantle much of what your cop lashed? -- accomplished? pres. obama: criticism of donald i'm not worried about being the last them a credit president, not even for a while. i say that not being cute. the democratic nominee won the popular vote, and this is an extremely competitive race and i would expect the future races will be competitive as well. i certainly think it's true that politics of america right now thea little up for grabs, sum of the old alignments within both parties, democrat and republican, are being reshaped. although the results of this election involves some of the
andifics of the candidates aren't going to be duplicated in every subsequent election, democrats do have to do some thinking about how did we make sure that the message we have is andived effectively, results in winning elections? this is something i have been wrestling with throughout my presidency. when you look at the proposals i put forward, they garner majority support. the majority believes in raising the minimum wage. the majority believes in common sense gun safety rules. the majority believes in investing to rebuild our infrastructure and create jobs. he majority believes in making sure that people aren't going bankrupt when they get sick. the majority agrees with all the
individual components of obamacare. i think there was a gallup poll this week, subsequent to the election, that show that the general public has a more favorable view of democrats and republicans. andand as i noted, my approval ratings are quite high. and yet, what has been true during the course of my 8 years is that that does not always translate. too often, it hasn't translated into working majorities, either at the state level or the federal level. now, some of that is just the nature of our system. and, geography. long as wyoming gets the same number of senators as california, there's going to be some tilt towards republicans when it comes to congressional races.
the fact that a lot of democratic voters are bunched up in big cities, and a lot of republican voters are spread out , gives him anhy advantage when it comes to congressional races. some of it is just political bad ask, for example, i came in an economy in free fall and the we took the right steps to save the economy, in my midterm election 2010 people could not yet see the recovery, and the president's party got punished. of not control of a lot just congressional seats, but gubernatorial seats and state legislative seats. that happened to be the year that the census was done and you start doing redistricting and those republicans took advantage
of political gerrymandering to lock in the majorities, even though in numerous subsequent ofelections democrats have actually cast more votes, or more votes have been cast for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. yet you and a having large republican majorities. there are structural problems have to deal with. you can't make excuses about the rules. that's the deal, and we've got to do better. doing better involves us working at the grassroots, not ceding territory, going out into areas where right now we may not stand a chance of actually winning, but we are building up a cadre of young talent, making ar guments, persuading. talking about the things that matter to ordinary people date today and trying to avoid
some of the constant distractions that fill up andle's twitter accounts, if we do that, in confident we will be back on track. i don't think there has to be a complete overhaul. i think there does have to be smarterrganization, a message, and one message i do ave for democrats is that strategy that is micro-targeting articular discrete groups in democratic coalition sometimes will win the elections but it's not going to win you the broad mandate you need. the more we can talk about what we have in common as a nation, se tot ofto a broad
values, a vision that speaks to everybody and not just one group at a time, the better off we are going to be. best part of the reason why i was able to get -- that's part of the reason i was able to get elected twice, i try to make sure that not only in proposals, but also in message, i was speaking to everybody. you had a second part to your question? [inaudible] look, i said before, president bush could not have been more gracious to me when i came inlot . the nextion is to for two months just finished my job, to take after that, michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, writing, do some
thinking. so, i want to be respectful of the office and give the president elect an opportunity platform andd his without somebody topping off in every instance. as an american citizen who cares ifply about our country, there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about and if is and ideals, think it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals,
then i will examine it when it comes. but, what i do know is that i have to take michelle on vacation. [laughter] juliet alpern?-- >> given what you just said about the strong differences that you and president pugin have on the future of syria and the conflict there, can you talk about how you see that unfolding, both at the end of your tenure and at the beginning of donald trump's, and if your concerns that even if we eliminate the islamic state and eastern syria and westernthe cok about how you see that iraq, we may be allowing a permanent al qaeda safe haven around aleppo? you can you say to what extent the united states
has fulfilled its responsibility to protect in that instance? in terms of finishing your job, last week you have exercised your executive authority on multiple fronts, finalizing oil and gas leasing rules on public lands as well as banninga five-year plan chilling in the arctic and atlantic great many republicans say you should hold off finalizing anymore rules as you are headed out the door because they oppose many of them and will seek to overturn them when they control both executive and legislative branches next year. what do you say to that suggestion? pres. obama: on the second these are the same republicans who suggested that they didn't need to confirm a supreme court justice when i was nine months out, until the next election. i think the general approach probably twohat days after merrill -- my
reelection, i should stop until the next election. i don't think that's what the constitution calls for. the regulations that we have issued our ones we have been working on for a very long time. they have been subject to exte nsive public notice and comment and everybody has known they have been out there. these are things we have been surprising people with. -- aren't things we have been surprising people with. they're part of my task of finishing my work. i recognize that when the new administration comes in, and a new congress comes in, that they will have the option of trying to undo some of those rules and regulations we are put in place. that's their prerogative, that's part of how democracy works. i feel very strongly that these are the right things to do and i'm going to make sure i do
them. thinkespect to syria, i even on this trip in a previous , i am noterence optimistic about the short-term prospects in syria. iran made aand acision to back assad in andal air campaign, essentially a pacification of aleppo regardless of the potential for civilian casualties, children being killed or wounded, schools or hospitals being destroyed, then it was very hard to see a way in which even a ttrained and
committed moderate opposition his ground for long periods of time. and, the issue that obviously i've wrestled with for the last five years, how involved should whethered states be, our legal constraints in such involvement, what are our strategic interests? those haven't changed. i continue to believe that we basis forve a legal military intervention there, that it would have been a strategic mistake given the work we still had to do in iraq, counter-isil campaign, ongoing thattions in afghanistan, we have worked tirelessly to arrive at political transition
of some sort, and they could alleviate the suffering and provide humanitarian access. and, we will continue to do that until the lasty day that man john kerry and others have the authority to speak for the united states government. it takes two or in this case, four or six or eight to tango. we are just not getting help or interest from those parties supporting assad, and assad as a consequence has been emboldened. but this is a man who has destroying his country, turning it to rubble, populationits
scattered or killed was worth it for him to cling to power. -- power, when he had the option to peacefully engage in a transition i could've kept the country intact. -- that could've kept the country intact. that's his mentality. it's not a mentality we support. that's a mentality that the russians and iranians have been willing to support. at this stage, we are going to a change in how all parties think about this in order for us to end the situation there. our ability to go after isil can be sustained. there is doubt there will continue to be extremist forces in and around syria because it
still will be in chaos for quite some time. there will be elements in iraq, just as there have been elements in afghanistan even after the taliban was swept out, even after we killed bin laden. i think we can effectively reduce the risk, and take their key external operators off the field. the thing i'm probably most concerned about the thing i'm most concerned about is making sure that even u.s. do that, u.s. policy, statements, u.s. positions don't further radicalize muslims or alienate and potentially radicalize law-abiding muslims who are living in europe or in the united states.
is importanthy it for us to understand those are our key allies is this fight. mike. you, mr. president. this final foreign trip is obviously playing out in different circumstances then you might have expected. a different transition is underway then you might have envisioned. as you saw to potentially perch this trip. my ebay but offer the counselor successor that he hoped to draw upon? a political note, you talked often during your reelection campaign about this fever that consumed the republican party, and effective political strategy they employed . what might be your advice to democrats who might see that kind of strategy as the same path to taking back the power
from the republicans? kent will be your first house democrats about whether or not the same people with the party leader in the house? >> i will work in reverse. i think nancy pelosi is an outstanding and his oracle political leader. havech of what we accomplished was accomplished because of her smarts, her skill,y, her legislative and i don't normally metal with party votes, and certainly on my way out the door i shouldn't meddle here. but i cannot speak highly enough of nancy pelosi. she combines strong progressive
with extraordinary political skill. and she does stuff that's tough, not just stuff that's easy. test stuffstuff in that's unpopular in her own base because it's right by the american people. i think she's a remarkable leader. with respect to democrats and republicans and how democrats should do with a new administration, i certainly don't want them to do what mitch mcconnell did when i was elected, and the day of and say our sole objective is to not with him on anything, even if the country is about to go into a depression so that we can gain seats in the mid-terms and ultimately defeat him.
that's not why the american people send us to washington. so that is not my advice to democrats. my advice is know what you care about and what you stand for. and fight for your principles. even if it is a hard fight. if there are areas where the new administration is doing some thing that isn't good for the american people, find a way to work with them. think it is going to be a problem and say so and make it part -- make the argument. the touchstone is what is good for the american people? and that has worked for me.
it means at the end of the day and at the end of eight years i can look back and say i did what meansght was best area it -- it doesn't mean i didn't make mistakes, but it means you're being true to your own. of reflecting on the u.s. presidency as i have i think the main reflection i have and the main that i give to the the unitedesident is states really is an indispensable nation in our world order. and i say that as somebody who to gone out of his way express respect for every country and its people and to
consistently acknowledge many of the challenges we face are not challenges america can solve on its own. but what i also know is the basic framework of the world order coming out of world war ii and then through the end of the cold war was shaped by a set of that hadd principles worked for the vast majority of people, not just america but around the world. the notion of democracy and the rule of law. and free press and independent judiciary and open markets and to social welfare state
moderate the sharp edges of capitalism. and lifting up issues of human rights and investing in public adjusting development our borders but elsewhere in the world. and working with multilateral institutions like the united nations. that is what has made the modern world. there have been times we have not observed these norms as well as we should have. have been accused of hypocrisy where here in latin america countries have felt disrespected, and there is many cause for that.
there are times we haven't observed these values within our own country and all in short of our own ideals. that basic structure is the reason why the world is much wealthier and much more secure and less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant than it was 50 years ago. and that requires constant work. it doesn't just happen on its own. europe, i said this in places where there is push back against this modern order. but you take an example like europe, before that order was we had two world wars in the span of 30 years. one, 16 million people were killed. not half a million, not one
million, but 60 million. entire continents. in places like the asia-pacific, before that order existed, you've routinely saw famines of millions of people. not just concerns about low , but people dying because they did not have any food or drinking water or died of cholera. or simple diseases, if nobody had any penicillin. what i would say would be we all share responsibilities for improving that order and maintaining it and making sure it is more inclusive. and delivering greater hope and prosperity for more corners of
the world. we all have responsibility in respect to dignity and work of their citizens. there are limits to our reach in if they choose not to provide girls education or siphon off development funds into swiss bank accounts. we are not going to be able to handle every problem. but if we are not on the side of makingt, if we are not
the argument and fighting for it, then it collapses. and there is nobody to fill the void. there really isn't. there are other very important countries like china, but china wasn't going around organizing 200 nations to sign on to a paris agreement. for putting together the paper and policy outlined conceptual framework. russia is a very significant military power. but they are not worrying right after at how to rebuild hurricane in haiti, we are.
and i have said before, that is a burden we should carry proudly. i would hope not just the 45th president of the united states, understandsesident that is not only a burden but an extraordinary purpose. if you have a chance to do that right, then you should seize it. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> tomorrow night, civil rights activists and little operative discuss president obama's legacy on the issues of race. the panel was hosted by harvard university. among the speakers will include
ronald sullivan. ofspoke about the limits executive powers in civil rights. here is a portion of his remarks. cannot wave a magic wand and say -- civil rights repair. that does not happen. the executive is constrained in very real ways. sign that has been -- at least gives me some help is that this justice department and civil rights division has been busier than any other administration prior, maybe except for johnson. it has been busy. the laws that congress passes though constrains its reach in very real ways. i will give you one example and
then i'm going to pass it on and hopefully we can talk more. there was a mention of trayvon martin in the last panel. it was the correct decision for the department of justice not to intervene in trayvon martin because the law is written in a way that makes it nearly impossible for them to intervene in that way. they have to show that at the time that zimmerman dealt the death blow, he was motivated solely by racial animosity. civil rights activists, scholars, and political operatives discuss president obama's legacy on the issues of civil rights and race. tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. now, a look at some of the overseas reaction to the elect and of donald trump. the future of u.s. transatlantic relations and nato.
from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. a renaissance city in western pennsylvania. joining us is the vice president for the european union and the atlantic council -- council. frances burwell. thank you for being here. president obama's meeting with people of aipac in greece and germany, trying to reassure the rest of the world about our election of donald trump here at what are your concerns and hopes? are at a critical juncture in terms of our relations with allies in -- and europe. uncertainty about the trump administration as far as the europeans are concerned. one never knows whether the statements are made during the campaign are actually what will guide policy. there have been quite a number of statements from mr. trump
about russia while he was campaigning indicating that he wanted to do a deal of some kind with president clinton. this has caused a great deal of concern among some european allies who feel mr. putin is a threat. first in georgia and now more recently in crimea in eastern ukraine. see.are waiting to they are politicians and understand the difference between campaigning and governing. they are looking very closely at his appointments and particularly the appointment of secretary of state. president obama was there on his to underscore the successes his administration has in europe, and reassure them following his own private conversations with mr. trump about the future course of u.s. policy toward europe.
host: the president held a town .all meeting as he traveled let's get some background on nato. in 1949.unded back there are 28 countries in belgium. norway, the basic premise unanimous based on consent given oversight. a key aspect of the nato treaty, an attack against a nato member shall be considered an attack against all of them. it has yet to be invoked again. guest: right. it is remarkable that the one-time article five has been in vote was the united states, until 9/11.
the reason would be because of the soviet attacks. nato does have its earth during the cold war. it was assumed the united states would go to the aid of its nato allies. have the first and only implication to protect the many of ours, allies are still in afghanistan with us trying to make -- remake that country and provide security there. what we have seen in europe is a real awakening of what had been a cold war perspective. during the cold war as i explained, the main point of nato was collect if defense against what we had seen as the threat. war, that had faded and nato was looking for a bit of a roll, involved at the very end of the wars in the 1990's and then again as an.
we also are seeing the reemergence of the desire within nato to reinforce the eastern countries against a potential russian aggression. author of a number of books and publications, including "the transatlantic approach to the east." shoulder."ulder to a graduate of the university of maryland where she earned her doctorate. also oxford university where she studied. can we get a reaction to a the president said in germany? president obama: we have had very significant differences. my hope is that the case ant-elect coming in
similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with russia, where our values and interests align. but the president-elect is also willing to stand up to where they are deviating from our values and international norms. expect the president-elect will follow exactly our blueprint and approach. but my hope is he does not simply take a realpolitik approach and suggest that if we just cut some deals with russia, even if it hurts pedal, or even if it violates international norms or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable or
problems, interm regions like syria, that we just do what is it -- whatever is convenient at the time. host: europe and key countries and nato in particular. guest: i think one of the biggest issues we face with our european partners over the next years and the restaurant administration will be what is this with russia and how do we do that together? we have just seen president obama talking about the need to preserve a coherent approach to russia. our interests with european partners and russia are little different. they live right next to russia and they have had considerable economic interchange with russia.
russia put sanctions on following the annexation of crimea and the russian ,ngagement with eastern ukraine the european countries have butn a big hit economically they have proven ready to persist with those sanctions. i think many of them have and confirmed, that he would reconsider those sanctions. there is a big question about europeans able to keep agreement among themselves. they'll have to agree to retain this sanctions under the way the eu makes these decisions. president obama, after some time while he was in germany, met with a number of the leaders of the top eu member states. they all pledge they thought
they should continue until the russian policy toward the ukraine changes and makes the conflict resolve the there. that is not a formal decision that will come later, but it was a strong indication of the desire to continue sanctions until russia passes behavior and policy changes. this program was carried live on the policy channel. fromirst call is coming michael. good afternoon. you are on the air. my question is how will president trump deal with a brexit? i should say president
trump has already made statement about how he favors brexit, the vote by the united kingdom to leave the european union, many of his advisers are -- or have close ties with the u k and the current government and such asarly individuals the minister for trade. foreignt president-elect trump has indicated that he is willing to negotiate a u.s.-u.k. trade agreement. the first thing that has to happen for the to be started is that the u.k. needs to know what dates relationship is going to be with the eu. .hat will be a two-year process one can think of this as the divorce settlement, and then we will know what that relationship
is and what we can negotiate as a trade agreement. the is very different from approach president obama had. president obama had launched the transatlantic trade investment partnership and the negotiations for that which is between the united states and european union, including the u.k. until it should leave. he has said directly that it the u.k. were to vote to leave, which it did, that there would urry for the united states to negotiate a trade agreement with britain directly. he used the expression that written would be a -- that britain would be at the back, but mr. trump indicated he would drop do the bilateral agreement before he does the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, even if he decides to do the larger trade agreement, which is unclear. under a trump presidency,
britain has the opportunity to have a close relationship with the united states, even though it will no longer be a member of the european union. host: headline from "the new sayingmes," head of nato he is confident donald trump will maintain the u.s. role in nato. from massachusetts, democrat line, doug, good morning. caller: good morning. 1980's, there was a promise given by the secretary of state, james baker, that in return for the solution of warsaw pact, nato [indiscernible] it seems that was a promise that was broken pretty quickly. why should the russians have any kind of credibility in any of the promises made by the west? thanks. i will listen off air. host: thank you. guest: there is a lot of
discussion about what kind of a promise that was and whether it was actually made and what it meant. for a long time, there was a great deal of reluctance in nato into the news member phase, so poland and the baltic states, etc., through the nato-russia charter, a first of all said that these permanent troops would not be based him a permanent nato troops would not be based in those states. however, there is a consensus within nato that russia has failed to live up to its part of meansreement by military and the annexation of crimea undertaking an illegal change of borders from the postwar settlement. i think that there is a feeling now that russia has not lived up to its end of the bargain and has made it necessary for
nato to reinforce its allies that are now the new member states of wealth since 2004 of nato, and to make sure that they are safe and secure and that we have a good the turn structure. host: this is a tweet from a regular viewer -- should we have this splendid nato when the ussr fell? by doing keep nato? if gone, no more u.s. aggression in the region? guest: i think there was a discussion after the cold war as to whether nato was a cold war institution and should be tempered to go. i think what we found was that nato was valuable as a political institution, as well as military institution. we were able to address with nato some of the key areas of instability, such as the balkans
, that threatens the cold war -- post-cold war peace of europe. nato help us respond in afghanistan to the strikes on an 9/11.sh on for a while, nato and russia had a great relationship was cold on 9/11. for a while, nato and russia had a great relationship after the cold war, especially with goodwin have what forces on location, so for a while, things went well. i think there was a lot of hope that nato could transition into an institution that was not about collecting the collective security. that is the point areas where we joint security threats around the world, where military responses might be needed. unfortunately, russia's actions in ukraine showed that it was not necessarily going to be the
case. i would point out it was russia that started in ukraine the aggression that has led not to .he annexation of crimea it is clear, as well, that the irregular troops in the separatist forces in eastern ukraine are perhaps guided by russian forces on the territory of ukraine. from scotland and i want to go back to a tweet during the december month saying they would soon be calling me exit."rigg any reaction? guest: mr. trump at that time, he has made himself clear that he thinks that brexit is a good idea. it is not clear if the fully understands how it is rated with britain in the european union or what the consequences will be for britain.
being that hisr golf course in scotland and about the time of the vote, and commenting that all the people , when him favored brexit in fact, scots voted to stay in the european union, as opposed to england, which voted to leave. it is important to understand ant the u.k. has been integral part of the european they gonce 1974, and as through this divorce, there is going to be a lot of disruption in terms of regulation. for example, u.s. firms that have based themselves in britain in order to have a doorway into the european union and the rest of europe, the 28 member states, 27, with britain as the 28th, in terms of having free access to that market. host: we should point out that
brexit doesn't impact made of. guest: correct. britain has been from ensuring that it once -- impact nato. correct. britain has been firm in ensuring it will not impact nato. they are not abandoning europe come just one of the key european institutions or removing themselves. with the center for security studies at her on the moderate at the university of maryland and currently at the atlantic council. burwell.follow her @fran good morning, very patient on the republican month. caller: good morning. three observations that ms. burwell could comment on. first, when president obama refers to president-elect trump, he never says president-elect trump, he just says president-elect.
trump anded about mr. how he will deal with the russians, and i have a feeling he is not going to be walked all over by putin but stand up to him. thirdly, when he said to have a lasting effect on europe, i believe there were close to untold millions of syrian refugees wandering around europe. thanks a lot. host: robert, to a. guest: thank you. -- thank you. guest: thank you. i cannot comment on light president obama does president-elect trump rather than president-elect. a lot of people in washington just use someone's position rather than their name, so i cannot comment on that. of the things about what mr. trump has said about making a deal with president
putin, one of the issues is uncertainty about will happen. mr. trump has made a great deal about his skills and making deals and coming from his is this background, i have no doubt he is good at this. the question will be if he makes the deal and we don't know what the parameters of that deal with the, just about syria and support for the antiterrorist campaign there, perhaps at the cost of accepting that president assad will stay in power, despite what he is doing to his own citizens, or will it be a bigger deal than has to do with fears of influence in europe? the uncertainty about this comment has to do with and the concern has to do with we do not the what he intends, with deal might be, and what he hopes to congress from it. i do agree that based on what we have seen from mr. trump's behavior in the past that should
he come to a deal with president putin and feel president putin does not live up to his end of the deal, i think he would be very strong and forceful in responding to that. the main thing i would underscore is the uncertainty about that and hopefully we see some initial conversations that will shed some light on that. from along those lines, scott peters is -- why couldn't the united nations take more of the responsibilities of nato? guest: there are two very different organizations. for the united nations to do almost anything, it requires the theement of the p5, permanent five of the un's security council. host: they are smart guest: editing -- they are? guest: they are the chinese and russians, so they would have to great anything we do. nato is 28 members, are much more like-minded in terms of their support for democracy and
their support for maintaining a stable rule of law that we've had in europe and international system since the that the second world war. nato has not been an alliance that has reached out and engaged in places outside of europe for 9/11, andart until then it was in response to an attack on one of the key members, ourselves, of nato. nato does not have a mandate to go and solve problems in the sea, for example, only amended to address issues that affect member states, even if it is not on the territory of the member states it is originating somewhere for more distant. nato also was into areas like cyber security. several member states have been cyberted to serious
attacks that have closed banking systems and other things of that nature, so there is an internal discussion to set up capabilities to identify when and with the cyber attacks come from and to create resilience to that kind of attack, which is a form of warfare. host: first, is made a larger than anyone president? guest: yes, i think it is. i think that a president comes in, any american president comes in with their own ideas, and nato has a history. it is also 27 other key leaders, including angela merkel, theresa may, the british prime minister will continue to be an active leader in nato, the nato secretary-general is usually a former prime minister, so a senior international leader, as well. i think residents come in and learn aboutdents, the nato history, multilateral diplomacy, and learn that our
nato allies are committed to our defense, as well as their own. not just security takers. host: if a president trump wants to change anything with regard to our obligations with nato, our alliance with the european countries, what can and can't you do? trail,on the campaign mr. trump made it clear he thought that nato allies should pay more for their own defense. i think this has been a consensus that that is the case. the sharing debate has been going on in nato since the creation of these alliances. what we have seen in the last couple of years is that many of the european allies have in fact started to increase their defense expenditures and also to look seriously and how they can get marketability for the line that they do stand. sending forcesly
and also equipment to help with coalition, quite unusual for germans in their history to be fighting that far away from europe. is that mr.ink trump will highlight the issue more. i think we will see more european countries, increase their defense budget more than what we have seen the last couple of years in response to what they feel is at the from russia. in that way, and he will probably have a positive change on the alliance. if mr. trump wanted to review our commitments to the alliance, which i think would be very destabilizing or europe, it is a treaty commitment, so it would be a treaty would have to give notice on and it would be difficult. at mentioned article five the beginning, which is an agreement that an attack upon
one is an attack upon all. it's as we would then consult and then decide what we will then do, so it is something that we had used and during the cold war, stabilized europe and made europe safe and secure. hopefully, maintaining that commitment is what will continue to keep nato said and secure, but ourselves and our nato allies. 10 to 15 minutes with our guest, our phone lines are open, (202)-748-8000 for republicans. (202)-748-8001 for democrats. also, send us a tweet to get your reaction. the british labour party member said in a speech that went viral, over too many people have watched it. first, al in tennessee, independent line. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call, a couple of questions. to know what the test for memorandum of security insurance
is due? guest: which memorandum? caller: the one where ukraine, britain and the united states signed an agreement. guest: yes. ukraine -- caller: hang on. are you aware that brits don't have in their craft carrier? guest: yes. caller: there is no possible way for the brits to do anything about ukraine. this is an example. the only country that can do and put their power into play overseas is the united states, so all of these feel-good agreements are just that, feel good. if you don't have the ability to project power pastor borders, you are just feeling good host:. we will get a response. -- feeling good. host: we will get a response. guest: ukraine gave up their
nuclear weapons after the soviet union fell apart. in return for that, it was promised by the united states come i think britain, france and russia, that its territory would be preserved and it would not suffer any loss of territory. there has been an ongoing discussion in ukraine about how it has or has not been defended by this inventories, when russia, one of the signatories, violated that pledge, by taking over crimea. right about the british not having an aircraft carrier, but they have strong forces otherwise, and in fact, i think the british are not rethinking that aircraft decision. differenttter of requirements for different forces, and in ukraine, i don't actually think anyone is talking troops tonding
ukraine, they have been a partner of nato, which is a different level, and it doesn't require the defense guarantees. i think that although a few of the european militaries have anything like the half of the american military because we are a global military power, they provide key capabilities and also provide a lot of diplomatic and political [indiscernible] in afghanistan, for example, so , theythese operations provide key functions, such as protecting airbases and also serving out in one of the most dangerous areas of afghanistan. i believe it was the dutch who had a higher per capita of the
troops deployed in afghanistan than anyone else, so and the british also suffered tremendously with casualties from afghanistan. i think we need to respect our allies contributions to these military efforts to try and keep our own country safe. host: this is from jjj cash every international deal, eu, nafta, etc., results in the loss of sovereignty to citizens and power for bureaucrats. guest: that is certainly the perception of the people who voted to leave. when i was traveling around the north of england, right after the vote, you could see many of these signs that said, take our country back. i think there is a feeling among certain segments of the population and citizenry. over the last few years, just as
here, take governments blame washington. national governments in europe will have to make unpleasant decisions, often blame vessels, the seat of the european union -- brussels, the seat of the european union. discussionve a long about how democratically the european union is. it is removed. if you live in yorkshire, if you live in the north of england, it seems it is a long way away and is difficult to understand. i think that there is something to say about the distance. i am not sure that it actually enhances the role of therecrats, and i think are medium-size countries in
this world, and the u.s. is , allntly about global gdp the countries are about the same. together, we are 45% of world trade. that is not going to stay that way. as the asian economies grow, in particular, china, we're going to be less and less percentage of global gdp and trade, so we should be thinking together about how we maintain the system that has benefited us, rather than having chinese dictate the in trading system will run east asia, for example, that might be bigger. host: from vermont, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i appreciate for giving me a chance.
[indiscernible] you are the best channel. i do not like some channels. say one of two sentences in general. greek it is about the country [indiscernible] it is to tell the truth, before the truth, for young people, it is not like that. it is controlled media by how powers -- by high powers. he be as job is to tell the truth about each continent, their policy, their past service, their policy, [indiscernible] if you don't like the person to
people president -- to be president, you do not vote for him. this is democracy. [indiscernible] that is not -- i do not agree. host: thank you. to her point, your reaction? guest: i agree with the importance of free media. and the importance of media acting as what i would say to check on some of the falsehoods on inaccuracies that have been spread to particularly social media. we have seen a lot of coverage about that and president obama spoke about that in germany. europe are not facing in and even here -- i would say a lot of disinformation from certain media outlets, particularly those coming from russia, who portray what has way, andin a different
i think i citizens need to be able to distinguish between news that comes from different places that has a bent in ambition behind it, whether left or right. host: a perfect segue to the comments of a member of the irish senate, member of the labour party. his speech is gone viral. it runs a couple of minutes. [video clip] >> can the government have understood what is happening? we are at international crossroads. what is happening in britain and across europe is appalling. it has echoes from the 1930's. and america, the most powerful country in the world, has just elected a fascist. going to duck about direct investments and cut american investments. there are 50,000 irish people illegal in america who are fearful of their futures.
whenever going to have the moral courage to speak in terms of other than economy all the time and to realize what is happening? the future of this country cannot stand, as an irishman, at the crossroads of this awful adventure, that international, political system is facing into. call it what it is, then we are doing at the -- nothing. i am frightened. i am absolutely frightened for what is happening to this world and what is happening to our inability to stand up against it. he said he will not participate in this charade. a clear challenge to all political leaders in this country and their fundraising capacity in america [indiscernible]
of the member of the labour party in ireland, the state senator in that country. part of that speech is gone viral. guest: i think what you are seeing is an example of the concern that many europeans have about the election of donald trump in the united states. based on his comments on beer peanut alliance, based on his -- his comments on the european alliance, based on his divisive comments on different ethic .inorities and immigrants the legislator pointed out that there are quite a number of illegal irish immigrants in this country will now fear for their position, as well as there is a huge irish immigrant community, illegal immigrant community in the country. i think what you are seeing is the concern. it also reflects concern about europe. if this were not also happening in europe, if there are not extremists in europe, much more
extreme than what we have seen from donald trump, then i think that there would not be quite as much concern. a number of challenges coming up in terms of its own electoral calendar, so december 2, they will have the austrianof the president, largely ceremonial position, and the two candidates, one is from the far right, and another one is from the green party and environmental party, and then in march, we have an election and in the netherlands and right now, the one going highest in the polls is the freedom party, anti-e.u., and to immigrant candidate, unlikely to be prime minister because -- anti-immigrant candidate, unlikely to be prime minister,
but it is pulling the strongest it ever has in that party. the french election, this week and come first-round of the republican primary in france. they are anticipated to face off penne, who hasla made that party more respectable from various early fascist roots under her father, but she is still very anti-immigrant, anti-eu, talks about taking france head of the eurozone, which would probably be a huge cataclysm for the french economy , and in germany, in the fall, transfer merkel -- chancellor merkel will face reelection. we have an emerging party, too small to have a chancellor, but it is the alternative for door -- and cash for geo
with their rhetoric, it harks back to an unpleasant time in german history. , thank youes burwell for stopping by. liveashington journal," every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, the national canada's industry association cofounder will talk about the future of the marijuana legislation effort, and advocates hope for cannabis regulation. the president and ceo will discuss the goals of president-elect trump and congressional republicans would like to achieve within the next year be sure to watch "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern monday morning. join the discussion. >> monday night on "the commuters," former sec commissioners robert mcdowell and robert cox on how the sec could change over the trump administration, and a look at
the tech and telecommunications issues it could be facing. >> if we are smart as a country, we will start to tackle the future of the internet, going beyond network neutrality. what does it mean, with artificial intelligence? what does it mean for jobs, for commercialization? for think that what plans data services and the set-top box item, when there isn't any sort of unanimity, it's probably also not going to get off the ground. >> watch "the communicators," monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> securities and exchange commission share a major white -- on the future of the 2010 financial law. she made the comments during the house financial services committee. this is two hours, 40 minutes.
>> the meeting will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. this hearing is entitled examining the sec agenda operations in fy 2018 budget request. i now recognize myself or three minutes to give an opening statement. i warn everybody i will take a lot longer because there is unanticipated news. first, before proceeding to the purpose of this hearing, i do want to know for all my colleagues that as we begin this hearing today, in 318, b3 18 of this very building, the rayburn building, our friend, our colleague, the great american hero and patriot sam johnson is being honored by having that
very room b3 18 named after him. i think we all know he is a decorated war hero who served his nation with great courage, great valor in korea and vietnam and spent seven years and experiencing torture there. we know him to be one of the kindest, most gentle souls in this institution and he has many distinguished a accomplishments for his district and his position on the ways in these committees. i personally look forward to visiting the sam johnson room soon and i hope all my colleagues look forward to that as well. [applause] this morning we welcomed securities and exchange commission mary jo white and i
will take a little longer due to news that we received last evening that the chair intends to step down at the end of the obama administration. i do wish to acknowledge, on behalf of all, that chair white has now completed over two decades of distinguished public service as a u.s. attorney, as chair of the securities and exchange commission. she has brought an incredible amount of professionalism to her position. she is known for her independent judgment which is greatly admired and respected. i also want to personally thank her for being one of the witnesses, one of the few witnesses from the administration that has never requested an artificial time limit on her time at a hearing. she has always made herself
available to this committee and always made herself available to all subcommittees. she has indeed, epitomized what it means to be an accountable agency to article one of the constitution and she is to be commended for that. also, she is always submitted her testimony on the timely basis. if there are cash and valuable prizes we could award you madam chair for such an accomplishment i am sure we would but i'm sure we would reach ethical considerations by doing so. she has always made her division in provisions available, and again, the accountability and transparency that she has brought to this office is greatly greatly admired. just in case you have a false sense of security, madam chair, we still have some concerns and we still have some disagreements it has been almost a year since your last appearance here and
there are many things we are eager to discuss. the ongoing failure to develop a formation agenda and minor rule changes to capital formation since the jobs act in 2012. the failure by the sec stems in part by the refusal to act on recommendations made by the small business capital for him. i encourage the sec to review these and act on those. that will small businesses to access the capital markets so they can improve, grow and provide economic opportunities for all american workers. also languishing at the sec is a directive task by congress requiring the sec to simplify its disclosure regime.
it became law nearly a year ago and requires the sec to eliminate or reduce burdensome, duplicative or burdensome disclosures. i also know you are under pressure from those intent on criticizing the regime but you have a navigation to follow the law and not appease extremists whose ideological objectives have nothing to do with the sec core mission. in addition, the failure to require the electronic delivery of mutual fund documents is disappointing. how can they force public companies to engage in social, environmental or sustainability exposures well simultaneously promoting wasteful use of paper, the cost of which is ultimately borne by investors. it's time for them to move in the 21st century and allow the e delivery of mutual fund documents. we need to also discuss the budget request. we are looking at the debt clock before me and to my side i see
no need for the sec to receive a pre-funded escrow account of more than 290 million for potential move of ad a tax on capital formation. they claim that it's underfunded or not supported as the budget has increased by a budget of 325% since the year 2000, an increase that the american people do not enjoy. whatever the budget does not account for which is over $1 billion plus another 25 million that carryover from the fiscal year. finally, chair white, this is most important, whenever there is a transfer of a transfer of power from one administration to another, there is a temptation for federal agencies to rush in rule makings and completion as a way of submitting the priorities of the outgoing administration. this type of midnight rule
making neither conducive to policy or principles. there are currently two vacancies up commission giving your current reputation and legacy, i would strongly urge you to respect the results of last week's election and resist the temptation to finalize any regulations including dodd frank before taking office in january. i now yield five minutes to the ranking member. >> thank you very much chairman and thank you chair right for being here today. i'm disheartened to know that you will be stepping down, chair white considering there is so much at stake and so much to fight for. i am encouraged by because of all the kind words he had to say about you when he started his testimony today. that is the nicest i have heard him be to you and any of the others in our oversight agency
since we have worked together here. >> with the gentle lady yelled. >> yes i will yield. >> if anybody on your side of the aisle wishes to depart, i will say very kind words about them. [laughter] >> i'm sure since you have said such kind words about chair white you'll be asking her to stay, please don't go. also i'm appalled that the reaction on wall street to tuesday's reaction to bank stocks as they have rallies on a massive destabilizing lawless agenda. it's not the same as real hard earned economic growth the demise of regulations that wall street is cheering are the very regulations that have made our consumers and investors in economy safer and more
resilient. in fact, just yesterday, wells fargo's stock closed at the highest price this year on the expectation that a trump administration and republican congress will relate erase its culpability. we face uncertain time and at the insurgency is the president-elect who does not have a coherent or consistent stance on anything. we don't know if he's building a wall or fence. we don't know if he's repealing obamacare or cherry picking some provisions he excepts. we don't know who he is, what he stands for our what kind of president he will be. we cannot rely on anything he says because it changes from one day to the next when mr. trump talks about financial services reform and dismantling dodd frank, what does he mean? does he mean letting the wall street banks he is so indebted to write their own rules? does it mean repealing the fair
housing laws that the department of justice sued him over decades ago? does it want to repeal protections and make it harder for the sec to collect from bad actors? does he want to got the consumer protection bureau despite the agency being the strongest champion of everyday consumers? or does he mean breaking up the bank by reinstating glass steagall? if so we can find common ground. does he want to ensure that private equity funds and hedge fund managers pay the same tactics is that everyday americans pay? will he pay the same taxes that everyday americans pay? i am curious to see how republicans in congress react to his wide ranging, sometimes progressive agenda pretty is not is not holding to wall street and other special interest yet here he is with apartments of wall street insiders and their
friends in congress to run his administration. mr. trump also said he wants urban renewal and to ensure that african americans have access to loans to start small businesses. yet, the leader of the white national movement is his chief strategist in the white house and he himself has made racist, misogynist demagogue. chair white, even though you are about to leave, i hope you will share with this committee and the income administration the important role the sec place in our financial system and i hope you will explain the importance of a well-funded and strong investor protections for the sec has been the victim of woefully inadequate budgets as a result of republican obstructionism for years. despite the crucial role that the sec place policing our ever-expanding financial market spirit we are now at a
crossroads and they look to profit off american seamers and invest it. if we enact the special wish list or if they weaken the rules at the expense of the greater good, our economy economy will go back to the darkest days of the financial crisis. i hope that common sense will prevail. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and chair white, i apologize for not spending more time on sec and a lot of time on mr. trump. but that's what i'm going to be doing for a long time to come. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair yields two minutes to the chair of our capital markets subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome once again for the last time, chair white, to our committee.
before i begin, let me just a quote engine echo many of the positive sentiments expressed by the chair regarding your tenure at the sec. every sec chair receives criticism when they sit here from both the left and the right about certain policy positions that they take, but recently you have had to endure an unprecedented level of attacks from certain groups and from individuals as well who have called out your integrity and called out your professionalism and put them into question. they've even gone so far as to call to break the law or be fired for your refusal to follow their direction. chair white, it's clear from these many hearings that we have had that you and i disagree on certain policy issues. i can say this here, i have never ever questioned your professionalism, i have never
ever question your integrity and your devotion to doing the good in your work. it is a difficult job that you have and you have handled it very well. you have done so for all the right reasons. i just want to take this moment to say thank you for your service and for your thoughtful approach for which you have tackled a number of issues, in particular the area that i spent a lot of time on, the equity markets which continues to be an important for this department had i have mentioned that we disagree with policy issues on certain times. let me highlight a couple of those before we move on. despite the sec having an important mission to facilitate capital formation, the sec is still not organically, within itself, develop the formation agenda and has relied on exclusively our committee in congress if you will, when it
comes to trying to change some of that and modernize some of those areas of security laws for the benefit of the small and medium-sized enterprises. these are things that we have talked about. this, despite despite the fact that the chairman was just mentioning that the sec budget not only continues to grow but the agency has again requested a substantial increase without detailing how it will expand on these missions. finally, i also remain concerned that the sec has not done an adequate job to habits jurisdiction when others try to trample on your turf. so, with that said, i hope to test many today, as you wrap things up that you will address both of these issues and others to ensure that congress is prepared to carry out its threefold mission before congress decides whether the agency deserves that increase in budget. with that, i yield back.
>> the gentleman yields back. we welcome the testimony of the hon. mary jo white, chair white has previously testified before this committee on many occasions so i believe she needs no further introduction and has received her deserved accolades. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record and you are now recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. >> thank you very much members of the committee, ranking members and thank you for your kind remarks. i appreciate it very much. it is my honor to serve and again, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the current work and initiatives of the sec as well as on our fiscal year 2018 preliminary authorization request. as this committee knows well, the sec is a critical, independent agency that is charged with protecting millions of investors and overseeing the strongest and safest markets in
the world. i'm very proud of the commission's hard work and many accomplishments as i became chair in april 2013. we've achieved record numbers of examinations each year. we've completed dozens of transformative rulemaking's, including fundamental reforms to money market funds, credit rating agencies, and the securitization markets. we've built important new regulatory regimes for capital raising and critical market infrastructure and minutes of poll advisors. we put in place and during framework for work in areas that are central to our mission. asset management, market structure and disclosure effectiveness. our latest results in enforcement examinations exemplify the agency's high level of performance during this time. in fiscal year 2016 alone, the commission brought over 850 enforcement actions, an unprecedented number and turned over $4 billion in orders directing the payment of penalties and disgorgement and a formed 2400 exams, a seven-year
high a seven-year high that reflects a smarter more efficient program. the strength of our four step can also be seen in the kinds, complexity and importance of our cases that span the markets and the securities industry. as this past year also showed, the commission was only three members, they were able to continue to pursue a consequential set of policy measures designed to protect investors, strengthen the markets and open new avenues for capital raising. since i last testified, testified, the agency has, for example, advance major rules addressing equity structure issues including the transparency of ats and order handling practices while moving forward with the comprehensive assessment of other fundamental structure questions. this afternoon, the commission is scheduled to consider in an open meeting, approving a final plan for the critical consolidated audit trail. over the past year we have also continued implementation of a series of proposal to address
the increasingly complex portfolios and operations of mutual funds and exchange traded funds. we adopted final rules to modernize the data reported by both funds and their advisors, completed rules for enhanced liquidity management funds and adopted a proposal for new controls on the use of derivatives. we also adopted new rules to better enable businesses to raise capital through local and regional offerings and enhance our review of our effectiveness of our disclosure regime through several detailed proposals. along with several other roles, we finalize critical components of the regime for security-based swaps and establish new standards for the clearing agencies to stand at the center of our financial system. in addition to our many discretionary initiatives, the commission has also adopted rules for nearly 80% of the mandatory rulemaking provisions of the dodd frank act. was also made significant progress under the fastback.
our rulemaking workers perhaps the most prominent example of our achievements. our mission is also carried forward by our exceptional and the beast staff every day from reviewing thousands of filings each year to complex. [inaudible] as reported today, the commission has, for the for the second year in a row, received from gao, an unmodified report with no material weaknesses or deficiencies on the sec financial statements. the commission today is, i believe, a stronger and more effective agency. i am honored to have let it during this time of progress. significant challenges remain if we are to adequately address the growing size and complexity of the securities market and the ever more sophisticated financial services industry. it is critical that the sec has a resource needed to discharge
its important responsibility, the new ones, and many others we have long held. i deeply appreciate that we must be prudent stewards of the funds we are appropriated and we strive, very hard to demonstrate how seriously we take that obligation by the work we do. at the same time, our resources are insufficient to fulfill our responsibilities to investors in our markets. cuts to the sec budget would seriously impair the progress we have made and diminish our ability to fulfill our mission. while more remains to be get done, our accomplishments in the past through few years have both been impressive and inordinately important to investors, the markets and capital formation. for that, i want to think first and foremost the exceptional staff of the sec as well as my fellow commissioners, present and past, and i wanted to thank the chairman, the chairman, the ranking member, and this committee as a whole for your continued support which will allow us to fulfill this mission for the american economy.
if i might, on a personal note, as the chairman has chairman has indicated, i did formally announce yesterday that i would complete my nearly four year tenure as chair of the sec at the end of this administration in january. it has been my high honor and privilege to serve. while i have not yet done my david leavitt jet letterman top ten list of what i will miss the most, i'm sure my appearance before this committee will be on it. more seriously, as an independent had as an independent agency, it is to be expected that we have had areas of agreement and disagreement. i very much appreciate the professionalism and courtesy of the chairman, the ranking member and the committee, generally, as we have grappled with the challenges before the sec that are so important to the american public. thank you and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you chair white in the chair yields himself five minutes for questions. chair white, as you know, significant tension has been
devoted recently to liquidity concerns in our u.s. and global fixed income markets. when you testify last year, before us, for us, i asked you about the regulatory impact on bond market liquidity and at the time, you testified that while no question there are concerns about the fixed income market, you could not identify a culprit. since your testimony of a year ago, we have had some news and some evidence of the regulatory impacts on liquidity. they have become starker. on september 27, former secretary hank paulson commented that the boca rules solve the problem that was not a problem. we have much less liquidity in the market and it has been harder for financial institutions to provide liquidity. on september 16, douglas, ceo of virtue, one of the largest electronic market makers announced that his firm would no
longer invest in certain bond exchanged because of the underlying security had become too hard to trace. thereby eliminating sources of liquidity that banks continue to reduce their roles and market makers. on october 7 the british pound plummeted in a matter of moments in trading asia, they recorded trade as low as a dollar 15 and the wall street journal attributed this to a lack of currency traders in the foreign exchange market. since your last appearance, have you been able to determine whether regulations, such as the rule involves capital requirements are a contributing cause of the continuing decrease in liquidity in the fixed income market, particularly the corporate bond market? >> the short answer to that is no.
we continue to study at very carefully. as you know, a, set the sec from our division of economic and risk analysis are charged by congress with actually studying and reporting to congress on the impact of regulation generally. i think that report is actually due in may of 2017, but nash. >> is the recent data concern you question market has been a year and it's disappointing they are still not conclusion. >> the data does concern me. i think i said that my last testimony as well, and the issue, the overall issue also deeply confuses me. we go back to our staff to drill down on what we are reporting to congress. that essentially, although some decrease in dealer inventories come about by most measures, there has not been a deterioration.
>> i think you are aware chair white that many economists believe that frankly, the next financial crisis very well could be triggered by this bond market phenomenon, so as you are soon to depart your stewardship and chairmanship of the sec, i would simply request that resources be focused on this. during your appearance before the committee on march of 2015, i asked you and other members of the financial stability oversight council to conduct an analysis to see what systemic risk could be posed by this. they conducted analysis of the systemic risk that could result from a lack of liquidity in the corporate bond market. >> we are studying at the sec paradigm mentioned our
economists as well as others, our staff in terms of f-stop, there have been working groups on the staff looking at that, but there is no definitive conclusion. i know some work is going on in different working groups. >> again, i would commend to you, this is an area that is deserved of laserlike focus and i hope the appropriate resources will be devoted again. it has been at least over a year since these concerns have been brought to your attention and the attention. one last question, during the adopting phase, five regulatory agencies had the ability to interpret, examine and enforce compliance with it that has led to overlapping and conflicting guidelines. what extent are the five adopting regulatory agencies trying to coordinate efforts concerning the rule?
>> we still have our working group we talked about before that meets quite frequently on interpretations and on coordinating enforcement. as you know, that is assigned to different agencies. we are trying to be as consistent as we can possibly be >> the chairman is exhausted her time and now we yield to the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> i would like unanimous consent to enter in the record that when the washington post of october 2016. >> without objection. >> the story recounts a disposition, a deposition from late 2007. donald trump had sued a new york times reporter for defamation alleging that he lied in his book about trump's not worth than his lack of success in business, something we know that trump is very sensitive about.
because trump sued the reporter and allowed lawyers to get access to his business documents, as opposed story document, through the defamation of trial, it became clear that it was trump that was the of the lying. in fact they caught him in lies 30 separate times. he lied about sales levels in his condo building and how much it cost to join his golf clubs and about his amount of debt and employees and how much he was paid to give a speech over dating the payment by one and a half times. he lied about needing to borrow money from his rich dad and he tried to blame the lies on a co-author of a book. he lied about facts that were simple to disprove. things easily verifiable by searching documents for public records. now this lawsuit was thrown out
by the judge and was denied an appeal. this man is now unfortunately our president-elect. i expect him to continue with these distortions only now our nation is at stake. he is a thin-skinned bully. i hope he doesn't lash out on the freedom of the press or peaceful protesters. we will be standing ready to protect our american freedom. i bring this up because you are the lawyer in the 2000 case that deposed mr. trump and expose these lies. i mention as part of the record, is the washington post story true? did they mistake this information and was this all smelly thrown out by the judge on the case?
>> i don't think it would be appropriate. i don't think it's accurate that i argued the case myself. i don't think would be appropriate to comment on statements of the litigation. >> okay, so i just wanted to confirm in the record that this case did take place. now i understand why the chair is stepping down. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yield back. i recognize myself now for five minutes.
>> you and i have both talk that we had correspondents go back and forth about the sec's implementation about the fastback. as you know, there were a couple deadlines for the sec to meet under the fastback. the first was to propose outdated proposal which you have done in the second deadline which is due next month is the sec to issue a report to congress and modernize this. it can go to the testimony today on page 12 of your testimony you say, staff has also completed a study and report on how to further modernize and simplify as mandated under section, and so forth.
can you tell us what report you are referring to and what are you referencing. i say that because to the best of my knowledge i have not received in our staff is not received a report or study on that. >> i noticed the same reference in the testimony that was not cited. i believe that reference is to the report that is due november november 28 to congress. the staff has completed a draft of that report that is with our commission now for review. it is a staff report but as is customary under procedures for most staff reports, it provided to the commission reports provided to congress. >> minus question is easy follow-up. >> november 28 - as far as your concern that will be met?
>> i certainly believe so. >> before you leave here for good congress will have that report? >> i hope long before i leave. it should be to you on the 28th of november. >> the fcc, as you know, as the equity market advisory committee, that term for that committee which has been around for a while is slated to end in january 2017. do you anticipate renewing that committee for another term or is that something you are leaving to your successor to handle to renew. >> i think it should be renewed. i think it will be useful going forward. in order to renew the charter, we need to deal with it now so i will he discussing that with my commissioner. >> for all intensive purposes,
you said yes go forward with it. >> in my view it certainly should go forward. >> when it's done, are there other industry representatives who are not there now who should be such as retail brokerage or anybody else? >> there has been a lot of discussion about the conversati approved by the full commission and actually five members and our goal was to get balance and representation but clearly there are reached out brokerages where i think there is one area where we have all identified as an actual member of the committee. i think we had requests from very others folks to be members. that's also up. >> is that something you're going to throw out before you leave. >> i think separate from that is the membership. it's possible we would proceed.
>> moving on, the fcc and other topics. [inaudible] as such, do you believe the fcc sec should continue to review that rule as you indicated several years go back and 2004. >> i absolutely do and i believe we are. >> in what sense. >> as part of, i sort of talk about our equity market structure review with certain proposals where i think we should act now and then we have a comprehensive review of the issues. the committee is working on that. >> my time has expired. i have concerns about capital
formation and not being done but again thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. >> the gentle lady from new york is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and thank you for your public service. you have been a trailblazer and a role model to many young boys and girls and new yorkers are very proud of your service to new york in the country. we thank you so much and we thank you for your leadership and really groundbreaking stellar career and so many different areas. my question to you is about a statement you made last month when you gave a speech on the regulatory regime for the u.s. treasury market. you noted that under the government securities act, firms that act as dealers and treasury security are required to register but you also noted that the regulators joint report on
treasury market volatility had found that the most active dealers in the interdealer treasury market for high frequency traders, principal trading firms, many of which are not registered as government security dealers. you stated, and i quote, there is significant concern that this activity indicates that certain principal trading firms are acting as dealers but without the appropriate registration that is designed to protect investors and the market. my basic question is why has this been allowed to go on for so long. you yourself admitted that some of the principal trading firms are clearly engaged in dealer activity without being registered as dealers.
if that's true, why have they not brought any enforcement against those who are acting as registered dealer. >> i think i indicated that the data from which i observe observation of the events of october 2014 and raise question about whether some of those firms shouldn't be registered, i think i also mentioned in that speech, i know i have elsewhere that there needs to be public guidance issued where dealers and traders are to take account of that. it's interesting, i think it's terrific because you've got great cooperation. we each have certain spheres of authority at the treasury market and i also indicated in that speech that i thought we should apply some of the sec up 40 to create greater transparency and other protective measures. >> my second question is about
the statements you've made several times over the past several years. you directed your staff to review the existing exposure. at my request, they reviewed these requirements and found the information provided by companies is inadequate and unhelpful to investors. i am wondering if your staff reached the same conclusion. because of repeated studies that indicate more diverse leadership helps companies avoid so-called groupthink and make better strategic decisions, many investors want access to data on
board diversity as they make investment decisions or exercise their voting rights. leading investors petitioned the commission in march of 2015 to revise the diversity disclosure and they suggested they simple matrix could make the disclosure investors while providing them with actionable data. where does the stand and where are you? i do want to say in the gao report, it showed women were 16% and if they upped their activity 2040ficantly, it would be before there would be any gender balance. the gaa report also showed when there is gender diversity, the bottom line is better for investors, and my office has received requests from institutional investors, major
investors on getting more accurate information on gender diversity. i even went so far to put in the bill that merely added another line that said, just disclose how many women are on your board. it would not be in any way burdensome to industry. it's just another check or another number that would be added and this is information that investors, significant stakeholders and investors are asking for. they're asking for this information. i wonder where this stands with the activity. gentlelady's time has expired. you can answer that. >> i will be very brief. as you know i am a strong proponent of diversity on boards , and i am aware of the studies you indicate which is quite telling. where that stands, they are preparing a recommendation to give to the commission. it's pretty far along in that in terms of trying to provide more meaningful disclosure along the lines you indicate. >> you think you will receive it
before you -- >> i do not. unfortunately, i do not. will they receive it before? they may receive it but i don't think there will be a proposal before i leave. >> your time has expired, thank you for the answer. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chair white, you and i are kind of in the same situation. this is probably my last hearing with you and i want to thank you for your service. yesterday the sec held its first ever forum that included panels on recent innovation and investment advisory services, trading, settlements, clearance and capital formation. after this forum, what is the next step in this syntax space? >> it was a very useful for him. -- it was a very useful forum. we have been active in that space in terms of doing significant outreach. some issues are on our plate
right now and some are for the future. i formed earlier this year a syntactic working group that i've directed to make quite targeted recommendations to the commission on what the next step should be at the sec both in terms, to some degree, regulations that we have now that could apply to certain activity, how we could appropriately foster innovation, but also obviously, protect investors in the space. three topics we discussed and those we been most focused on, obviously the distributed letter technology and the settlement and clearing space, the advisors, and how automated providers of advice, and it is not only automated, can comply with their fiduciary duties in the investment company act, and then marketplace acting. those are the three big areas that we are focused on. although the folks in the
division have also been reviewing and passing on companies that would offer digitized securities. we will receive those, i don't think imminently, but in the next few months. we need to decide what we need to do next in terms of giving more clarity to entrepreneurs, as to the spaces they may have to comply with. >> this working group that you formed, the recommendations that you party yesterday, will it be their responsibility to respond? >> certainly what we heard at the forum will be part of the analysis, part of the input of the analysis that we are doing. the recommendations will come from our gingrich to the commission. they're doing much broader outreach than what we've heard at the forum.
in your response to my question, one of the things that is a common thing that i think concerns a lot of us about what sec, he on at the mentioned regulations two or three times. we are also looking for facilitation from the sec on how do we make these markets better, and how are we going to regulate these folks? what i would hope is that i think the forum was a positive step. what i would hope is that you will put together working groups. it might be handy to have people in the industry and spend some time focusing on how we facilitate this because as you know there are some exciting things going on in the space and some things going on that could revolutionize the way we do some of these functions. >> i said that yesterday and did
some opening remarks that you don't jump to regulation. we did put out requests for comment and asked about, ask ask questions just like that. there are some exciting things going on up there that will improve the market and improve things for investors. we certainly do not want to be thwarting those, that we have to make sure investors are protected in. we have to make sure there are investors providing that money through offerings and they have been given the information many to have. it is a mixed or of things, but not with a mindset that would need to regulate, regulate, regulate. there may be some clarifying we need to do, but we have the encouraging innovation. >> since both of these are non-depository institutions, should the sec be the primary
point from a regulatory perspective for these companies? >> i certainly think they range in terms of the nature of the institutions involved, but i think we should be taking a primary role, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. welcome back. >> thank you thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. much appreciated. madam chair, congratulations. i'm sorry to see you departing. thank you for your service to your country. i think you did a remarkable job under the circumstances and i have a feeling that as far as your critics on the side of the aisle go, i think they will miss you. i think we can all expect that. i know you're wrapping up, but on market structure, i had proposed the reform act last
year and another was a competing proposal among your, you have an equity market structure advisory committee that a little different wrinkle on it. it didn't go as far as what i proposed, but it talks about lowering access fees, which is a good thing. i don't really got at the issue of the routing or the conflict of interest in routing certain trades. going forward, as you wrap up, is there anything percolating that might actually come to fruition in your closing months? >> i don't know if it will come to fruition quite in my closing months, although we are really in response, i mean, not just in response to, but in recommendation to the
comprehensive pilot. we also have an outstanding proposal on more transparency in routing which i think is a very important proposal out there. the staff is working very hard on it. it'll be the staff's recommendation to the committee and we take very seriously. and i think it's a good proposal that we have gotten from our equity market structure committee, but obviously, we will be studying that as to whether to do it. i think you have a lot of support for doing such a pilot in that space and what precisely the component should be. i can't tell you something will come out before i leave but we are still driving it. >> okay, the question of resources, over the past while, at least over the past six or eight years we have had a defunding, or lack of resources, for your agency. can you speak to that a little
the practical impact cophe defunding, and as the on the beat for our financial ,arkets, and also morale-wise in terms of retaining the best and brightest people at the sec? >> it is so important that we are able to retain the best people and attract the best people with the investments we need to protect the investors. i have said this before. the biggest challenge i've had as chairman of the sec is just how significantly under resourced we are and i appreciate we've gotten budget increases, but look at what our responsibilities are. how extensive they are and how complex they are. look at the volume in the equity market and for example, ten years ago, we had we had 17 examiners for every trillion
dollars of assets under management by registered investment advisors and we have eight now. i talked mostly in terms because it is so start, our responsibility to examine investment advisors. i have done everything i can and i appreciate the support i have gotten when we get funding to really increase the number of examiners in a space. i've done that. i've actually increase the staffing in that area by 20% between transferring some from the broker-deal side and some of the funding that we have been given, but we are still in the position. we are smarter and we use risk analytics. but we examine 11% of those 12,500 registered advisers every year, 35% of the assets under management on the broker side. it's about 50%. it's a big investor protection issue. of course, it affects morale. you have some of the most
brightest, dedicated staff dedicated staff in the world at the sec and their loan star mission is to protect the investors. when you can't examine those advisors who are dealing with those investors, you have a duty to those investors to act in their best interest. >> thank you. my time has expired and i want to thank you again for your service to your country. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. your time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. those to add my kudos to of my colleagues. we wish you well in whatever endeavors you might pursue from this timeout. commenthave a commo first. you are still sec chair. i would like to raise it on credit agencies. i know the sec has taken the
steps to address the entrenchment of income and agencies, but more needs to be done. we should still take broader competition. i know senator scott, among others, have raised this issue with you and the sec's own work has shown this lack of competition has the potential to harm investors. it is your job to protect investors and i hope you will give this issue consideration. i certainly will be in touch with your successor on this issue as we go down the line, but i realize it is a general statement. if you would like to comment, i would like to offer you that opportunity. >> clearly, that is an area i continue to focus on. we have a number of reforms that are them important to have done. we have seen some improvement in competition, but it is still a major issue. .t is a very difficult one to come upon an optimal solution
in an effective way, but also in a way that also deals with the issue you are trying to correct for. basically, our economists continue to study this, as well as our policy stuff divisions. >> i know if you watched the movie "the big short," it was very graphic on how the problems were created, what was going on and obviously, this is a point we need to shore up with regards to allowing investors to have confidence in our bonds and our ratings of those. the chairman mentioned also something about pending rules. be, do my question would you have any requests from the administration? do you have any ideas of any midnight rules that you are getting ready to propose, or we have to be thinking about? forssentially, our agenda
2016 and february of 2016 it is called sec speaks, which is where the chairman talks about the agenda. we have advanced the number of those priorities already. i said we would do as many as we could. we have also -- we have basically set the agenda for the rest of the year and into january. i don't see any last-minute rushes. the intend to carry out agenda i have outlined in february of 2016 as much as i can. >> ok. in the bloomberg report this morning there was a report with the headline saying u.s. consumers are increasingly defaulting on loans made online. and the story talks about delinquencies known as triggers for at least four different sets of bonds. i guess my first question is, are you aware of this with regards to the online lending
loans that secure these bonds? >> i am certainly aware of the reports of those issues. obviously, that is the investors and, not the lenders, but they have become relevant in terms of those assets under lying the investments. >> i would say they have become very relevant. >> i did not mean to minimize it at all. aboutarticle that talks paying off bonds instead of making new loans, which makes us find new and more expensive funding. folks toes the bond change the business model. to me, that is very concerning. are you considering any action to investigate further? or are you just watching? >> well, we continually study the space to the extent that impacts what we are doing and the offerings made in effect. and it raises the money to provide the funds to lend.
will kind of disclosures are required by these bonds? they have to send those out to the investors? >> yes, when they are offerings they do have to make various disclosures. you have to make material offers. it is very important that that information is talked about in a very accurate way. >> i am sure you are monitoring this if this is the case. >> where do you see this going? is this a blip on the screen or a bubble getting to burst? or is this a trend? what do you see? >> without putting an umbrella characterization on it, i think we have seen an increase in those concerns in the last year. that might be because more information is available on it now, but it is something we are watching very closely. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady from new york
is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chair white, i want to congratulate you for finalizing the data reporting rule. the rule will give the sec an important window into the front industry, while at the same time, preserving the ability of the industry to manage portfolios in a manner that thees clients without thi strictest constraints. given the vast amount of new information that the commission will be receiving, one special resources is the sec committing to protect the data from cyber thisnals who will want information? >> it has been in our budget request since i have been here because i have really prioritized our data security obligations, both with respect
to the new information we will be receiving their, the existing information we have, which is also relevant. and what we are doing this afternoon. we are devoting significant resources there. for 2017, anduest when it is finalized for 2018, he will see resource requests for that purpose. >> yesterday, the commissioner said the sec should take the regulation.ax last year i sent you a letter expressing my concern about regulatory uncertainty in this area and to better understand now,eeds of your agency and in the future. i know you are stepping down soon. do you have any final thoughts on this rapidly growing industry and the role you envision the sec playing in the next few years? >> i agree that the sec in its toucheshat syntac
should take the lead and be proactive. i think we have been. and i remember your letter addressing, at least in part, market lending platforms. we are uniquely among the regulators that are actually involved in the sets of issues, focused on the investors, as i just mentioned, if in fact that is how the funds are raised to lend. is in termsot act of the lending standards are the actual loans that are made. but i see the sec playing a major role going forward in all the spaces. >> i am glad to hear that. thank you. you and your fellow regulators the spent years crafting rule to balance the needs of market makers but the mandate to eliminate trading with federally insured funds. of rulepens if the bulk
is eliminated and government entities that have access to the safety net are once again trades.to make risky >> well, i guess i would answer that a little more broadly. i think the reforms that are contained in the dodd frank act have been enormously important strengthening our financial system and the protection of investors. the rule is a significant component of that. i think we are much stronger. i would not want to see those rescinded or repealed. >> i was happy to hear about the sec recently adopted rule regarding intrastate security offerings. this has the potential to cause red tape and help many small businesses raise capital when they leave and work. offerings.interstate
are there any other areas the sec is, or should be, looking at to streamline small business capital formation? >> as you know, we fairly recently, under the act, reformed and really expanded and the crowdfunding negotiation. what thelking about definition should be on a small reporting company, so if there was an adoption of that you have more smaller companies that were able to scale disclosure. is issues.very we were very pleased to recently adopt the intrastate amendments to our rules to make it easier , includingusinesses in the crowdfunding space. will bes something we talking about this weekend.
>> thank you and thank you for your service. >> thank you very much. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that and they want to go the sentiments of my colleagues and thank you for your service and your efforts and here. i think you have tried to come in and be as honest and forthright as you sometimes possibly can within the con strains of what we are dealing with. . i am concerned with something that has been brought up by the por concerning activism really overriding market soundness and in some cases, common sense about how we regulate and make sure that you know, good business decisions and regulatory decisions are behind that. we have tons of examples, but pay ratio and conflict minerals, political spending disclosures.
that in guard against these closing days -- how do you guard against that in these closing days? -- youhe group i have grouped several things in there. i do regard my job as the chairman in part to carry out congressional mandates. they are passed by congress, but we carry them out. it is our obligation and we try that in the most effective way. >> about the things that don't come from congress? concerned, we am know what our mission is. what is the right thing to do, we take input from all constituencies about that. but ultimately, we make that decision based on our mission.
very specifically i guess then, there are two commission seats currently open. and started kind of going down this road and i guess i would like to get as definitive an answer. i would like to get a definitive answer on that. but there are reports that regulators are trying to "rush to finalize the incentive compensation rule prior to president-elect trump taking office." will you commit to us here that you will stay in the commission vote on that rule until after the inauguration? i understand. this is a multi agency. i think the repurposing was in may.y the commission the staff is currently working to the comment on that. it is not a new issue.
i cannot say with the timing on that would be. but i hear what you are saying. >> regardless of the timing, they may or may not have it done. the are that they are rushing to get it done and what i am asking for i guess, is the commitment from you that you will then not vote on this, or not allow a vote on this from the sec to implement that before there is a new -- >> two things, and it will be as clear as i can. i don't think any rulemaking benefits come from it being rushed. it is hard to do it right and to optimally. i have tried even in joint rulemaking to make sure our economic analysis comes into play. i certainly will commit to do that. but i think i cannot judge in a vacuum for the next two and a half months. as i sit here today that is what i mean. >> so, if you are satisfied, we've another minute and 15 seconds. we can keep going back and forth. -- are yousatisfied
saying if you are satisfied that they have gone through this, that youed would have no problem moving afford with that? >> again, i don't know what is going to be in it. >> they don't know either. >> but there is me, too. i have to put it on the agenda to vote. what is always an issue there is no, the content of the rule, obviously, it into be satisfied with it i think it should go to the commission. >> in both content and context, correct. it this way. i understand completely the sensitivity that you are raising in terms of the time period we are in. i will say this is something that has been proceeding a pace all year. it is not all of a sudden proceeding. i am absolutely sensitive to what you are raising. ok, one minute and 15 seconds.
are you willing to commit to not vote on that? >> i cannot give that commitment in a vacuum. i think i have said all i can. i have said all i can say. >> and i think alike to hopefully emphasize your view that rushing into these things is a bad path to the. >> i think rushing into anything is, but certainly, i take a point with that. it a shot.t, i give with that, mr. chairman, your back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chair lady joe white, i want you to know that i think you have been one of the very best chairman of the security and exchangechair commission in thee history of the sec. and we all want to thank you for your service. you are smart, so tough, and many people don't know, but as a former prosecutor, you showed that toughness when you took on john gotti, the big mafia boss.
you brought him down. and you showed that toughness when you dealt with of the world terrorists that attacked and bombed our world trade center in new york. in that same toughness you brought to the sec as he really stood up and supported dodd frank as our main instrument to prevent any future taxpayer bailout of the financial sector. so, i say congratulations on a job well done. now, let me just ask you something. about six weeks ago this committee had a hearing about wells fargo. and the scandal. now, it is my understanding that almost three years ago the sec an investigation regarding the aggressive cross-selling at wells fargo. is that true?
on anyn, i can't comment investigation we did, or we might be doing, but i think what you are referring to, at least the reports that i have seen, and again, i am just commenting on the reports i have seen, the media reports i have seen, refer to our divisive corporation finance and their comment letters. that is not our enforcement staff. >> i just want to confirm that a , perhaps it was three years ago, somebody informed you about this cross-selling. sec looksn, what the set, the actual cross-selling thetices an is not in jurisdiction. it's the banking regulation. disclosures are within our jurisdiction. >> we now have the reports that the sec is again investigating wells fargo's cross-selling
practices. is that true? >> again, i can't comment on whether and what we are investigating. again, you know what our jurisdiction is. >> what i am trying to get is, you are doing your job and i certainly respect your comments on that, but i think it is very important to show that the sec has been on the case and has been dealing with this in the best interest of the american people. us could you maybe just tell , till the financial services , how the investigation is proceeding? what can we expect? any conclusion? is there any input you can give us? cannot becausei we don't comment on whether we are investigating something or what we might be looking at if we are. i just can't do that, in any case. >> ok.
let me go to this point. i'm the ranking member on the commodities exchange and derivatives swaps subcommittee, and i have been constantly assessing the numerous rules surrounding derivatives in terms of equivalency on the world stage. my committee handles that jurisdiction and the cftc. and, of course, you are involved in that as well. now a major concern i have raised is on the equivalency issue, particularly with the european union. i want to know what the status of that is going from your knowledge, and i also want to get an idea of how you feel on this exit of the largest market within the european union, great britain's exit from the european union and tax this issue of
equivalency? >> first, i think, as you know, the derivatives markets are uniquely global. that is my all the regulators internationally have been dealing with these issues. sec's own cross-border proposal on the security base swaps base is under the rubric of substituted compliance, when can we and can we not accept the other jurisdiction's rules to satisfy our rules? our staffs involved in those discussions. the cftc has been as you know , been more involved earlier in some of those discussions. , iserms of the u.k. , tha still sorting itself out. and it's to be put back on track timewise, so those rules can be effective. but i guess we are in the stage number everybody is focused on those priorities, but the discussion is still going on. >> best wishes to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
chair white, welcome again for your last appearance with a. -- your last appearance with us as the chair. i have not been the biggest fan of the administration, how they have complied with congress' requests for information, how witnesses have come in testified for this committee i think has been obstruction every at the very least. but that has not been the way you have run the sec. and you have been frank and honest and cooperative. i think you have tried to answer the questions we have asked to the best of your ability and i think you are a standout in how you have run the sec and how you engaged with congress. i want to thank you for that. under that point, i risk making your next two months more challenging. i think it's a job well done. to be clear, we don't agree on everything and that is understandable, but i think again, you've been a great job. >> thank you.
and do want to drill into, you can pick up our concern with what is going to happen in the next two months. we always did concerned about the lame-duck session of a presidency and a rush to implement a whole bunch of new rules. and i think the better practice would be to wait and let the administration come in. we have kind of got a little dance today, as you have had questions, but what rules do you want to see finalized? i am talking about you finalized. what do you want to see finalized in the next two months? >> i mentioned earlier, we are rushing, in my view, into anything. as far as that's concerned. we did set up the agenda earlier in the year, and our agenda for the rest of this year and into early january has been set for some time. i think other than this afternoon, which has been sunshine and we will be considered approving the final
consolidated audit trail plan. i think we have publicly noticed the others we have talked about internally in terms of scheduling. there are some i have mentioned in terms of year end goals. they include the capital margin segregation rules under title vii, something by the way, that all of my commissioners have the firmly supported prioritizing. my current commissioners and my prior commissioners and myself. so, that is one i have mentioned publicly. i mentioned i think, in my oral testimony that we do have an outstanding derivatives proposal and asset management space in a have mentioned publicly before that that is a priority. we are also looking very carefully at what the chairman 3,ntioned in terms of 30-e and providing mutual fund reports electronically. that is something, that when we adopted the porting rule, i say we were very focused on trying to have the staff give us a
final recommendation as to what to do by the year end. i think those are the ones i have mentioned publicly. >> we have blown through most of the timelines set out in dodd frank. we are six years on. and the last six weeks, i think would not be the best practice. i would like to see you hold off as much as possible, unless it is an emergency for the next administration. but that is just my opinion. i only have a minute and a half left. quickly, i want to thank you for your work on the pilot program. we worked on the in the house. you somewhat happened here with an outstanding vote in this committee and on the floor and took it upon yourself to implement the pilot program. we are grateful for that. we want to give our small companies greater access to capital. but as you have heard, some
participants worry that the data will expose their trading strategies. you have heard that and i have heard that. can you assure the committee that you will ensure that the data that is provided will be protected? and can you give those who participate assurance? >> i have heard those concerns raised. the staff is all over those questions. i think i have said before in answer to another question that the security of the data that should be secured could be a higher priority in every space, including the pilot. so, the staff is very focused on it. >> very quickly, i want to move over to shareholder proposals. shareholders only need to own 2000 on $2000 worth of stock. in addition, a shareholder proposal made only received 3% of a vote cast the thet time and a 6% in subsequent years respectively to qualify for submission in the next year. this hasn't been updated for 50 years. do you have any thoughts and
whether we should be updating these proxy submission both? -- submission rules? think everybody knows this as the rulemaking agenda over the last four to six years. that has obviously been discussed for several of the years. i think it is very important for the staff to refresh what their recommendations are in that space. i will say there are very divergent views on that. $2000 threshold was originally put in deliberately small so you could allow the small shareholder to have that kind of franchise participation. but as you say, that was set some time ago and i am also aware of the issue on how many times and what vote to you get on the proposal. i think you will see the sec returning to that, not that they have left the study of that, but i don't think anything will come during my tenure. >> again. my time is expired and i want to thank you again for your great work in cooperation with
congress. i yield back. >> mr. green is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chair lady, for your outstanding service. it has been an honor to work with you. and my hope and my prayers are that you will be equally as successful in the next life, as you have been in this one. thank you. , withoutair, if a bank being specific, if a bank thates a circumstance such it gives the appearance of being in a growth mode by engaging in some onerous tactics by giving the appearance that it has more has,mers than it actually you are in the business of protecting investors. you are the investor protector. the bank is giving this false
sense of the growth. is this the kind of thing that the sec concerns itself with? >> and again, talking in the abstract, as you have awarded the question. >> very general terms. >> that is very much in the disclosures to public investors. i will phrase it that way. the accuracy of them is very much in the sec's space. we bring cases in our enforcement division on misleading material disclosures all the time. i mean, a lot of those cases. and so what you look at, and you mentioned kind of was their growth or not growth. you look at both quantitative materiality and you can look at qualitative materiality. so, instead of a profit there is a loss, you might have qualitative materiality issues, even if it is not a big amount. you do apply those lenses at the
sec for disclosures like that. >> and when these circumstances manifest themselves, does it take a complaint from many protectors, pardon me, investors, or do you do this on your own motion, on your own volition? >> we very often do it on our own relation. we are constantly surveilling the marketplace and the marketplace of public information. we obviously have our own data analytics. often we do it ourselves. often people get, obviously we have a very vibrant whistleblower program. we get it from all sources, but we do not have to wait on a complaint to act. we are very proactive. >> and when you do this on your own volition, is it published that you are engaging in this process, or is this something that happens and then we are accorded the results, as opposed to an indication that the
process has been engaged? >> if we are talking, and i think we are, about an investigation that we would be doing in our enforcement division, for example, in a think that goes back to my discussion with congressman scott. we do not disclose whether we are investigating something, or what we are finding. and so, you would not see that until, if it did, result in an action. anmetimes when we do open i investigation, the companies will disclose the fact that investigations are ongoing. again, that is their call based on their reader what is required, what is prudent to do. but you will not hear from us if it is an ongoing investigation until there is a result, typically. >> well, i am going to come back to this, but i would like to go to another point and i have time enough to do it. do you find that there is a conflict between what your agency has as its
responsibilities with the cfpb and its responsibilities? >> i have not found that during my time as chair. obviously, we work while furtively all other civil and criminal law enforcement agencies. could there be overlap that ?ould conflict we try to work out any conflict we have any spaces. there is a lot of space to cover. >> you would not recommend the cfpb, ition of the cf take a question mark >> there is -- you would not recommend the emanation of the cpfb, i take it? it has been a very active enforcement agency. >> thank you. my final comment will be this. wells fargo engaged in conduct unbecoming a bank. they took advantage of people at
the entry-level in their business, such that benefited the people at the top of the business. as bad as that is, it also caused people who are making what they thought were honest investments based upon quality , they allowed those people to make those investments to their detriment. my hope is, without getting into what you will do, is that wells fargo will be treated fairly and justly and those investors will be treated fairly and justly. thank you very much. >> thank you. you are recognized for five minutes. >> think you, chair white for being with us. i must say that while we clearly have disagreements, you have been very respectful industry forward. you have been professional in every manner. so, i commend you for your work. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to say and anecdotal reference is made to why you are leaving. did you make the decision to
leave prior to the election? >> i did. and i think in the last 50 years or so, the chairman of the sec has left when there is an election. irrespective of which party is coming into power. i have served for almost four ye ars. in fact, i might have mentioned but ie time later, mentioned it today. >> i appreciate you saying that. there was inference made that you left because of some individual elected president. chair white, as you might know, i led an effort earlier this year with 50 other members of concerns ofative to the sale of the chicago stock exchange through chinese government affiliated firm. as well, just two weeks ago my staff met with fcc commissioner piowar on this matter and he has
some of the same concerns regarding the corruption inside chinese firms, as well as their complacency and lack of transparency within them. given that china remains the number one state sponsor of corporate espionage and intellectual property theft and market manipulation, we urge that you conduct a rigorous review of this transaction and block it if it is felt it is necessary. would you kindly comment on this in your opinion relative to this transaction in your concerns with whether a chinese government affiliated firm should exchange, given that it does play a role in the markets? >> i think the issues you are referencing are not our bailiwick. we do have a process that follows that, which has not begun yet. i would not want to comment on that were prejudge that. >> i understand. chair white, you have previously markethat "enhancing
structure, we must focus closely on the particular needs of smaller companies and their investors." what do you believe are the most significant issues that smaller companies face in today's equity markets? for example, reduced liquidity. >> i think one is obviously the availability. i think the pilot is designed to see whether widening the spread might help that. spaces, ie public think we have to be very focused on any of our regulations of such that you know, again, they need to be there, they need to protect the markets and investors, but are they unnecessarily inhibiting smaller companies from going public? that is something we are focused on all the time. >> thank you. i would like to ask you some of companies that obtain capital through borrowing or equity
financing, to you agree tightening of credit has made equity financing all the more important as a means of providing small companies the capital they need to grow and expand and create jobs? >> that seems to be what the data shows. >> thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and thank you, chair white, for being here. we are more than six years out from the passage of the dodd-frank act, and far too many rule makings have yet to be finalized, despite the ample time that has been afforded to our regulatory agencies. one such rulemaking relates to section 956 of dodd frank. this section imposes upon large financial institutions the responsibility to institute
clawback policies, or policies that would allow the financial institution to snatch incentive-based compensation away from executives that engage in wrongdoing. democrats on this committee wrote to you last month, asking you both to quickly work and finalize the rule and to strengthen it. i am now hearing that this rulemaking may not be finalized anytime soon. indeed, as it relates to the sec , there are reports indicating that the sole republican commissioner of the sec has refused to grant a quorum for a commission vote when it comes to any rulemakings he objects to. that is right. the commission reportedly will not even show up and vote no . instead, choosing not to attend the meeting at all.
is it correct that the republican commissioner has threatened to deny a quorum and thereby, prevent a commission vote on any particular rules, including the 956 clawback proposal? >> every rule that i have put on the agenda we have had a quorum for. so, the republican and democratic, i am only three, but we have all shown up for those. in terms of 956, the reproposal that was in may of this year, which is joint, but it is sec as well, we moved that and there was no attempt to block that or not to have a quorum. >> and so, where is it now? >> i think as a mentioned before and it has been publicly discussed by regulators. all of the regulators, and there are either five or six of us, it is a joint regulation, are working through the comments and working on that reproposal. >> thank you for that. last month, wouters reported the
sec questioned wells fargo's over aggressive cross-selling practices in late 2014, quoting correspondence from the commission's division of corporate finance. 's you know, the banks cross-selling practices as they related to deposit and credit accounts, as well as online banking, were eventually found to be unfair, deceptive, and ,busive by the occ, the cfpb and the city of los angeles to the tune of a combined $185 million fine. can you tell the committee what prompted the sec inquiry into wells fargo's cross-selling practices two years ago? again, in terms of the practices themselves, that is obviously not in our jurisdiction. i think what you are referring
to, i have mentioned earlier, i reports on the division of corporation finance. it is part of their annual review of financial filings of many companies, public companies, raising certain questions about the disclosures. content of not the the cross-selling practices. that is not in our jurisdiction. i think what that is is raising questions about -- i can't go beyond the public record about the comments. just a routine inquiry on the part of the division of corporate finance? >> again, i can't say anything more specific than i have, but it does appear to be part of the annual review process. it is a routine part of what we do, a very important part of what we do. >> and what was the outcome of the division's inquiry? >> again, i think comments may have been issued, questions really, questions and comments.
i can't tell you what the outcome was in that sense of the word. >> and earlier this month, wells a regulatoryed via filing that the bank again was being scrutinized by the commission related to disclosures surrounding and sales practices? but how does it differ from the 2014 in wired? -- the 2014 inquiry? >> again, i cannot comment on whether we are investigating or what we are investigating. i did point out before that obviously, public company disclosures, if they are something that we, not only do we reread them in our annual reviews, but if we have questions about them, they come under investigation. i can't really say any more than that then the company itself has said so far. i cannot comment further. >> thank you for your responses and my time is up. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i thank you, chair white.
thank you for your service and thank you also for always having your staff in yourself available. the focus of the sec originally was, and i think should continue to be the strength and resilience of our markets, and i think that is critical to economic growth and to the jobs that are created thereby. but when it comes to capital markets lending, and i have got about the lastt, few years. there may be some reflection that you would make because we have had a lot of changes. major regulatory changes, such as risk retention. we have had the accounting changes. we have had their credential changes. we have had a new capital and liquidity rule and new disclosure regimes, automated trading platforms.
and all of this is occurring at the same time. and in european regulators have raised concerns about how these new regulations fit together. crux of the question here because on his way out the door, the financial services chief jonathan hill concluded that whereas after 2008, the greatest threat to global stability had been the global crisis. -- had been the financial crisis. over time, the greater threat had become the lack of growth itself. in other words, too little risk itself, in his words, became a stability risk. say thathe went on to the crisis may have made the scale in the case of regulatory change inevitable, but the various layers of regulation could have been better aligned.
that was his reflection and i was just going to ask you yours, in terms of whether you agree with that sentiment. if we step back and we reflect on the cumulative impact of all these regulations and carefully understand what this means for growth and lending before we changes,ard with major what would your observation be on that? >> i think in terms of the impact of that -- well, let me back up. cap the markets and innovation are built on taking prudent risks with factors fully disclosed. the is a very important driver of growth of the economy and everything else that is positive. obviously, one has to worry about, and we do, systemic risk that could destabilize the system and cause tremendous harm to investors. i think in terms of the impact
of the regulations, and i mentioned this earlier, our areomists at the sec studying, and will be reporting to congress next year, the impact of cumulative radiation. so, corporate bond the quiddity as well. it is something we study all the time. when we do our rules, by the way, our economists do study the economic impacts and they do look at not only the particular four corners of one rule and what you are changing their, but you have got these other nine rules out there. when you add this one, what will be the commutative effect upon all sorts of economic impacts? there could be a benefit for investors and there might not be, but what is the cost of it? one of the costs might be a cost of growth. and i think the financial services chief jonathan hill from the eu is just come in retrospect, looking at this, but at a time where, as you know,
there is the more coming down the pipeline. we have discussions continuing on basal. we have proposals on the fundamental review of the trading block. i assume you share that overarching goal, which i think he speaks to their. we need to balance the goals of market stability and safety and the needs ofh market liquidity, efficiency and of end-users and overall economic >> as i view it that's part of the cost benefit analysis that we do. when you do that, you have to think broadly. >> well, i appreciate your observations and again your service. and thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for all of the hard
work that you have done and i particularly want to thank you and i will ask a few questions later in regard to making sure hat our boards become more diverse. first, i want to ask you this question. i think i heard my colleague mr. clay talk about it and a few other members dealing with his whole wells fargo issue. what concerns me they are losing faith in the honesty at times of some of our financial institutions. u know that our financial institutions are absolutely essential to our well being and our way of life. but the common everyday american is
so then they put the question on where we go with reference to our regulatory agencies and confidence in them that they are going to in fact be there to protect the american people and to make sure that banks are honest. hat would you say? >> i can't comment specifically on werg fargo earth than to say the practices themselves, and other regulator jurisdictions. but with the broader issues
that you're raising, which is really in part a corporate culture set of issues, it's in part a how do we more strongly deter also misconduct in our companies and in our financial institutions. that's a function of law enforcement. i've spoken before, i'm going to speak again in a few days about things i think we need to e considering. a question we have to be focusing on is accountability at the senior executive level for thing that is may occur on their watch, even if they're not involved in the misconduck. ow do you infuse this do the right thing culture throughout? we have codes of conduct. works bet anywhere some companies than others.
when you want your employees to behave in a certain way you've got to focus on what you're inspecting not just what you're saying. and what you're rewarding and punishing. one of the things i'm proudest of at the s.e.c. is the use of data analytics and the data available out there to make us smarter about what may be problematic conduct. i think it's a whole set of issues that we have to -- in congress, too, has to think outside the box to raise that bar of culture and compliance. >> i think when you have more diverse boards you have more
thinking and watching at that level because clearly that's he best way. it seems to me the chair of the board can check the ceo. the balancing act. when you have both it seems to me that could lend itself to omething unseemly. the s.e.c. doesn't take a substantive policy position on that. i guess i am speaking for myself a bit of a one size may not fit all situation. so -- but clearly there are -- >> should be something that's onsidered.
>> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i echo much of what my colleagues have said. i wish you the best. earlier in the hearing you answered some questions from congressman garrett about the work of the exty structure advisory committee. can you tell us me what mechanism is in place to ensure the recommendations of the advise committee are included?
>> we're all sort of in this in a very laser focused way to sort of get to concrete changes if they need to be made. so in terms of their recommendations -- at the end of the day it's really the the s.e.c. that has to decide not the committee. everybody -- i think there's a lot of unanimity about this wants to get to the bottom of what enhancements should be made to one of the strongest markets in the world. so there's a lot of momentum to have these not sit on the shelf. >> earlier this year we sent you a letter about
we have a whole system for those numbers. now there's a bunch of other important numbers. final issue, accounting and auditing consists of defining the terms and auditing the information. we do a great job of looking at numbers like revenue expense, assets, earnings-per-share. we have a whole system for those numbers. there are bunch of other important numbers, it might be the backlog of a manufacturing or aircraft manufacturing company, it might be same-store sales, and i wonder, in your
closing days or perhaps on your to do list for your successor if we could have a project to do the same thing that we do for the numbers in the financial statements for the numbers in the supplement, what i hope would be a supplemental audited disclosure relevant to certain industries, because when i look at macy's or nordstrom, my most important number might be earnings-per-share. great job, clear definition. they can't change the definition year-to-year within the company is comparable between the two companies. then i look at same-store sales and it's as loosey-goosey as it gets. one hundred years ago we developed a financial statement, can we move forward to have industry-specific, perhaps voluntary or required supplemental, numerical disclosures with generally accepted, which means sec defining and have the public accounting companies that have spent a hundred years just auditing two or three pieces of paper, audited a few of these numbers. or are we in this
bizarre circumstance were some of the numbers are audited and defined and some are? >> to some degree that is correct. i usually done a lot of work on measures that are currently audited and we get a lot of guidance on that. same-store sales would be audible. in terms of adding it to something that would be required in terms of the cost-benefit of that, but i think there clearly is not consistency in that space. it's a metric that is not paid attention to so.well raised. >> hank you mr. chairman, chair white, thank you for appearing
before us and i also want to lend my voice to thank you for your service as you prepare for whatever comes next. we wish you the very best. with the election results there has been lot of discussion and dratted sizing about the department of labor fiduciary role. i wanted to ask a question regarding that as we look forward to next year. earlier this month they announced it would no longer allow customers with commission -based ira to purchase mutual funds. already choices are being taken away from customers. are you at all concerned by the impact on the retirement services market that the sec oversees and regulates. >> well, i think we are all concerned about anything that results in depriving consumers of reliable advice. think we've expressed that before. markets do adjust to rules. we are obviously talking to, where we overlap, various effects of the
department of labor rulemaking and our job is to coordinate and provide relief if we have the authority to make sense to minimize impacts, but that is one of the impacts that the department of labor certainly asked a lot of questions about and we've talked about before. >> merrill lynch certainly isn't the only company to announce major changes to their business operations, including selling off entire businesses. are these impacts being considered by the staff as they develop a proposal to establish uniform fiduciary standard? >> the answer is certainly the data will be considered. the tatus of the sec is that the
staff has provided a detailed outline of how it will approach what is a very difficult thing to do. i don't expect, as i said before, i am one vote on this but it is definitely something that continues to be studied, all impacts impacts and impacts like that are being onsidered. >> to that point, has the sec undertaken specific analysis on the impact with advisors registered with the sec. >> the answer is, that is part of the analysis that is done continually. it's not a specific project toward that. efore we would move toward a proposal or a rule it would be definitively studied but it's also being studied as it happens >> earlier this year, david graham, the based studied the analysis of the potential impact was ongoing and could draft recommended rulemaking and his point was that whether a rule is proposed and adopted depends on further analysis and action by the full commission. can you provide the committee any update on the staff as i ush towards this analysis on
the proposals impact. >> i think analysis is ongoing all the time. i guess i'm not sure what the contest would be. often when we do proposals, we do significant economic analysis and even more analysis n whether or not to move toward adoption. i don't know if that's what he's referencing or not but it's a continuous process and you complete that process before you do a final rule. >> i know your ten years coming to a close,. >> this is something again i've tried to make clear. it's a really hard omplex rulemaking. i'm 11 vote
and i think it's important to do. it is something i don't expect there to be action while i am still the chair and i think in this current commission you won't see that advance. we are a commission of three. >> i understand that. certainly, i also agree that the jurisdiction of the sec in this space is what is very preeminent and important. i also think it's important as you come to the end of your tenure is to ask that the analysis be shared publicly or certainly with this committee before there would be any proposal of a uniform fiduciary standard. thank you. >> it would certainly come out with the proposal if there was a proposal, but i hear what you're saying. >> just the
analysis as we move forward. i yield back. >> the gentleman rom connecticut is recognized. >> thank you. mdm. chair, let me join my colleagues in congratulating you and thank you for your service chairing this securities exchange commission at a challenging time. two questions i wanted to ask you, as as you recall on july 15, 9 of us on this committee sent to you and the chairman a letter about the persistence of the more or less 7% spread, drawing on the work of abramson jenkinson and jones, and asking both the sec and finra to undertake a study of this pricing. we were all supporters of the jobs act and supporters because the jobs act was estimated to save companies one or $2 million a year in
sarbanes-oxley compliance cost and the average ipo of roughly $100 million, a remarkably consistent spread. we have not heard back from sec or finra and i'm wondering if we can get a sense of whether this is interest to either and how we might proceed. >> it is a point of significant interest. i think, frankly you should be getting a letter soon. i will say this much, i always study it with the staff and there is some complexity with the data with the cost which makes it hard to use as a straight line, 7% for reasons that aren't necessarily apparent i don't
want to get ahead of the letter, there may be difficulty studying it in a simple way or straightforward way. you've also got interacting in all of the space in the jobs act that were made and some of the other changes that have been made. ou have a lot of factors interacting. i think you raise a very important point and concern. we will getting back to you, certainly in my tenure. >> i appreciate that. at the end of the day we are asking for some scrutiny here. in an oddly priced. >> understood. >> my other question, there were a number of legislative proposals to define in statute, in insider trading, i'm i'm partial to my own hr 1625, responding to this in the newman case which as you know, has led led to any number of onvictions being overturned,
some uncertainty for prosecutors, i have struggled to get either adjust us or any of the regulators or anybody to say that one simple way to remove some of this ambiguity, and i fully understand we have talked about this, it does seem to me that they clarify in the definition of insider trading and giving our enforcement mechanisms and the judiciary some clarity would make some sense, but i have have struggled to get an affirmative location from the department of justice on this and i'm wondering if you can give me erspective on that question.
>> i can try. i know we've discussed this before. i think yours is a very thoughtful bill. one of the concerns is the kind of various permutations of what the courts, the sec and insider trading. finding that is a challenge. i think we are in a little different position with respect to newman because we ave a lower burden of proof on that issue. we are actually watching very closely what happens in the solomon case on personal benefit i think what i've indicated before is we have basically been arguing in our case, including in the newman spaces that that it impacts, but in narrowing newman to the facts it's been pretty successful so far. the salmon decision will benefit
part of newman if that work, hopefully, from the enforcer part of you, that comes out in a way that provides a reaffirmation of what is required and not required to provide prove that element that i think we revisit the question by regulation or by statute that we need a clear definition of it and what should that definition be. i think right now we have done well, i think again it's a consequential decision in our space to which we worry about in terms of newman. we think this state of insider trading laws is such that we can vigorously enforce it. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back. >> thank you. i think that exchange i just had with my colleague is a testament to your professionalism that you have had before this committee and the knowledge base that you bring with you, that you've accumulated over your career and i just want you to commend you for that in your more than 20 years of public service. i want to do a little bit of retrospection, i know some of my colleagues are focused on the next couple of months and regulations coming down the pike but i want to look at what f stock has been doing. the f stock with the backing of the app sec has widely taken and activities -based approach to evaluating systemic risk in the asset management industry. many on the committee would like to
i think the pivot, as it's referred to in the asset-management space make a good sense in that space. there's a very thorough analysis in that space and i think they are confident with where it landed. i fully understand the question in the argument that's being made. the lens through which they looked at the insurance industry was under clear authority to look at it in that particular way and they were confident in their analysis there. i think that is a pretty accurate assessment. >> also with respect to insurance, i'm a little curious about sec's role as a member of the f stock and the fsb. there are concerns to which the extent the fsb risks designation process for nonbanks as separate and distinct from the process the abstract uses to to designate nonbanks. chair yellen testified before this committee argued against fsb front running based on the assertion that gfi i for metlife was inconsistent with that narrative. do you recall what it was, the fs b or the f
stock who designated these as ystemically important? >> it happened about as i arrived i think. i could get back to you, i think there was designation by fsb earlier but i'm not sure. i would have to get back to you. the process was separate. i was recused from some of the insurance company so i'm less familiar with them. the sec staff which does participate in these
committees, if the subject matter of what's being considered at fsb doesn't relate to the securities market, we don't actually participate participate actively in those work streams and i can get to you with more information that we do have on it. >> we may want to follow up on that. in your role, have you felt any pressure to enact fsb policies are designation. >> none whatsoever. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. the gentle lady from wisconsin is recognized. >> thank you so much chairman, and thank you for your service as well. and thank you hon. mary jo white for your service as well and i wish you wellin the future, but you are still the chair. >> i am. >> we want to make sure you use every single moment in your office to bring about the results that i think he american people would want.
we have gone through some rough times in this country and one of those rough times was when our market funds sort of broke the bank and there were rules floated, they were promulgated to float the naff. since then we have seen $64 billion in ost funds with regard to that. i'm wondering if you sort of changed your mind about the efficacy, particularly with our state and local government not really having anywhere to put these funds that they need to keep liquid, that we are already centralizing money in these large banks. i'm wondering if you have had any further thoughts. >> one answer, it's a very important one, we at the sec continue to monitor the impact of all of our rules. one of the things that i have done as chair, as we come out of the gate, don't wait five years or ten years to look at them so we have been
following that closely put i will say, thus far, the impacts that have occurred that were largely predicted in our economic analysis, for example the money market fund spaces in terms of in total is about the same in terms of volume size, dollar size with a lot of movement to government funds which we predicted. obviously they're not impacted. a lot of it has to do with the low
interest rate environment and not the money market fund rules. clearly the real significant movement has been in the prime institutional where it does apply. the answer i think, to date, date, we watch a very closely, is that the benefit of the reforms that we instituted, we believe was a systemic risk issue that's obviously a large one and of great concern p at think that is something we are confident we have, confident subject to further analysis that you needed to have the floating floating -- i think you will see some returns to the prime institutional space over time but we have to see if that happens. >> well right now it's not happening. the sec put out a report in 2012 on the municipal market that included a lot of recommendations, including providing the sec authority to directly regulate uni bond disclosures. you've
been supportive of this report in the past, but inlaid in light of the initiative for several issuers were fined for disclosure violation, do you think we need to do more in congress to move on these recommendations? >> i think it's a broader issue than the mc d.c. because that was continuing to slow obligation but we have less direct authority in that space that we do for public company sector. i think it was enormously effective and we tried to carefully calibrate that so we were mainly aimed for issuers that really changing the conduct and improving visit disclosures so we tried to be very measured there. the underwriters measured also, but obviously there was a different settlement paradigm for them. we have seen improvement in those disclosures, but i would not conclude that fat therefore removes the need for greater authority from the sec. the staff is, again it's a
continuous process, but we will be looking at and is looking at continuously. we may speak further on that in the future. >> thank you again, and thank you again for your service, and i hope that you stay floating somewhere on the fringes so that we can have someone to call. >> thank you very much, thank you you. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for your service as well chair white, thank you for taking time to be here. i would like you to be able to expand a bit on the sam fox regulatory framework in regards to innovation and capital. is it your sense that the sec should take the lead in developing regulations for the technology enter and encouraging flexible
regulatory to the experimentation or innovation within the syntax world? >> there are several questions in that. i think i am supportive of the sec asserting against jurisdiction and spaces that were in. i think it's important to do that and were doing that and consultation, coordination and in the treasury market that well as well. i think we do a good job in those spaces. anything i think we should be asserting our authority there. i also think that where we come out is yet to be seen on various issues which is as it should be. i mentioned earlier i set up a thin tech working group some time ago to test them to come up with recommendations as to how the sec should proceed. clearly having the lens of this innovation is exciting and can yield tremendous benefits we don't want to be stifling in what we do. we have to be concerned about protecting investors and everything that we do as well. i think we have the right group working on it i think we have the right mindset working on it. >> i was a ittle concerned when comptroller crede made a few comments that seem to indicate as a one-size-fits-all so it's hard to hear your comments a ew moments ago saying that
one-size-fits-all is not the best path. >> again, just to be clear we have to make sure investors are protected and whatever we do but it's something we should look at with a fresh open mind. >> i understand you are gathering recommendations, but from those forms, what was the big challenge that small businesses are facing. >> there are a lot of challenges they are facing. i think all the regulators need to be very focused on. i think we have a lot of things we are looking at whether it is automated advice. i was watching one of the panels. one of the predictions is that we will have more consolidation of automated advice givers. you worry a little bit about the smaller high-quality advice givers that may find it too difficult to penetrate the marketplace. we clearly are of the view that registered dvisors, if there subject to
fiduciary rules and will have to comply with those obligations but one of the things we are doing in the national exam program, that is a priority, to see across the industry and what we try to do from this exam is share the learning. i think it's a little too early to predict. >> you might not be able to fully speak to this, do you have a sense that having flexibility and the ability to
streamline when we are talking one size fits all with the the cost association and redundancy, is that something they were able to encourage. >> i think the private sector encourages it, i think whichever sector i'm in, this makes sense, sometimes one-size-fits-all at a certain range, but most often if you have the ability to do it you want to tailor regulations to a particular problem. >> and just as a final, i know you where couple of hats, but with the f stock that you sit on, do you support the fed's attempt to usurp the jurisdiction as a regulatory agency over capital markets - know i would not, but i do not think they are trying to do that, at least since i've been here. >> okay, thank you so much and thank you for your service. i yield back. >> thank ou, the gentleman yelled back.
gentleman from maine. its main, right? >> yes it is maine. i'm coming to maine. - everybody is going to maine after, let's restart the clock and give them an additional 30 seconds to talk about maine. >> i appreciate that very much but your retirement from your great service to our country and thank you very much. also does mr. chairman provide an opportunity and maine is known as vacationland and it's also a great place to buy a second home and we would like you to invite you to be a taxpayer up there. either way it's just great. >> now you're going a little too far. >> i wanted to cover three issues with you today. we talked about a couple of these already. your
mission that you focused on aggressively and i appreciate it is to make sure that small investors have the information they need to make the conscious decision, the important important decisions to prepare for their retirement whether that is cost savings or what have you. you made a decision not to move forward with the rule and i'm appreciative of hat. for two reasons, number one, we have a hiring district in maine and there are a lot of folks that are not connected to broadband. they rely on cell phone coverage in many parts of our district. there are 60 million americans that live in this area. there are about 46 millions who are 65 years and older who have a hard time navigating the internet. it is critically important that we ensure our senior savers and investors in rural districts have the information that is so critical to make the decisions they need. now, i also, in full disclosure, know that we make
that paper in maine. this very fine paper are printed on 600 terrific jobs, and i advocate for them all the time. now i know the wall street firms want to forgo the cost of buying and paper and printing on paper and sending it out to investors. however our investors need this information if they have no other way to get it. so i am pleased and grateful that you have not moved forward on rule 30 e- three that would make it more difficult for seniors to receive this information on paper. my question to you as the following. why do you withdraw the rule? >> we've discussed this discuss this and what i said at the time is that we actually adopted the rest of the proposal for investment company reporting and that was hat we got stents of important
comments along the lines that you've just made and i directed the staff to study it further and then come back to the commission basically targeting year-end to come back with a recommendation. after that was done we were looking at who is paying the bill to try to get better cost data. that undertaking is proceeding and it's something that in the comments were well taken and needed further study. >> the decision will be made by the end of the year before you move on? >> i spoken publicly, i did at the open meetings, we were targeting year-end. >> let's move onto a separate topic. we don't have a lot of time to deal with the role of f stock when it deals with asset managers. your i may disagree on this but if we both run pension management firms and i say is my performance better than yours that your clients come to my shop but the assets are held over here at the
custodial bank. if you're group gets in trouble it represents no systemic risk to the economy. that being said, and also, the fact that you have already adopted a new more ggressive series of rules to make sure you aggressively examine our asset management community, and you you folks are the primary regulator for pension fund managers, why don't you just recommend, if i may suggest, that you take the potential designation of asset managers as too big to fail just off the table. you you need it anymore? >> i think f stock's responsibility, i do think this is inordinately important to safeguard emerging rest and possible risk down the pike.
taking things off the table you are charged with continuing looking at it. having said that, we've obviously done rulemaking since then but i think f stock's effort to date are complementary of what we are doing at the sec, not contradictory. >> that concern i have is that of course, if any asset manager that represents no systemic risk to the economy is so designated there will be a whole layer upon layer of new regulations that will drive up the cost and drive down the rate of return of our small investors trying to save for college or retirement. that's why it would be terrific if we could use your influence during the last couple months you are with us to make sure they get the message over there at f stock. i really appreciate it and congratulations, we will be looking forward to welcoming you to maine whenever you find that to be the right time. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields his time. mr. hill is recognized
for five minutes. >> i think the chairman and i think you chairman garrett for your service in this congress as chairman of capital market committee. you have done an outstanding job. chair white, it's a pleasure to see you and as someone who has testified before congress before, i always thank you for your forthright testimony. it is a relative statement compared to many who come before us. some of sometimes the bars relatively low to step over but i appreciate your commitment to the committee in a timely way. the market structure topic, e've talked about it before. this is something in the first term i have had in congress over the past two years that has concerned me because we have done 50 trading platforms and added a new exchange and when the commission published its list pursuant to the regulation, where are you on your commitment to fully vet and review that rule? >> as i mentioned before, as i look at he market structure work, it
is things we know now that should be fixed in a comprehensive review of development issues. that is something that is the subject of our committee's work and the comprehensive review. we do have the safest, most reliable markets in the world and we don't want to do something i would have unintended onsequences. >> when you think
the commission will review their work and make a proposal? i can't really predict the precise timing, i guess it may be up to someone besides me, but i would expect it to remain front and center going forward. >> this issue between trading venues and exchanges is a related topic, i think it relates to having the most ompetitive markets. i noted mr. gallagher gave a speech not long ago where he talked about should exchanges remain. in your work, as you head out and developed a personal view on that. >> that is something, we continue to say, that's also in our subcommittees that is very focused on. i have informed of you on it but i do think there
are significant questions raised. >> i want to switch gears briefly and i think with something congress has reaffirmed and certainly the commission has and that's the issue that for equity research, one can use soft dollars commissions to pay for investment research. is that still the position of the commission? >> there is not a rohibition on this. >> so, i hear in europe there heading a different direction under their 2014 proposal they put out called market and financial
instrument directive. shouldn't that create a disparity for u.s. investment banking and research firm for their clients in europe versus their clients in the young states. >> it certainly has that potential. one of the things that struck me is how much we need to be correlating with international investors because, it's something we do consider when we decide our own policies as well. you are looking up, how how do you coordinate two different systems, whose at an advantage and disadvantage and it's something we continue to discuss with them. >> would you be willing to write a letter to the regulators and cautioned them about this. >> i think i would need a little further riefing on it as to exactly, we should never view how they think together or don't but certainly if i was of that view, after that i certainly wouldn't hesitate. i might not do it by letter but you know. >> you have time. in 17, you know how to firms work wellin advance of deadlines and i
think it could put american companies that severe disadvantage. thank you for looking at. >> gentlemen will have the last word on this entire matter. >> i would like to join my colleagues and also thinking our chairman of the capital arket subcommittee for his leadership and chair white my think you for your service as head of the commission and for sharing your expertise and insight in helping us with our oversight responsibilities over the commission over these last several years. i want to focus on part of the mission, i wanted to follow-up regarding fixed income markets. significant attention has been
devoted to concerns and fixed income markets both in the u.s. and when you last testified in front of our committee and you were asked about the regulatory impact on liquidity and illiquidity that we are witnessing in fixed income markets, i think you testified that you could not identify the culprit and we've heard similar testimony from the treasury secretary who denies that regulations and that basel three can be pinpointed to blame here. we continue to see, since her last appearance,
evidence of the effect on liquidity. hank paulson commented that the poker rules saw the problem that was not a problem. it has become harder for financial institutions to provide the quiddity. that is his position. you had a ceo that they would no longer invest in certain bond traded because of underlying securities that become too hard to trade and on october 7, the value of the british pound plummeted from about 26 down to a dollar 18 in 18 in a matter of minutes during trading in asia with some electronic platforms recording trades below it $1.15. they attributed this to a lack of currency traders in the foreign exchange markets. given some of these developments, have you been able to determine whether regulations, basel three are in fact impacting this illiquidity? >> the answer to that is no we... hat particularly in their role as a member. >> thank you,
you'll back. >> there are a lot f other members out that are . so it's kind of a speculative thought, i suppose. it could be some of what isn't being measured is actually transactions not being consume yated as opposed to some that may take a while. the bottom line is we don't see that impact and we don't see the detier yoration that others
see. >> but there is evidence out there. so for example when the ceo of blackstone says when they passed voker there were 25 firms making markets in junk bonds there are now five. what happens when things get difficult and the market now just locks up? that is not healthy for capital markets and this is happening all over. it's affecting all markets because we mandated that to make the world safer. but this does not make the world safer. this is encouraging the world to be -- this is not enclrging the world to be safe, because when people need to sell and there isn't licked di what happens? >> look, i think -- that's -- that's the deal our metric i was just talking about. but you also have the market maker exception so you can have banks basically acting as market makers still permitted. so that can be a source of liquidity. but sort of stepping back,
these are significant concerns. but we study it globally we're studying it domestically we're studying it. really staying on top. our economists at the s.e.c. are directed to report to congress i think in may of 2017 of the impact of regulations collectively on corporate bond liquidity. that's part of what they'll be reporting on. it's a hard thing to do. hard think to ferret out. >> my time has expired and you're exiting your post but i would encourage your successors to continue to evaluate that particularly in the role. >> so there's a lot of other members out just waiting to come in at this lastminute. i was told you, unlike many others come down did not have a hard stop.
>> so might as well sleep here. >> so thatconcludes today's hearing. let me once again say thank you for your service. someone made the comment come i don't thing amenta came out that way, they thanked you for your service and its relative to others here and it is true that the bar for other people is low, but you certainly have greatly exceeded that by the brett of your expertise and your dedication to public service and this disposition specifically. i think you for what you have done. >> thank you for your service as well. >> with that said, without objection, all members have five additional days to submit questions which will be submitted to you. we ask always that those be returned promptly and you still have x number of days to fill that in. also, without objection, all members all members have five legislative days of which to submit xtraneous materials to the
been a success thanks to the great work of our eruvian... friends. as i've said, over the decades our global integrated economy has helped to improve the lives of billions of people around the world with historic gains in prosperity, education, and health. at the same time, when jobs and capital can move across borders, when workers have less leverage, when wealthy corporations and global elites too often seem to be playing by a different set of rules, then workers and communities can be hit especially hard. the gaps between the rich and everyone else grow wider. and that can reverberate through our politics. that's why i firmly believe that one of the greatest challenges in the years ahead across our nations and within them will be to make sure that the benefits of the global
economy are shared by more people. and that the negative impacts such as economic inequalities are addressed by all nations. when it comes to trade, i believe that the answer's not to pull back or try to erect barriers to trade given our integrated economies and global supply chains that would hurt us all, but rather the answer is to do trade right. making sure that it has strong labor standards, strong environmental standards. hat it addresses ways in which workers and ordinary people can benefit rather than be harmed by global trade. as this debate moves forward in the united states it is important to remember how vital the asia pacific is to america's prosperity.
the economies here represent nearly 3 billion people, a majority of the middle class. six of america's top ten trading partners. more than half of the global economy. and the world's fastest growing region. in other words, these 21 countries represent tremendous opportunity fort united states to sell our goods and support u.s. jobs. that's why as part of the rebalance of our foreign policy to the asia pacific we boosted u.s. imports to the region by some 50%. nearly 60% of our exports go to the region, and this is part of broader progress, with 95 prs of the world's customers beyond america's borders i made it a priority to open up new markets overseas and during my administration we've increased u.s. exports to the world by more than 40%. to record levels. and these support more than 11
million american jobs. moreover, we know that companies that export tend to grow faster and hire more employees, and pay their workers more than companies that do not export. all of which exports have helped to trive our economic recovery, one of the reasons u.s. businesses have created more than 15 million new jobs. that's the kind of progress that trade when done right can deliver, and that's the kind of work that we've tried to do here at the summit. we're continuing our work to pake it easier to do business between our companies so we're creating more jobs in the united states. we're simplifying the process of starting a new business, increasing access to credit, all of which will help more ventures, especially small businesses, get up and running and helping them to be able to export as well so that they can access a global market even if they can't afford fancy lawyers and accountents and foreign offices. we agreed to increase our
collective efforts against corruption by targeting the bribery that enrich it is elites at the expense of people, and we committed to making it easier to trade and services as well as goods. we also discussed the excess capacity that exists in certain sectors like steel and aluminum that hurts markets and businesses and workers. even as i've argued that we cannot engage in protectionist measures, my administration has been at the forefront of really cracking doub hard on unfair rade practices and brought consistently cases against -- under the winter to against those who were ine gauging in unfair practices and we've had a great track record of trade enforcement that has to be a part of this process. i've been very clear that excess capacity is not the result of market forces. it's the result of specific
government policies and it needs to be fixed. and here we've been taking steps as we were at the g-20 to start addressing these issues in a systemic way. with regard to the digital economy we endorsed rules to protect personal information. we discussed the importance of maintaining the current moratorium on custom duties on digital goods and innovation, and given growing cyber threats our 21 apec economies affirm that no one should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property including trade secrets with the indent of providing a competitive advantage. we're also moving ahead with making our economies more inclusive. one particular area of focus is making sure that women have fair access to economic growth. expanding education, expanding access to careers and science,
technology, eek nearing, and math. helping more women entrepreneurs to the access finance and integrate their businesses into the global supply chain. according to one study, if women around the world participated in the labor orce, it could add up to $28 trillion of additional output for the global economy. $28 trillion. when women are more prosperous, then families, communities, and countries are all more prosperous as well. my meeting yesterday with my fellow leaders at the transpacific partnership was a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the tpp with its high standards, strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and human rights. our partners made very clear during the meeting that they want to move forward with tpp preferably they would like to move forward with the united states. a number of countries are already starting to ratify tpp.
at the same time, we're already hearing calls for a less ambitious trade agreement with the region with lower standards, lower protections for workers, lower protections for the environment. that kind of agreement would obviously exclude u.s. workers and businesses and access to those markets. so for all those reasons, i believe that tpp is a plus for america's economy, america's workers, american jobs. i think not moving forward would undermine our position across the region, our ability to shape the rules of global trade in a way that reflects our interests and our values. finally, our cooperation with apec has been historical in fighting climate change. bringing the paris agreement into force, agreeing to limit aviation emissions, phasing out dangerous fhcs. here we continue our work to phase out fossil fuel subsidies
and make our commitment toward our goal of doubling renewable energy over the next two decades. so as i wrap up my last summit and likely my last foreign trip as president i could not be more proud of the progress we've made together. obviously, the work is never done. given the prosperity and security we seek for not only the united states but our allies and our partners, i continue to believe that america will have a vital role to play in creating and sustaining a strong enduring leadership role in the abea pacific. so with that let me take some questions and i will start with darlene. start with darlene of . >> thank you, mr. president. you have been telling world leaders this week that president-elect trump is unlikely to govern any divisive way he campaigned. but i'm wondering how can you be so certain of that given the
first group of people he has chosen for top national security and law enforcement positions hold the same views that he espoused as a candidate. on your meeting earlier today with president putin, did you discuss with him russia's alleged meddling in the u.s. elections? are you concerned that the involvement we saw in this year's campaign will be the new normal going forward in future u.s. elections? have obama: well, what i said to world leaders is the same thing i've said a number of press conferences, which is, the president-elect now has to put together a team and put forward specifics about how he intends to govern. he hasn't had a full opportunity to do that yet, and so people should take a wait-and-see n how much his policy
proposals once in the white house, once he is sworn in, match up with some of the rhetoric of his campaign. my simple point is that you can't assume that the language of campaigning matches up with the specifics of governing legislation, regulations, and foreign policy. i can't be sure of anything. i think like everyone else, we will have to wait and see. before, onceaid you are in the oval office, once you begin interacting with world theers, once you see complexities of the issues, that has a way of shaping your thinking and in some cases becauseg your thinking
you recognize this solemn responsibility not only to the american people, but the solemn responsibility that america has, the largest, most powerful country in the world. thei can't guarantee that president-elect won't pursue some of the positions he has taken. what i can guarantee is that reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues. that's just the way this office works. and i said before, if these issues were by every previous
president. i'm a pretty good presidential historian. i've looked at my 43 predecessors. it seems that for all of them, even the best ones, that you end up confronting realities you did not anticipate. i think the same will happen here, and that's a good thing. that is an important thing. with respect to president putin, i didn't have a meeting. we talked reflect -- briefly while we were in between sessions. the conversation i had with him was consistent with the conversations i've had with him over the last previous months,
indicating we are still deeply concerned about the bloodshed and chaos that is being sown by preston bombing attacks by assad and the russian military against populations in aleppo, and the need for us to arrive first at some sort of humanitarian cease-fire and begin moving towards a political transition of some sort. i talked to him about ukraine. to instruct his negotiators to work with ourselves, with france, with germany, with ukraine to see if we could get that done before my term is up. usual, it was a candid and courteous meeting, but very clear about the strong governance as we have --
differences we have on policy. the issues in the election did not, because that's behind us, and i was focused in this brief discussion on moving forward. i already made clear to him our concerns around cyber attacks specific, as well as concerns we had surrounding the dnc hack. then't think this will be norm, but as i've said before, the concern i have has less to do with any particular misinformation or propaganda that is being put out by any particular party, and a greater generalabout the misinformation from all kinds of
sources, both domestic, foreign, that make itia, very difficult for voters to fi gure out what's true and what's not. and let me put it this way, i strong, ac have a press, and responsible and we have a strong, civic culture and an engaged then various attempts to meddle in our elections won't mean much. it generally we've got elections and are focused on issues are full of fake news and false information and distractions, issue is not going to be what's happening from the
will be, whatssue are we doing to ourselves from the inside. the good news is, that is something we have control over. garner harris? mr. president, thank you for holding this press conference. willif you had hotels, real es, and other businesses around the world prior to becoming president, would you have thought it appropriate to sell them off and put the cash proceeds in a blind trust or is it ok for the president of the united states to be personally vulnerable to the policy decisions of the foreign leaders he meets and in the foreign-policy decisions he makes as president? and also, just briefly, what is your complaint about how the nsa and cyber command have done their job, and are you considering firing admiral mike rogers? pres. obama: that was a rhetorical question, that first one. [laughter]
rather than comment on hypotheticals -- let me say specifically what i did. wereusly, my assets significantly smaller than some other presidents, or president-elects, but we made a decision to liquidate assets aboutight raise questions how it would influence policy. basically had our accountant put all of our money in treasury bills. the yields have not been massive over the course of the last 8 years. just because it simplified my life. i did not have to worry about the complexities of whether a
decision i made might even inadvertently benefit me. that is consistent with the broader approach we have taken throughout my administration, to not just meet the letter of the law, but to go well beyond the letter to the .pirit of the law not just for me, but for the people in the white house and in positions, we have established a whole set of rules, norms, playbooks that just keep us far away from the line. early on in the administration there would be questions about person go to this conference, or what should they do about this gift that was provided?
was maybe our first general counsel who is responsible for setting up our guidelines and rules inside the white house that said, if it sounds like it would be fun, then you can't do it. that's a general test. if it sounds like something you would enjoy or appreciate, no go. and the consequence -- i will knock on some wood here because we have two months left -- i'm proud of the fact that over 8 years, we have not had the kinds of scandals that have plagued other administrations. when i met with the president-elect, i suggested to him that having a strong white house counsel that could provide wouldguideposts and rules
benefit him and benefit his team because it would eliminate a lot of ambiguity. i think it would be up to him to make determinations about how he wants to approach it. i know what works for us, and it served the american people well. because i had made a promise to the american people that i would not fall into some of the familiar habits of washington, that i wanted a new kind of politics, this was one indicator, and at the end of 8 years i can say the american people, i delivered on that commitment. with respect to cyber, the nsa, admiral rodgers is a terrific patriot and has served this country well in a number of positions. i generally don't comment on personal matters here. i can say generally that we have spent a lot of time over the
last several years looking at organize our cyber efforts to keep pace with how rapidly the environment is changing. criticalgly, our infrastructure, government data, financial systems are vulnerable tack, and both state and nonstate actors are getting better and better at it and it is becoming more and more rampant, and it is inevitable that we will have to modernize and update not just the tools we andto defend those assets the american people, but also how we organize them.
it is true that we are exploring a range of options in terms of how we organize the mission the currently exists. -- that currently exists. >> good evening. thank you, mr. president. earlier this year former president george w. bush reportedly said he warned he would be the last republican president. now republicans have won back the white house, controlled house and senate, 2/3 of state legislatures, 34 governorships, and there are charges of a shallow democratic and behind you. are you worried that you could be the last democratic president for a while? speaking of your predecessor, he made sure to offer essentially no public racism of you during your time in office. criticism of you during your time in office. criticism ofhold
donald trump, even if he attempts to dismantle much of what your cop lashed? -- accomplished? pres. obama: criticism of donald i'm not worried about being the last them a credit president, not even for a while. i say that not being cute. the democratic nominee won the popular vote, and this is an extremely competitive race and i would expect the future races will be competitive as well. i certainly think it's true that politics of america right now thea little up for grabs, sum of the old alignments within both parties, democrat and republican, are being reshaped. although the results of this election involves some of the andifics of the candidates aren't going to be duplicated in every subsequent election,
democrats do have to do some thinking about how did we make sure that the message we have is andived effectively, results in winning elections? this is something i have been wrestling with throughout my presidency. when you look at the proposals i put forward, they garner majority support. the majority believes in raising the minimum wage. the majority believes in common sense gun safety rules. the majority believes in investing to rebuild our infrastructure and create jobs. he majority believes in making sure that people aren't going bankrupt when they get sick. the majority agrees with all the individual components of obamacare. i think there was a gallup poll this week, subsequent to the
election, that show that the general public has a more favorable view of democrats and republicans. andand as i noted, my approval ratings are quite high. and yet, what has been true during the course of my 8 years is that that does not always translate. too often, it hasn't translated into working majorities, either at the state level or the federal level. now, some of that is just the nature of our system. and, geography. long as wyoming gets the same number of senators as california, there's going to be some tilt towards republicans when it comes to congressional races. the fact that a lot of democratic voters are bunched up in big cities, and a lot of republican voters are spread out , gives him anhy
advantage when it comes to congressional races. some of it is just political bad ask, for example, i came in an economy in free fall and the we took the right steps to save the economy, in my midterm election 2010 people could not yet see the recovery, and the president's party got punished. of not control of a lot just congressional seats, but gubernatorial seats and state legislative seats. that happened to be the year that the census was done and you start doing redistricting and those republicans took advantage of political gerrymandering to lock in the majorities, even though in numerous subsequent ofelections democrats have actually cast more votes, or
more votes have been cast for democratic congressional candidates than republicans. yet you and a having large republican majorities. there are structural problems have to deal with. you can't make excuses about the rules. that's the deal, and we've got to do better. doing better involves us working at the grassroots, not ceding territory, going out into areas where right now we may not stand a chance of actually winning, but we are building up a cadre of young talent, making ar guments, persuading. talking about the things that matter to ordinary people date today and trying to avoid some of the constant distractions that fill up andle's twitter accounts,
if we do that, in confident we will be back on track. i don't think there has to be a complete overhaul. i think there does have to be smarterrganization, a message, and one message i do ave for democrats is that strategy that is micro-targeting articular discrete groups in democratic coalition sometimes will win the elections but it's not going to win you the broad mandate you need. the more we can talk about what we have in common as a nation, se tot ofto a broad
values, a vision that speaks to everybody and not just one group at a time, the better off we are going to be. best part of the reason why i was able to get -- that's part of the reason i was able to get elected twice, i try to make sure that not only in proposals, but also in message, i was speaking to everybody. you had a second part to your question? [inaudible] look, i said before, president bush could not have been more gracious to me when i came inlot . the nextion is to for two months just finished my job, to take after that, michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, writing, do some thinking. so, i want to be respectful of
the office and give the president elect an opportunity platform andd his without somebody topping off in every instance. as an american citizen who cares ifply about our country, there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about and if is and ideals, think it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then i will examine it when it comes.
but, what i do know is that i have to take michelle on vacation. [laughter] juliet alpern?-- >> given what you just said about the strong differences that you and president pugin have on the future of syria and the conflict there, can you talk about how you see that unfolding, both at the end of your tenure and at the beginning of donald trump's, and if your concerns that even if we eliminate the islamic state and eastern syria and westernthe cok about how you see that iraq, we may be allowing a permanent al qaeda safe haven around aleppo? you can you say to what extent the united states has fulfilled its responsibility to protect in that instance? in terms of finishing your job, last week you have
exercised your executive authority on multiple fronts, finalizing oil and gas leasing rules on public lands as well as banninga five-year plan chilling in the arctic and atlantic great many republicans say you should hold off finalizing anymore rules as you are headed out the door because they oppose many of them and will seek to overturn them when they control both executive and legislative branches next year. what do you say to that suggestion? pres. obama: on the second these are the same republicans who suggested that they didn't need to confirm a supreme court justice when i was nine months out, until the next election. i think the general approach probably twohat days after merrill -- my reelection, i should stop until the next election. i don't think that's what the constitution calls for. the regulations that we have
issued our ones we have been working on for a very long time. they have been subject to exte nsive public notice and comment and everybody has known they have been out there. these are things we have been surprising people with. -- aren't things we have been surprising people with. they're part of my task of finishing my work. i recognize that when the new administration comes in, and a new congress comes in, that they will have the option of trying to undo some of those rules and regulations we are put in place. that's their prerogative, that's part of how democracy works. i feel very strongly that these are the right things to do and i'm going to make sure i do them. thinkespect to syria, i even on this trip in a previous , i am noterence
optimistic about the short-term prospects in syria. iran made aand acision to back assad in andal air campaign, essentially a pacification of aleppo regardless of the potential for civilian casualties, children being killed or wounded, schools or hospitals being destroyed, then it was very hard to see a way in which even a ttrained and committed moderate opposition his ground for long periods of time.
and, the issue that obviously i've wrestled with for the last five years, how involved should whethered states be, our legal constraints in such involvement, what are our strategic interests? those haven't changed. i continue to believe that we basis forve a legal military intervention there, that it would have been a strategic mistake given the work we still had to do in iraq, counter-isil campaign, ongoing thattions in afghanistan, we have worked tirelessly to arrive at political transition of some sort, and they could alleviate the suffering and provide humanitarian access. and, we will continue to do that
until the lasty day that man john kerry and others have the authority to speak for the united states government. it takes two or in this case, four or six or eight to tango. we are just not getting help or interest from those parties supporting assad, and assad as a consequence has been emboldened. but this is a man who has destroying his country, turning it to rubble, populationits scattered or killed was worth it for him to cling to power. -- power, when he had the option to peacefully engage in a
transition i could've kept the country intact. -- that could've kept the country intact. that's his mentality. it's not a mentality we support. that's a mentality that the russians and iranians have been willing to support. at this stage, we are going to a change in how all parties think about this in order for us to end the situation there. our ability to go after isil can be sustained. there is doubt there will continue to be extremist forces in and around syria because it still will be in chaos for quite some time. there will be elements in iraq, just as there have been elements
in afghanistan even after the taliban was swept out, even after we killed bin laden. i think we can effectively reduce the risk, and take their key external operators off the field. the thing i'm probably most concerned about the thing i'm most concerned about is making sure that even u.s. do that, u.s. policy, statements, u.s. positions don't further radicalize muslims or alienate and potentially radicalize law-abiding muslims who are living in europe or in the united states. is importanthy it for us to understand those are our key allies is this fight.
mike. you, mr. president. this final foreign trip is obviously playing out in different circumstances then you might have expected. a different transition is underway then you might have envisioned. as you saw to potentially perch this trip. my ebay but offer the counselor successor that he hoped to draw upon? a political note, you talked often during your reelection campaign about this fever that consumed the republican party, and effective political strategy they employed . what might be your advice to democrats who might see that kind of strategy as the same path to taking back the power from the republicans? kent will be your first house democrats about whether or not the same people with
the party leader in the house? >> i will work in reverse. i think nancy pelosi is an outstanding and his oracle political leader. havech of what we accomplished was accomplished because of her smarts, her skill,y, her legislative and i don't normally metal with party votes, and certainly on my way out the door i shouldn't meddle here. but i cannot speak highly enough of nancy pelosi. she combines strong progressive with extraordinary political skill.
and she does stuff that's tough, not just stuff that's easy. test stuffstuff in that's unpopular in her own base because it's right by the american people. i think she's a remarkable leader. with respect to democrats and republicans and how democrats should do with a new administration, i certainly don't want them to do what mitch mcconnell did when i was elected, and the day of and say our sole objective is to not with him on anything, even if the country is about to go into a depression so that we can gain seats in the mid-terms and ultimately defeat him. that's not why the american people send us to washington. so that is not my advice to democrats.
my advice is know what you care about and what you stand for. and fight for your principles. even if it is a hard fight. if there are areas where the new administration is doing some thing that isn't good for the american people, find a way to work with them. think it is going to be a problem and say so and make it part -- make the argument. the touchstone is what is good for the american people? and that has worked for me. it means at the end of the day and at the end of eight years i can look back and say i did what meansght was best area it
-- it doesn't mean i didn't make mistakes, but it means you're being true to your own. of reflecting on the u.s. presidency as i have i think the main reflection i have and the main that i give to the the unitedesident is states really is an indispensable nation in our world order. and i say that as somebody who to gone out of his way express respect for every country and its people and to consistently acknowledge many of the challenges we face are not challenges america can solve on its own.
but what i also know is the basic framework of the world order coming out of world war ii and then through the end of the cold war was shaped by a set of that hadd principles worked for the vast majority of people, not just america but around the world. the notion of democracy and the rule of law. and free press and independent judiciary and open markets and to social welfare state moderate the sharp edges of capitalism.
and lifting up issues of human rights and investing in public adjusting development our borders but elsewhere in the world. and working with multilateral institutions like the united nations. that is what has made the modern world. there have been times we have not observed these norms as well as we should have. have been accused of hypocrisy where here in latin america countries have felt disrespected, and there is many cause for that. there are times we haven't observed these values within our own country and all in short of our own ideals.
that basic structure is the reason why the world is much wealthier and much more secure and less violent, healthier, better educated, more tolerant than it was 50 years ago. and that requires constant work. it doesn't just happen on its own. europe, i said this in places where there is push back against this modern order. but you take an example like europe, before that order was we had two world wars in the span of 30 years. one, 16 million people were killed. not half a million, not one million, but 60 million. entire continents. in places like the asia-pacific, before that order existed,
you've routinely saw famines of millions of people. not just concerns about low , but people dying because they did not have any food or drinking water or died of cholera. or simple diseases, if nobody had any penicillin. what i would say would be we all share responsibilities for improving that order and maintaining it and making sure it is more inclusive. and delivering greater hope and prosperity for more corners of the world. we all have responsibility in respect to dignity and work of
their citizens. there are limits to our reach in if they choose not to provide girls education or siphon off development funds into swiss bank accounts. we are not going to be able to handle every problem. but if we are not on the side of makingt, if we are not the argument and fighting for it, then it collapses. and there is nobody to fill the void. there really isn't.
there are other very important countries like china, but china wasn't going around organizing 200 nations to sign on to a paris agreement. for putting together the paper and policy outlined conceptual framework. russia is a very significant military power. but they are not worrying right after at how to rebuild hurricane in haiti, we are. and i have said before, that is a burden we should carry proudly.
>> a president can't wave a magic wand and say, civil rights repair. that doesn't happen. the executive is constrained in very real ways. at one sign that has been leaves gives me some hope is that this justice department and civil rights division has been busier than it's been in any administration prior, maybe except for johnson. it's been busy. the laws that congress passes, though, constrains its reach in very, very real ways. i'll give you one example and then i'll pass it on. there was a mention of trayvon martin in the last panel. it was the correct decision for
the department of justice not to intervene in trayvon martin, because the law is written in a way that makes it nearly impossible for them to intervene in that way. they have to show that at the time that zimmerman dealt the ath blow, he was motivated solely by racial animus. >> civil rights activists, scholars, political operativeses discuss president obama's legacy on the issue of civil rights and race. >> here are some of our featured programs thursday, thanksgiving day, on c-span.
>> everything from monster thick burgers with 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20 ounce cokes and pepsies, 12-15 teaspoons of sugar, feeding an epidemic of childhood obesity. >> then jimmy wails talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and the challenge of providing global access to information. >> there's a thousand entries and a small community there, 5 hoff 10 really active users. another 20-30 and they start to think of themselves as communities. >> an inside look at the year's long effort to repair and estore the capitol dome. justice kagen reflects on her
life and career. >> i did my senior thesis. it taught me an incredible amount. but it also taught me what it was like to be a serious historian and to sit in archives all day every day. and i realized it just wasn't for me. >> followed by justice clarence thomas. >> genius is not putting a $2 sentence. 20 $2 putting a $20 idea in a sentence without losing meaning. >> then president obama will present the medal of freedom to 21 recipients including n.b.a. star michael jordan, singer bruce springstein, bill and botswana as as we
introduced each other i said my name is ok and he could not stop laughing. finally he said to me, you won't believe what happened, i said, tell me. --s going to a grocery store amherst, massachusetts where i lived at the time. , ahed his cart down and i'll woman in the opposite direction atd how do you like the snow which point he said i don't like snow at all. i like it dry and warm. the woman said, you have an accent, where are you from. he said botswana. she said is that in africa and he said yes. she said are you ok and he said yes. the woman began to talk to him with great interest. must have talked for 12 or so minutes. i can't believe you're ok and he sa