tv Sen. Amy Klobuchar Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on U.S.... CSPAN March 5, 2019 9:06am-9:53am EST
>> it's a loud crowd. good morning, everyone! could we do better? good morning, everyone. excellent. i'm president of the center for american progress and the center for american progress action fund and i am thrilled to welcome you to this incredibly important discussi discussion. how our economy is working and not working for people. we are currently living through what some experts have called a new gilded age, a time of rising market concentration across many different sectors of our economy. our two very distinguished guests for today will discuss how this problem will be stifling competition for business, hurting american families and damaging our very democracy. we're thrilled to welcome senator amy klobuchar who established herself as a progressive champion across a
wide range of issues, policy, and consumer rights, championing efforts to protect consumers and promote greater competition and fight corporate consolidation. our second guest, the honorary robert reisch with the clinton administration is now chancellor professor of if you believe policy at goldman school at cal-berkeley. secretary reisch has focused attention on growing inequality and we are thrilled to have him. i'm getting a right into today's discussion. we'll have a discussion here and then questions from the audience a little later in the program. so, let me just start off with you, senator klobuchar. >> thank you. >> later this afternoon the subcommittee where you are a ranking member with secretary reisch as one of the witnesses. what are you hopping that the
american people will learn from the hearing and focus on anti-trust. >> thank you for having me here. i've talked about anti-trust, but not with the secretary and i want to thank him for coming out for our hearing today and also for his very cool video about anti-trust because i think one of our goals here, if you ask what the goal is for the hearing, it is to make anti-trust cool again. to make people realize that we are, in fact, in not just headed into another gilded age when you look at consolidation. several trillion dollar companies right now this this country, 50% increase in mergers, markets like where 93% of websites you look at to get good deals are only owned by two companies, and four companies by class one rail. and we are in a situation in pharmaceuticals where time and time again, where you see these
huge increases like with insulin and other drugs, where, in fact, it isn't just because it's one industry, but it's because we've seen consolidation across the board. that's why it's really important for americans to focus on this and there are solutions out there. the solutions probably are not going to be at the supreme court. alert. [laughter] >> given what's been happening, so, i think there are legislative solutions that we will be talking about later today. so, thank you. >> great. and you'll be testifying, photographer reisch, and what is the gist of your local today. >> well, first of all, let me thank you, and the center for american progress for hosting this, and for your leadership with regard to all sorts of progressive issues, and senator choeb klobuchar, and for focusing on anti-trust and you've got bills that are enormously important, one that
would prohibit drug companies from ceptionly making deals with generic companies, drug companies for delaying, paid for delay, the generic pharmaceuticals, which, just is a piece of this larger problem of abuse of market power. and let me just say that in the early part of the 20th century, in that first sort of gilded age, when we saw the m monopolizization, that and technical changes go together. and the big debate in washington was between regulation and anti-trust. teddy roosevelt and herbert, his advisor, said regulation, we have to regulate. i believe, roosevelt was a trust buster. the other view, woodrow wilson
and his advisor, lewis brandeis went to the supreme court is anti-trust, the best way of guaranteeing that the market worked was to make sure there was competition. that's the debate we're having today and we've got to face that those are the two choices. >> and just following up on that point, i wonder, senator klobuchar, if you could actually talk about the impact of the monopolizization. a lot of people focus on consumer prices and as we're seeing monopolizization can drop down ranges for people and have a range of effects. essentially why should americans care about anti-trust policy, how is that actually affecting them, the fact that we have so many mergers happening? >> first, let's look at a positive, the break-up of at&t. remember that? that was a major anti-trust case. took a lot of work. and what you saw there was more innovation, you saw lower
prices for consumer consumers in the long distance market. i know a little about it because i was in the private sector back then and then i represented mci which was kind of the wild west trying to get in the market at the time. so now, you fast forward to today, where you're not seeing that kind of vigorous enforcement and mostly, a lot of the cases that are brought, including the recent at&t time warner case, a little bit in the news yesterday. [laughter] >> we can maybe get to in a moment, but you see courts striking things down, not just that, but more and more conservative justices who are not upholding, in my mind, the tradition of the anti-trust laws. so, what you see then, for consumers, is you don't see the kind of lower prices you'd see if you had competition. you also don't see innovation and that is something that people don't always think about, but, in fact, it was adam smith, when you go back to the founding of this country, when he talked about american
capitalism, right, the father of capitalism, he always talked about monopolies and how dangerous monopolies were and why you needed a counter balance to monopolies and as you go back through history as the secretary was talking about, you see that this was something that was literally at the core of the founding of our country, because the colonists, they didn't like to be taxed without representation, but they also didn't like the monopoly they were getting on tea from the east india tea company. they wanted to sell their tea to anyone they wanted. there's all of these anti-trust roots in the history of our country, people stood up, farmers in the midwest and the granger movement. i'm doing a book on this myself and that i've been researching the last year,en you just saw these parallels with where we are today. that's why when you look at why people should care about it
today, you do look back in history because you realize people stood up and did something and things improved, but you also look at the prices, when you have lack of choices in certain areas, that's not good. when you have no innovation, what does that mean like in the seed area as we look at climate change coming our way. if there's not innovation, if there's no competition then you're going to have companies relying on their own products. why would they develop new products if they can just rely on the old ones and make a ton of money because they have a monopoly on the market. >> building up on that point that senator klobuchar made and reference something that you said earlier, which is we seem to have the -- when you go back to history, you have a similar moment where you have the industrial age, i was a lot of kind of innovation and then monopoly power. i think a lot of people with the same question about today, we are facing an information age where technology has radically changed the economy
and we have a whole series of new companies, tech companies which in many people's eyes through the front and center picture, particularly with all the debates we've had in washington and i wonder what is the connection between technological innovation and monopoly and are there special tools we need. >> there's differences between the 1890's and, but the high-tech companies display a different kind of monopolizization in what we saw them. and then it had to do with railroads and steel and oil and so-called natural monopolies. you don't want to have two railroads parallel to each other and you had to regulate or break them up in some way. what we see now are network effects. that is you have giant, big four or the big five depending how you define them, high-tech companies all moving toward capitalization of pretty soon a trillion dollars each. they have network effects in the sense that if you want to
use facebook, you've got to join facebook. there's not another substitute for facebook. >> yes. >> the barriers are huge and also big data issues. when you get a certain, a certain amount of big data and they're all racing to be the lead of big data, it's very hard for anybody else to get in. there are always monopolizistic companies. and high-tech, amazon the best example, that are keeping suppliers and contractors, they have so much market power, they're pushing down what suppliers and also providers can get. but-- you see monopolizistic processes and anybody who is concerned about, obviously obviously the secretary of la inbound and many people in this room are concerned about wages, that you can't separate what's
going on in the economy in terms of consolidation from the stagnation of wages. >> i just want to -- that is a very good point and you look at the past, a lot of this was unions coming up, workers way back, a hundred over a hundred years ago, that's how this movement started, right? so now you have a whole different model, instead of saying the typical anti-trust problem is when coke and pepsi would merge and so then there's no competition. what this is, an monopsony. you don't have competition and i would add one more, these aren't always mergers, but things being investigated and the other problem, then the companies have so much power, right, that they can come to washington so when problems arise in their area and i live two, one privacy issues with data, which is an obvious one,
and then secondly, just, their own product and how it's being used. it's very hard to get things done. because you don't have the kind of competition or people scared, oh, if this company gets in trouble, and washington gets mad at this company, then there's another one out there. there's nothing out there. then they come armed to washington, have we had any privacy legislation start? no, we don't. kennedy and i introduced a bill it's gone nowhere so far, we have a patchwork of bills and we're complaining about that so we may finally get privacy legislation, but i'm talking about things like things like how you as a consumer find out. how do you opt out of your data? all of that, i believe, has not moved forward because of this situation where you have so much consolidation, and then the last thing i'd add is the just the political advertisement a whole other subject for another day. the fact that we've been so slow in trying to regulate that
page advertisement compared to tv and radio and newspapers and makes no sense to me and related to the power that they have. >> i'd love to just follow up on that and kind of the political example that everyone has in their minds these days and tech space, many examples you can use, the one in the headlines is facebook. and so, you've been at-- you've been an outspoken person, outspoken senator, outspoken political leader on facebook when a lot of people were actually scared about talking about facebook for the reasons you've talked about. you referenced privacy and other issues, but just, even walk through a little bit in the specifics of how a company like facebook is able to both continue its practice, and i think one of the challenges in the anti-trust space is, it's not charging a price to consumers. it's obviously charging a price to advertisers and it's having a dominant force, not just in the market, but obviously, on
our democracy and our privacy, and so, is that an example of how we have to rethink anti-trust or bring in new issues into anti-trust or just the traditional markers of cost to consumer for those anti-trust problems? >> well, first, the bills that we have -- that i have right now are focused on mergers. so, if a merger happens, one of the things it says in this legislation, which i think is important, is to start looking at monopso nchlnes as a factor. so the companies actually have to show that it doesn't materially hurt competition. so, that would help in a merger situation. when you just look at the companies themselves and what's happening, i think that calls out for, as you're seeing across the world investigations into whether or not it should be some consumer rules put in place. the merger legislation would
help going forward. but the ftc has been looking at some of these things and then going at it, as i suggested, with the privacy rules. not leaving any more-- we have just have your backs, because the factors against this are huge. there's the factor of money and lobbying, which is present in a lot of these industries, of course. there's a big factor here of members not understanding it, okay. maybe you noticed some of the questions, you know? so, you know, you have that and it is very-- and it's very complicated, right? and you can make yourself look like an idiot pretty easily so there's that. there's the inertia in washington when you don't have a big crisis going on and don't do anything about wall street rules until we actually have the last crash and so, all of those factors are combining, but what i'm trying to stay is we have to get ahead of this. it's so obvious when you look at people's data being stolen and what happened with
cambridge analytica and we need to get ahead and work on these things and there's starting to be more movement, especially the companies are now voluntarily doing some things, they have been smashed over the rocks for some of these things, and so, hopefully, we can get some bipartisan agreement that we have to move forward. >> do you want to respond to that? >> let me say one other thing. much of the job that the senator is doing, other leaders are doing in this space, has to do with connecting the dots. you know, amazon gets $3 billion offer from new york city, why? how does that affect competition? when big companies hold essentially competition sales around the country, you know, you give me more or you give me more, that has a negative effect on smaller companies that can't enter into those competition agreements. the same thing with the senator mentioned lobbying, there's
also a big issue with freedom of speech. because you've got these four or five huge information centers, information providers, information, they say just platforms. they're not just platforms, they're much more than platforms, and information has been weaponized and we all know that. connect the dots here about sort of the potential abuses of power and the actual abuses of market power, and you see that something has to be done. >> for so long, every time we propose things like this, you're trying to regulate a web. ooh. you know, as opposed to saying these are actually big media companies and your information is a commodity. that's what this is, okay? >> and senator klobuchar, i want to look at a different area. you've done a lot of work on the area of prescription drugs, and focused on some of your legislation in that space.
how do you see the overlap between competition policy and issues like high prices? >> there's a big overlap there. again, some of the same factors with washington not acting, inertia and finally, if you look at the last election, 2018, pharma prices were front and center, and i'm hoping that that is finally going to move some of this legislation. some of it is broad anti-trust and things we were talking about before about how we need to change the rules of the road so we're as sophisticated as the titans that run these companies when it comes to our ftc and the justice department, but some of it is industry specific. for too long, pharma has thought that they've owned washington, and i think we all know they do. but they don't own me and they don't own a number of other people who have been starting to push for change. ideas. one we were just talking about it as we walked in, paper
delay. where big pharma is paying off generics to keep their products off the market. this is a bill i'm reading with senator chuck grassley now in charge of the finance committee should be in a place because it saves money if we stop that practice, 2.9 billion over a number of years, and so, we want to put that in some bill, it's a great pay for as we call in washington d.c., because it is a lot of money. okay. that's one. secondly, get less expensive drugs from places like canada. you can do it like the bill i have again with grassley, that was a bill with mccain, who i miss every day. grassley's stepped into his shoes and there are others, i think we had about a dozen republican votes for something like that. and then the third one is to allow for medicare negotiation, which could really help everyone if you unleash the power of 43 million seniors.
there are a lot of other idea by my colleagues and i put those out there, those are ones i've been working on for a while. we've seen no improvement and when the administration put out their plan, their plan, the pharma prices, the stocks actually went up. >> and following recent mergers, a handful of companies control 78% of the u.s. currencies markets and speaking of that, i want to get to this. and 70% of the international market, what does it say about current market in the world and established around them, when even straightforward markets like agriculture, they're not technical innovation monsters, subject to have real challenges around competitions? >> well, it tells you, anita, that not only is this issue across the economy, but also, that the intellectual property is a big part of it. one of the reasons that you've
got so much concentration in feed corn area of agriculture is monsanto and basically intellectual property predatory use of intellectual property, which means that many small farmers are being squeezed because you've got farm processors on the one hand, who are consolidating like mad, pushing down the prices that farmers can sell their goods, their products for, and at the same time, you've got seed corn and fertilizers and other farm supplies that are consolidating, using predatory practices, using their intellectual properties and charging more and more. so, you know, this is why -- this whole issue area ought to be bipartisan. the farm bill with a lot of republican senators and representatives ought to be on top of this. anti-trust is not and should not be viewed as a democratic
or progressive issue. this gets to the heart of our free market system. >> you guys heard of the sherman act? do you think that sherman was a democrat or a republican? he was a republican from ohio. and teddy roosevelt was a republican. >> i think that i should get to some of the fault lines on thinking these days. so, anti-trust is a means by which you make a market work better, right? so it's a theory of -- it's a pro capitalist tool, pro capitalism tool to make markets work better for people. and yet, we have so much opposition to-- or you know, people not doing anything, et cetera, because of the voice essentially of business lobbying. so, how do we break through the theory that anytime government does anything, it's hurting the economy?
in this arena, you have where anti-trust is actually just about using rules to make the economy work better? as you said, republicans should be supporting these proposals and should be bipartisan, in fact, there are pro capitalist arguments for regulation, but we haven't seen republicans or too many championing anti-trust, particularly in this moment where we have such a large increase in monopolies that are affecting consumers and affecting wages. so how do we break through that? do we talk about it? is it a political discussion or can we get congress to act differently? maybe i'll start with you, senat professor reisch and senator klobuchar and then go straight to the audience. >> i think partly it's a public awareness issue. anti-trust, you know, you talk to people until your eyes glaze over. they don't know it. there's got to be an understanding that anti-trust is not only vital to the maintenance of capitalism and our markets, but also, it's
cool. [laughter] >> as the senator said initially. and that it is the sole alternative we have to regulation, that if we are not going to use anti-trust creatively and just bust up everything and a lot of other things you can do, the use of mandatory licensing, you could have sharing of data and do a lot of things, but, if we're not going to use anti-trust, then you do have to depend on regulation and those are the only alternatives because we can't sustain the direction we're going in. >> it has to become part of the political dialog, i'm hoping it will and in the 2020 election, it seeped in through the pharma issue in 2018. but when you look back in history, it literally was a defining part of the campaigns. wilson actually had a song about anti-trust. >> it was not very, very good. >> okay, all right.
[laughter] >> the charts. and he had that and you look at the video that the secretary has put out there, and there are a number of books coming out, actually in the next year by a number of people on this topic. i just think that we have a start talking about it again and making it simpler. i remember being in a cafe in albert lee, minnesota and this woman turned around. this woman was with her husband and husband's brother and they were older farmers and she turned around, i saw you on tv, it was like a year and a half ago. and i said, oh, was it about that and that because i'd been doing all of this stuff on russia. she said, no, it was big. >> i go what? she says big, about how things are too big, and that's bad for us, because it's bad because of the trains, and she started using examples of them with input costs for farms basically, and why big was bad. and i thought, okay, that actually is something that she heard and listened to.
so it is not crazy to start talking about anti-trust. we just have to do it in a way that's understandable and get the media to be interested in it outside of one story about donald trump, which is important, trying to meddle and influence a legal decision. that's important, but what's really important is what all of this over a span of decades now is doing to consumers if we just sit back and do nothing. >> and i hope people get ready for questions. i'm just going to ask each of you, we have talked a lot about challenges and some about solutions, but if you wanted to just-- senator klobuchar, discuss, you know, your proposals in this space and why you think they will be helpful. >> sure, i mentioned the drug proposals. i would add one more and that's actually a leahy, grassley, klobuchar lee bill, which is create -- the possibility of
passing this year. that's trying to make pharmaceuticals companies give samples of their drugs to generics, so we can get nor generic competition out there. the biggest anti-trust issues are the bill we've worked on over a period of time. unfortunately they only have democratic co-sponsors. one is to increase the fees on mega mergers, this would be a drop in the bucket for these companies when it's between 2 to $5 billion for transaction, and would allow for us then to have these fees that could be used to finance more sophisticated reviews of these mergers, from the sec and from the justice department. that has possibility of bipartisan support depending how we do it, it's not coming out of the taxpayers' money, it's coming out of the mega mergers and we clearly need resources in these areas. the second one is to change the standards to match our changing
times, to switch the burden of proof so a company for these big financial transactions have to actually show it doesn't materially reduce competition, to start looking at monopsonyes as a factor, to substantially reduce competition to materially reduce competition, that's contained in one of the bills that we have. with a number of co-sponsors, i'm not there out there alone. >> any thoughts? >> there's no issue i can think of that has combined populism and conservative free market principles better than anti-trust. and let's hope that republicans begin to understand the power of anti-trust. we cannot take the free market for granted. there are sectors of this
economy that are hurling towards a degree of concentration of economic and political power that we have not seen in this country since the 1890's. it's dangerous for our markets, dangerous for our politics and it is an anti-trust is one of the most important weapons we could have. >> all right. thank you. all right. we have time for questions. wait for the mic and if you want to identify yourself, if you want to identify yourself, that would be really helpful and just try to make the questions as quick as possible. >> michael, transatlantic union. one of the things you haven't addressed, there's an awful lot of laws in this country that limit the ability of workers to act collectively, to have hartley, secondary boycotts, continuation that would give workers more leverage in addressing these issues. >> a labor start. >> well, worker organizing is the flipside to anti-trust
because what we've seen since, certainly over the last 50 years is that as anti-trust has receded, labor laws have not protected worker organizing and workers have less and less bargaining power. so, if you wanted a cartoon version of an answer to why profits as a percentage of the national economy have continued to rise and wages as a part of the national economy continued to fall, the simple version would be, bargaining power on the side of very large orangeses has increased, bargaining power on the side of labor has continually decreased. so, that's just a long-winded way of saying you're right. [laughter] >> senator klobuchar, do you want to say anything? >> i don't know what i can add to anything. you're right, but that it is that power, so, as i was listening to the secretary and you and thinking this is a very interesting way to go at this
in terms of explaining this, the major power at the top then squeezes out the workers, because it means that they don't have as much to bargain with. that's all it is. they don't have other companies they can go work at, right? if you only have one or two of them. and you add to that these pushback from states, like my neighboring wisconsin, in the past, on labor laws and you have a situation where workers are basically getting screwed because of the consolidation at the front. and you look at it historically as secretary reisch knows, that's actually-- he this came up together, right? the hay market riots, what happened in chicago. as the farmers were protesting with the granger movement about what was happening with their prices and no way to go to get things to market, the workers were protesting along, a lot in the industrial midwest about what was happening with their wages when you had those
companies like pullman, right? that were controlling everything about their lives and they were not able to work anywhere, the wages were down and then that's what led to the better labor laws, but also, anti-trust. a lot of the focus of the workers was on anti-trust. >> any other questions? >> the one in the back? and just identify yourself. >> luther lowe from yelp. >> hello, yelp. >> hello, senator. i was curious-- >> did you say yelp or yale? >> yelp. >> oh, got it. two different things. >> i was curious, so i kept-- >> a job with yelp so everyone knows who you are. >> i'm institute of public policy. i was keeping track how often we talked about google, facebook and amazon. >> we mentioned facebook five times, amazon once and google
zero times. my question is about google. we have a google representative appearing alongside the secretary trichled the pay control. gol was the biggest spender in washington last year and while we're in the house that john podesta built, mark zuckerberg they weren't sending e-mails to the clinton campaign, and questions of soft capture. if your opinion, both to the secretary and the senator, has the 2013 decision to close the investigation google's unilateral conduct aged well? and should the ftc reopen that investigation. >> you know, i would like to see an investigation. we have talked about this. certainly you don't want to stop things back in the year 2013 when you've seen changes and seen changes across the world in how they are looking
at the activities of the google and the other social media platforms. so i don't think that was our witness, right? is that right? how that all works, who the witnesses were at the hearing. yeah, okay, they're going, no, no, that's mark now. and, but in any case, there will be a ripe for asking questions about this this afternoon and i thank you for your work as you know, yelp has been out there on the cutting edge, trying to to get in the market and understand the issue of what it's like every day and this is one example we have so many companies, i think that people think of oh, this is anti-trust and consumers groups are the only ones that are coming to washington about it, as they should, but there's a lot of companies that feel that nonenforcement allowing things to go as they are hurts new r new companies from getting in
the markets and expanding and yelp has a lot of that. >> this continues to drop, half of what it was in 2004 and i think the barriers to entry that we're talking about here with regard to these big companies, particularly big tech companies like google. i'll mention google explicitly, has made it difficult for the yelps of world to get in. and one quick think, when you say soft capture or the verb tense you used with regard to google. it's an interesting way of talking about a kind of a predatory behavior. when google subsidizes, for example, the new america foundation, and then takes money away or threatens to take money away if the new american foundation investigates anti-trust and researches anti-trust or google has a huge number according to the wall street journal of professors
who testify about ent a trust and basically protect and defend its market power, that is an incursion on the marketplace of ideas. it's not just the marketplace. it's one of the most important marketplaces we have in this country, and i think that that is an abuse of power, quite frankly. >> okay. questions for you? >> and just say who you are and where you work. >> hi, my name is madison, i'm a student at nyu's washington d.c. campus around the corner and one of the things that i've been struggling with as a young person getting started in washington, is this idea of spending a life and a career as a dissenting voice, so i was wondering what advice the three of you have for young people who want to get started in politics to combat the sense of outrage, fatigue and keep fighting against po political
turmoil and lobbying money to keep it-- >> go into anti-trust. we need dissenting voices, but i think you know the excitement going on right now of people that want to see change. you just don't have to go very far if you're here when you saw what happened the day after the inauguration with millions of people marching, and you go through the last two years where people have been activated like never before. so, i always tell people to get involved in campaigns. it doesn't always have to be the, you know, national campaign, sometimes it's fun to get involved in a local issue where you can have more of a voice in a campaign and then advocating for an issue that you care about and i'm kind of kidding about anti-trust, but i'm kind of not. so, figuring out something you care about and getting involved in it and it can be part of your whole job or it can be something you're doing as a volunteer, but it's really a
way to, you can-- i always when i got out of school, i had student loans and i didn't go right into government, but i started doing campaigns and getting involved on the side, and then that led somehow to this. so, there you go. >> if i could just add to that. madison, if you're a dissenting voice and you dissent long enough and hard enough, and you convince enough people, you're no longer a dissenting voice. i'm not going to speak from experience. [laughter] >> amen. i'll just say one quick thing about this. i know that we live in an incredibly cynical time and that things that happen every day make us much more cynical, but i have worked on legislation that was opposed by industry, and opposed by an entire political party, and 25 million americans have health care, even though they fought against it, and that was not perfection, it was part of a
political process. the millions of people have health care because of that political process and that is the way we make change in our country. and people who feed cynicism want you to stay home and people who want you to fight cynicism want you to get involved. over there. >> go ahead. >> larry, senior advisor to serve usa. i think we really know what's wrong with this town. it's been bout, -- bought, top to bottom. and neera, mentioning health care, i think that the obama administration would have had a lot better chance at selling the aca, instead of calling it the american health care, they should have called it the american health insurance reform because nobody's really upset about their health care, it's their gate keepers, it's the insurance companies. so, i think had they branded it as health insurance reform
rather than health care reform, but i think the reason that didn't happen was because there's too much health insurance money up on the hill. and i think that's the problem. would anybody care to speak to that? >> well, it has been the time-worn problem in washington and it's just been getting worse and worse, and there are things that we could do to fix this outside of anti-trust or subjects today. the first is to overturn citizens united with a constitutional amendment, that is-- it sounds like a stretch, but not if we make a democracy repair a major part of what's happening in 2020. and i think that that would help immensely because you would get the dark money out of politics and be able to at least hold people accountable for their own campaigns. you should make it easier for people to vote, and that is everything from-- i have a bill to allow kids to automatically register if they're eligible when they turn
18, right? pretty simple, to fixing the voting rights, do the reauthorization that we've been held back on. so i think actually these -- one of the campaigns in minnesota in last 2018, angie craig, the latest member of congress who beat a republican, she actually ran ads showing people trying to speak in front of a bale of hay. her district is a combined suburban-rural district, but you couldn't hear their voices because they had been squelched by big interest. i think that district, by the way, is not a super liberal district, right? these issues transcend parties and we just need people, and i know i'm going to do this, making it a centerpiece of what we do going forward to win in 2020 and the way you then get changes made that we're talking about here, is by getting people that are willing to make those changes into office. >> if i could just add that hr-1 is a very important
beginning with regard to some of these democracy issues. [applause] >> i was thinking to senate, hr-1 is the key. >> and the democracy movements, the incipient democracy movements that have to do with getting big money out of politics is intimately tied to this issue of anti-trust. you can't separate them. >> outstanding. i think that's a fantastic end to this discussion, i want to thank you both for being here, but also, thank you for championing issues that help families and our economy together. thank you senator klobuchar. thank you, professor reisch. >> and we ask everyone to remain seated until the professor and secretary exit. please remain in your seats. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senator klobuchar announced her candidacy for president several weeks ago and you can see that and this conversation from this morning if you go to our website, c-span.org, type amy klobuchar to see all of her conversations on the c-span network. the house will be quite busy the next few days and weeks. a number of suspension bills in the house, votes at 6:30.
and tomorrow debating hr-1, voting rights and ethics reform and condemning anti-semitism, the house taking this up after headline making comments by congresswoman omar about israel. the senate will be gavelling in on this network. continuing work on executive and judicial nominations and votes on some of the measures scheduled before the week ends. next week we will see the senate start debate on the resolution seeking to terminate president trump's border declaration. the house approved that measure last week and the president said that he'll veto it if it reaches his desk. follow the house live when they gavel in at noon today on c-span and the senate live at 10:00 eastern here on c-span2. the senate health committee holds a hearing to examine vaccines and preventible outbreaks. and watch that live in ten
minutes on c-span, c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app and finally, later today, the house rules committee will be meeting to discuss hr-1, the house democrats bill addressing ethics rules and elections. live coverage at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. and as we said, the senate is about to gavel in at 10:00 eastern this morning, while we wait for that, some floor comments from texas republican john cornyn about the president's emergency declaration from yesterday. >> mr. president, despite what you hear inside the beltway, the challenges along our southwestern border are real. and the people of texas feel that impact every day along the 1200 miles common border that we have with mexico. last week, for example, the border patrol and the rio grande valley sector arrested 1300 immigrants in a single day.