have a hard time understanding because we are the united states of america, and i had a hard time understanding until i started turning over every stone to see what authorities we had the there was no authority to guarantee liabilities or to put capital into the institutions. but any event, i'm not sure what -- the british were -- i had said in the book i used rasht language when i was disappointed but as i sit in the book as i reflected on it, they obviously had their own issues they were looking at and the regulator it was for them a very difficult decision to let one of their banks go ahead and in the middle

of a run lehman brothers step in and make the acquisition and be confident they had the wherewithal to do that. limited part in a much smaller transaction and i think it was tuesday or wednesday of the british authorities said if you have an account with lehman keeping securities there you couldn't take it out. they froze the accounts basically, which i gather came as a surprise, came as a big surprise to me. >> that was i think that shocked the markets. my recollection is it was tuesday but i could be wrong. as i recall learning

because i recall learning about it tuesday and i was actually the day of the aag rescue. but what happened was the collateral third-party customer accounts in the broken dealer and others were frozen toribio and investors needed to know that their accounts were safe. and of course when they weren't with lehman brothers in the u.k., then there was a big corrosion compliments in the investment banking model, the liability of the investment banking model. >> have an apartment in the united states. you would've had investment to investment to your securities. as i remember, that didn't get publicized much, but it was a huge shock. did they consult? >> if they did, it wasn't with

me. now remember the icc was the regulator. the sec with the regulator for the lehman brothers and was the one that had the lead in preparing for the bankruptcy, you know, because we knew that was going to be a possibility. we hoped to avoid it. and they were the ones that would have been talking to the various authorities during that period of time, but it sure came as a surprise to a lot of investors in a surprise to me. >> hank, you and i own an entire investment trading firm in its early family asset can't tell it. and we've got all these people making lots of money. your head of the compensation money. what sort of arrangement do you have with them? is anybody make 25 or 50 million a year? how are you going to treat these

people so that they keep money for us and they don't leave and go someplace else? >> well, i would say we have to talk about why it is we're doing this and what it is for making -- >> was they were doing it today. >> will today, warren, you have to know that you and i as i write in the book cannot have these conversations with wendy of the time during benign. but i think it the compensation levels on wall street, you know, are of a lack. so i believe that just in general during benign terms. and i think you would, too. this is just general and times of how you -- and number one. and number two, in light of everything that's going on in the fact that the taxpayer came in and granted that the reason the tax your day what was to

prevent calamity, but came in and helped the whole financial system. so not just the big banks and investment banks, but hedge funds everywhere. i think that today restraint is very much in order. by the top people and i think the anger is coming from, hey, if you have losses, you're supposed to be a responsibility for losses. so the way i talked about it as i talked about it and said i'd like to see this anger channeled. i like to see congress appeal pressure. and i know they're working on it very hard to get the regulatory reform we need so that you don't need to ever have taxpayers come in and prop up, bailout in the present foreign a financial institution. we need resolution authority

sony financial and detention, any type of financial institution, if it's going to fail, can be liquidated outside of the bankruptcy process in a way in which it doesn't take the financial system down and the economy down with that. so i would like to see congress get that done and get the systemic risk regulator that can look at every institution, no matter what the size is and type candidacy risk that our project a more restrained them. so i like to see that. now, in terms of longer-term compensation, clearly you need compensation -- my idea is the same as yours, that it should eat and equity for the high paid people. it should be something that rewards long-term performance. that's the only thing that counts, long-term performance and aligns incentives of the

individuals with the company and its shareholders to >> are we getting the hook. >> gentlemen, we're done. >> okay, thank you. [applause] >> a federal purist corbel today against the federal communications commission in a case centered on the regulation of internet service providers and the current of net neutrality. we talked with a "new york times" reporter for more details. add white of "the new york times," you write that a court ruling today dealt a sharp blow to the federal communications commission efforts to set the rules for the road on the internet. what happened? >> well, the court issued a decision that was very narrowly drawn, but which has very broad implications. the court said that the specific leader authority that the fcc

had cited as giving it the ability to relate the internet doesn't apply. it's an incorrectly interpretation, which opens the door to all kinds of questions over are there any restrictions on internet service providers, the companies that provided an in into your home and what they can do, specifically in this case, comcast, the nation's largest cable company was blocking the use of a certain internet application by its users and the fcc said you can't do that, you have to get equal access to all applications and websites. the comcast said no, you can't dictate how we manage our own internet network. >> and why did the judge signed with comcast? >> well, he said that internet service is something that is not

of the same category as other telecommunications services that congress specifically gave the ftc permission to regulate. here, the regulation is more implied in the court said, well, you are overestimating what it was that congress was even you permission to do. >> you said that their larger implications in the case. what are they? >> well, the potential knows that an internet service provider like comcast or another cable company or one of the phone companies that provide your home internet service could say, we're going to create two lanes of traffic on the internet, a fast lane and the slow lane. in the companies that want to use the fast lane, which would be the companies that provide a lot of video content, maybe youtube or one of the broadcast

television networks that wanted to play its shows over the internet. you have to pay more to get the fast lane to access their customers. >> where does the sec go from your? they recently had national broadband plan released and also its net neutrality focus. >> well, the effort to write these rules for net neutrality have completely been undermined by this decision. the fcc is to completely go back to the drawing board and essentially start over with those regulations. and you have to do one of a few things. it has to defend any legal authority to get their power to internet or it has to go to congress and ask for specific authority to regulate the internet. and going to congress is problematic because these rules for sort of limited ability of the fcc to put its hands on the internet are put in place by bush administration and

republicans are likely to very vigorously oppose any efforts to get the fec authority with the internet. >> add wyatt at "the new york times," thank you. >> you are welcome.

>> i know what the challenge is and we're in a unique position to go to work. what we need is policymakers in washington to develop a roadmap so we can get it done.

>> coming up next, booktv presents "after words," an hour-long program where we invite guest host to interview authors. this week, authors and spouses william colin and janet langhart cohen discuss their book, "race & reconciliation in america," a compilation drawn from the impact of racism on american culture. the foreign u.s. secretary of defense in the emmy nominated journalist talk with civil rights activist and u.s. congressman from georgia, john lewis. >> host: thank you very much. we are more than delighted, very pleased to have two wonderful, gifted, smart young people with

us. you are very gone. you're much younger than i am. just go where same age. >> host: thank you ahmed janet. janet cohen and bill cohen, two wonderful people, two wonderful friends. back in 2008, you pull together a very moving conference. you brought together a journalist, social scientist, people with civil rights background. well, i was pleased to be there to participate, to talk about, to discuss, to debate the issue that raises the reconciliation in america. you have prepared a beautiful book, "race & reconciliation in america," an outstanding piece.

is there something about the distance will come and the progress is made good but were not there yet. we have not laid down the burden of race, that we are on our way and i would love for us to engage in a conversation, the same way we did back in 2008. so janet, what about you my dear? >> guest: will land first of all honored to have you had a conversation with l. and me. the contributions that she is made to this country, to humanity are legend and the contribution you make to a conference we had our first conference on race and reconciliation, people are still talking about it. the message he gave us. so thank you for that. we wanted to do weights and reconciliation, have a conference on the discussion of race in america because it seems a taboo subject. people don't like to talk about

race well in their respective groups we do, black people talk about it all the time. i'm sure way people talk about it, but we never diabolic about it across the color line. and i was always aware about the discomfort that white people have been discussing race in mixed groups. and since i was aware that, i found it a comment on me and ville joins me in making life more comfortable to talk about it, to create an environment where they could leave their shame, if you will and guilt if you will at the door and we, people of color, can leave our blame at the door. and as he said we had movie stars, civil rights leaders, great humanitarians coming to talk about the subject. and it came out in this book that bill and i edited called "race & reconciliation in america" and so that is shorthand for a website, we call

it bar we are. an acronym. it is a wonderful beautiful group of islands or mountains rather and south america so were all elevating to the where fight is to discuss issues that are often taboo. >> host: janet, i want to come back to you in just a moment and i want you to tell me something about your background, where you grew up and where you were born and where you grew up and how do you become so committed and so dedicated to the issue of race and reconciliation. bill, let me hear from you. bill, first of all, i really want to thank you for your service. your service in congress, and our government, secretary of defense and all the great work that you have done over the years. thank you for that, my friend. >> guest: i had a great opportunity, john.

it was a remarkable. time in my life to spend some 28 years in elective office and then at the westport over the pentagon was the culmination of everything i've done in the service. i'm interested in the subject matter for a variety of reasons good ideas live because of janet, but i was interested in these issues find before them at janet. in a corrupted mean, maybe the white estate in america. >> host: beautiful state. wonderful visit to maine a few times. you people. >> guest: but there were very few black people, at least a very few that i saw. and those were in the community always lived on the other side of town. and people said well they're okay as long as they quote, stay in their place. and i never understood what staying in their placement. but i became friends.

i watched basketball is very big, not as big as an agenda, but it was big. and i recall back in 1947 hours or-year-old but i went to a basketball game and there's one black ballplayer, bobbie nelson. and he is the one who really caught my attention because he was so exciting and on the court he was so razzle-dazzle enthusiasm that he displayed, and attention. and then i had the privilege just a few years later, when i was just eight years later is playing on the bengal rams, one of the youngest players ever to start for the team, but i had them in mind. and then i had october country bob tolbert who was such a gifted individual and i became very close to him. and then through the basketball, i would go out to the gallup airport space which was a strategic air command space and many, many black men. but most of the ones i saw were

on the basketball court. and they allowed me to play with them. i was the only way person in the gym at and and so i got to understand people on a personal level. and i think all of that contributed to my wanting to narrow the divide between blacks and whites in this country. and i think the disparity has been so deep historically, the wretched history that we have had in this country and the legacies that still live on. and so, having met janet just a few years ago and fallen in love with her to deal with this issue is a partnership, the two of us trying to bring about a reconciliation in this great divide that is getting narrower and narrower and sell it on way to go as you pointed out. i couldn't help but think of your role in this when you can go to the library and borrow a book when you were a young boy and he went back some years later and you were signing autographs for your book.

and that tells you something about how far we've come. >> host: bill, thank you so much. we all have stories to tell. in a story is a very powerful thing and i thank you for telling it and tell them over and over again to show the progress that we've made and how we tear down these barriers than these walls. janet, i know you were born in indiana. >> guest: i was born in indianapolis, indiana, great basketball state. i was born there in 1941, 15 days before the president declared this as the day that will live in infamy. shortly after pearl harbor have been struck in our country into the war. it was the days of a particular cut. a lot of people don't like to see it that way. what to say jim crow separated. i lived in were steeped in segregated areas. my father fought in world war ii and he fought in patton's army.

and when he came home, his country repaid him with a seat on the back of the bus. but the beautiful thing about this country, john, is that either daughter that colored soldier could grow up and married his secretary of defense. so, you know, we have a wonderful country and i often say when i talk about race, i want to give my country's credit because i love her, despite her faults and because of her promise and her progress. >> host: i appreciate that. it is amazing to me the country that we live in. it is such a wonderful place geared we've made so much progress but they're still a great deal of progress to be made. this conference to place in july? and that's before the election. could the two of you, based on the conference, just during the

conference, do you have a sense that we were about to take this great leap? >> guest: i didn't. i knew mr. obama was running in you as a promising candidate, but in my wild streams, you have to think now he was well we drop in a different america than the america of today. the idea that we would ever have a black man as president of the united states was incredible to me. it was almost the same as thinking of having majority rule in south africa and mr. mandela becoming free and becoming president of south africa. these are two very remote possibilities in my mind and the fact that he is president and still pinching myself. at the time we did this conference of course the campaign was going and he was looking good in the polls, but they knew that perhaps he would never be able to really confront the issue of race and racism until bill and i decided to do it. because once we learned that he

attacked in secret service protection long before he was not dictated, just when he announced he was a candidate, that was the america, the legacy that i remember of our country. and as he was moving closer to realizing the dream, i still thought he wouldn't be able to talk about it. just go i think the irony that t. is a black man had to campaign on the basis that he quote transcended race. and i kept saying why does he have to transcend race? wives and the responsibility of all of us who have had a history of imposing on slavery, jim crow, segregation, rampant instrumentation, why was it his responsibility to transcend race. he had that burden many carried it to the satisfaction of an overwhelming majority. and so it was surprising in that sense, but it was felt that he had been restricted where you can talk openly about race

because they would say well, there you go again. you're talking about black issues. black uses are separate from white issues in white america. even to this day, he cannot really approach the subject without being criticized for being too narrow in scope as the president of the united states. so he has to back off. and only when some crisis erupts as he called upon to be asked to talk about an issue, whether it's said gates in boston or cambridge or some other issue that he wraps. so we have felt that he is restricted in that sense, that he is the president of the united states, but he is responsibility for all that. but we want to focus on the race issue because there is such glaring disparities in income, an equal opportunity, in terms of what is taking place within the black community as far as incarceration. this was our first race and reconciliation conference.

we've had two brothers. the second one was about health and wellness. we were concerned about obesity and so we devoted the second conference to talk about health and wellness. with a number of doctors, futurist ray kurzweil and others dealing with the subject how we stay well. and the last one was just recently. we had an entire conference devoted to justice in america. and the reason we're talking about justice in america is because it is such a disparity. black people make up roughly 13% of the population in this country, 50% of the prison population. there's something wrong with that formula. and what we have to do is examine whether our laws are either design or by indirection or buying uncalculated outcome, have imposed a prison on virtually one out of every three black males in this country. so if we look at the numbers,

one out of every three between the ages of 18 and 29418 and 34 to crete to be in the penal system. what does that mean for the black community, what does it mean to all of those rest of us the means for sending these people into incarcerated situation when they can't get out. >> guest: i see it in somewhat a different way. i feel that our society has racialized the law, john, and caramelized black people. black men specifically part misrepresented in prison. and they based their projections on how many prisons they're going to build on our children, black children's third-grade reading level. if you look a black school and predominantly black neighborhood and then you look at a prison, just look at the pictures, you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. >> host: do you think the conference that you had on justice to educate and

subsidize, we'll come back and do a report? >> guest: in many ways, or a like-minded people, black and white, the different disciplines. what we did was we shared information, exchanged ideas, and we asked each other to do something, to act. it's more than examining the problem. we know what the problem is. it's racism and disparity. we know that, we just have to say it. now that we know this, we stipulated that. what do we do? what is the action we take? >> host: where we so afraid, going back, do you think this president is tied to a standard of other presidents have not been free to say what they wanted to say when it came to race because of his color works >> guest: i think he is restrict it on what he can say because he's brought himself up to criticism that is not just

talking as a black person, not as an american president. i think that's what we're trying to deal with. we have black history month and we talk about this. which actor morgan freeman who was our friend, who did an introduction for janet leigh the plate and in it we should talk about also. but he is also raising the issue. why is it just one month for black americans? of their 11 lot of months for white america? why is that part of our entire history? >> host: some people joke and say we select good the shortest month. i heard that a great deal last month. >> guest: i think the president can't relate and shouldn't get confined by this, but we feel we have an obligation to speak out about this. i feel a special obligation because i was a lawmaker as well and i helped write some of those laws that are in fact have a discriminatory impact. they may not have been designed that way. i certainly didn't think so, but would you write about this is if you