anybody? >> really, tom had some colorful slides in the presentation earlier. this has arisen before and we looked at it carefully. if you look at people who receive disability benefits at any given age younger people coming about and have a greater proportion of them. ..

where things have really changed though is, we've had a relative shift in the average age at which disability incidence of curse. we've had more people coming out of roles at younger ages because people coming out of roles at younger ages 10 of the higher likelihood they'll have a mental impairment. and they have the prospect of staying out a long time, until they reach age 66. over all we've had an increase in the share of our to the population and mental impairments. >> there are no the comments i think we're going to wrap up. i want to thank this terrific panel for the comments, and thank you for attending. thanks to c-span for covering the event. let me remind you all to the lighter blue evaluation forms and turned them into a staffer before you leave the room. to check the resource table on the way out. i believe you can also find presentations and other resources about today's event at the nasi website probably

sometime this week i guess at nasi.org. and thanks to everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. join our live call-in program with distinguished former navy seal and author chris giles as he talks about his life from professional rodeo rider to becoming the most lethal sniper in u.s. military history. at 10 p.m. on afterwards -- >> if you think of yourself as a family and you think of yourself

as a team, she said when i get a raise at work, he so proud of me. it's like we got a raise, our family got a raise. but i felt as though she have redefined providing to include what her husband does and she had a lot of respect for what her husband was doing. >> on the changing role of women as the breadwinners of the famine and how that impacts their lives. also this weekend america the beautiful, director of pediatric nursery at johns hopkins, compares the decline of empires past with america and shares his thoughts on what should be done to avoid a similar fate. sunday at 3:30 p.m. of tv every weekend on c-span2. >> c-span's 2012 local content vehicles cities tour takes our booktv and american history tv programming on the road. the first we can in each month. this past week and featured little rock, arkansas, with booktv at the collection at the university of arkansas.

>> he was particularly interest in the 19th century, the civil war in particular. these are two friends, union and confederate, who knew each other prior to the civil war, the plot against each other at the battle of tea rich in 1862. survived the war, about a live and remain friends after the war and yet they are at age 100 sitting on the porch talking about the old days. >> american history tv looked at the life of a japanese internment camp. >> a wonderful book called the art of -- that meant surviving the un-survivable. she talks a lot about how the arts and crafts were sort of how they kept their sanity and it gave them something to do. and about how depression was so bad in a lot of the camps, and that people, there is a high

incidence of suicide, and so people would make these little things, this beauty, to get to each other just as a way to say, you know, we support you and we care about your. >> our lcv cities tour continues the week of may 5 and 6th from oklahoma city on c-span2 and three. >> we plan to bring live coverage of the govsec conference this morning with a keynote address by former u.s. special envoy for middle east peace, george mitchell. we are not going to record the event and bring it to you later in her schedule. moving on with our programming, canadian prime minster stephen harper was here in the u.s. this week for the north american leaders summit. after meeting with president obama and mexican president calderón. mr. harper took part in a q&a session at the woodrow wilson center where he discussed a range of topics regarding u.s.-canada relations, energy supplies and exports,

immigration and trade expansion. this is about an hour. >> we welcome you all to the ronald reagan building. for those of you that are not in the area, welcome to d.c. during the most beatable time of the year, cherry blossom season. i hope you have had a chance to look around while you are in town. the reagan building is a special project of the u.s. general services administration. again, my name is andrew and on the trade director here. i'd like to welcome the right honorable stephen harper, the prime minister of canada. ambassador, honored guest, members of the diplomatic development and business communities here today. i'd also like to welcome and thank the host of today's program, the woodrow wilson center for international scholars. the reagan building is a mixed-use facility. along with her special events and hospitality service, we pride ourselves in being an

active hub for trade promotion, trade policy promotion, and various events and signature events throughout the year. we also serve as the world trade center for washington, d.c. which connects us to our world trade center partners in hundreds of countries throughout the world, gives us a wonderful network to promote the event that you take place here at the trade center. our partnership washington include various government agencies, ngos and think tanks which foster international dialogue, generate business opportunities and educate the public writer in the nation's capital. the conversation this afternoon will offer us all better insight to u.s.-canada relations as we are on the heels of a trilateral north american leader summit which was held today at the white house. we think the wilson center for assembling the prestigious panel this afternoon and i'm certain the program will be thought-provoking for all of us here today. it's now my pleasure to introduce today's host, the honorable jane harman, director, president and ceo of the wilson center. thank you all.

[applause] >> thank you, andrew, and good afternoon to everyone. i hope the irony is not lost on you that the woodrow wilson center, the living memorial to her 28th president and only ph.d president, who happened to be a member of the democratic party is in the ronald reagan building. [laughter] i only wish we had more bipartisanship going on about a mile from here. i have been the director president and ceo of the wilson center for about a year. on day three of my tenure here, i had the pleasure of welcoming mexican president felipe a calderón to speak in this room and the ronald reagan building. so it seems like bookends today to welcome our other north american neighbor, canadian prime minister stephen harper to the wilson center's directors

for them. as you probably know, all of you, that the mexican president and prime minister harper join president obama in the rose garden just a couple hours ago. to talk about the meeting the three of them had this morning. i'm sure we'll hear more about that in just a moment. but let me also recognize and welcome a few more people. wilson center chairman joe killed and one, ambassador joe killed one, and his wife, a member of our council. the honorable ed fast as a canadian minister for international trade. the honorable -- ms. sarah, ambassador of canada to mexico, and he is already been acknowledged, but my good friend, ambassador gary dewar, who is canada's ambassador to the united states. as a recovering politician and now head of this nonpartisan

institution, i want this audience to know how impressed i am that prime minister harper chose gary dewar, the former new democratic party premier of manitoba, to be canada's ambassador to this country. such bipartisanship is to be applauded. and as i mentioned earlier, very rare in this country these days. ambassador do are invited me to lunch at the canadian embassy a few months ago. and in addition to having the most gorgeous embassy in town, he demonstrated in ipad app that shows canada's contribution to the economy of each state and each u.s. congressional district. a great way to show our congress why this relationship matters to their constituents here with me at lunch that day was david, the director of the wilson center's remarkable canada institute. david worked hard to bring the prime minister here today, and we are all pleased that his

efforts were successful. one housekeeping note. after my conversation with the prime minister, which should last about 30 minutes, of the hour we have, we will take some questions from the audience. if you have a question, please write it on a note card, which i think you have, and one of the ushers will pick it up and then we will cluster the questions and put into the prime minister. in this audience, some may feel prime minister harper needs no introduction, as canada is such a close ally and maybe, but i thought i would just add a few notes. stephen harper spoken up boldly for israel, and candidate has been a loyal coalition partner in some of the toughest fighting in afghanistan over the years. his handling of the canadian, of canada's economy through the recession and his role at meetings of the g8 and j-20, the next of those g20 meetings is in los cabos in mexico in june, has

attracted widespread approval. the world economic forum says candace banks are the sounds in the world. not a single canadian bank failed during the long recession. "forbes" magazine ranks canada as the best place on earth to invest. wrap that around, the best place on earth to invest, alas no one has said that about the united states lately. so now here the back store, or the back political story. before stephen harper could contest an election, he first had to unify the canadian alliance and progressive conservatives to form the conservative party of canada. to do so, he thought to leadership campaigns. once he became leader he fought for elections. he has governed as prime minister in some and most challenging economic and security circumstances since the second world war. the wilson center was obviously pressured six years ago when we bestow the woodrow wilson award for public service on

mr. harper. receiving the award, he was modest and said, quote as someone who's only served canada's prime minister for eight months, i am not sure i have yet merited this recognition. well, prime minister harper, you serve your country for six years now, and you have surely revived canadian leadership on the world stage. we know we didn't make a mistake when we gave you the award. so ladies and gentlemen, the right honorable stephen harper, prime minister of canada will join me in these chairs and make a few opening remarks at i believe that he will open in french, but he promises that he will translate his french as he just did in the white house so that the rest of you can understand and we will as i said then that record to questions and to your questions. please welcome the prime minister of canada, stephen harper. [applause]

friend[speaking inthank you verd introduction. i will be very brief. [speaking in french] so i am here primarily today, as i just said, to meet with president, as you mentioned, president obama, president calderón, really to discuss our shared north american agenda. obviously, the economy. and the competitiveness of this region in the context of

recovery from the global recession. also we discussed the common security challenges that we increasingly have in this hemisphere. and we discuss the promotion of democratic values as we approach the summit of the americas which will be held in colombia very shortly. this has been i guess today, you're probably aware, former president medvedev of -- former president of mexico passed away. he was one of the architects of the nafta agreement and has been a burgeoning three-way relationship ever since then. so we do meet periodically to discuss these interests and shared concerns. and, of course, we never miss an opportunity to discuss our relationship with the united states, which for canada as you know remains overwhelmingly important. i know this crowd knows, but as too many americans don't know, canada-u.s. economic relationship is the largest economic relationship in

history. largest trade relationship in history. $700 billion a year now in trade. we are the number one export destination for the united states. to give an id of the scale, most americans do not understand anything like these numbers. the united states exports more together than it does to the bric countries, uk and germany combined. and, of course, we are also your largest supplier, external supplier of energy, and 25% of all oil exports, from canada, larger than any individual middle eastern country. so we never miss an opportunity to discuss very important trait in of the relationships we have with this great country here. >> well, thank you. [speaking in french] [laughter] now we will talk in english. let me start with competitiveness and innovation,

because as i listen to what the president said and what you just said and what president calderón said, we're talking about when you add in mexico, a trillion plus dollars market, if you talk about the three countries as north america. and that starts to add up to real money in real clout. one of the things on the president's list that was agreed to today, i think, was a joint regime for simplifying regulatory reform. at the wilson center last week we had a meeting on american innovation and competitiveness. and, of course, one of the subjects that came up was stifling regulation. what could that agreement mean, and what are some other ways to spur competitiveness and reach, you know, take a trillion we now have and multiply that by a lot in some near-term? >> well, in terms of regulation and what we really were talking

about today is, follows from agreements that have been made earlier, bilaterally, between the united states and mexico, and, obviously, as well between the united states in canada, that we just put into effect in the last few months. what we call the regulatory cooperation council. we have officials working, have been working for several months now and working with industry on a range of ways that we can standardize, harmonize, simplify regulatory differences between our countries. particularly for candidate, i visited a huge concern. we often, someone used the expression early today we were often the capital of journey of differences and we want to find a way with our largest trading partner to make our border as seamless as possible. and dealing with regulatory supplication, standardization. a big part of that. and i met with business

community earlier. everyone is very engaged in this. this is very important work going for. i think will look as well to see how these two bilateral exercises could result in some trilateral agreements as well. in canada we are going a step farther. we are not concerned merely with kind of the michael regulatory environment. we just introduced a national budget in canada last week, or next stage will recall our economic action plan. one of the things we're doing there is we are trying to streamline project approval, particularly from major source development. we have tremendous opportunity is here but obviously in asia to develop and to find new markets for canadian sources, and we have found in recent years and increasingly our records are processed as well, necessary for good environmental reasons, are often becoming very long, creating a lot of uncertainty for business.

so we are legislating clear timeline, that doesn't guarantee people will get the answer they want, but clear timeline so we can create more certainty for investment and ultimately bring more projects to fruition quickly. >> i will get to the energy question, which i know you all want an answer to in a moment, but staying on this for just a bit. you have been able to do things in terms of your budget that we can only dream of here. and obviously i think everybody gets the facts that a healthy budget employment often refers to your economy, and can hopefully fix any other issues related to economic growth. how were you able, how was canada able to stay, i wouldn't call it healthy during the lowest point, but to stay healthier than the united states, and obviously europe and other parts of the world?

>> well, there's been three big differences in canada. first has been, we had a very solid system of financial institution regulation. one that is not entirely translatable here, but one that is i think helping them form the basis of some of the international efforts that are going on to reform financial sector regulation fixed width strong financial sector. we have strong household, corporate balance sheets as well. we had a strong, this is a big difference, we had a strong fiscal position going into the recession. not only was the government of canada and most provincial governments, not only were we running at surpluses, but we had debt levels that were very low. which meant a couple of things, which meant, you know our fiscal position but it also meant we had a lot more flexibility. we did a very large-scale stimulus program in canada in the order of $60 billion, which

is comparable to what was done here. but the difference was, because with such a low debt level, we could incur that kind of deficit in the short term without worrying about the effects on our interest burden down the road. so we did that. we have withdrawn that stimulus quite quickly, as the recovery has taken effect. that's made all the difference, having that flexibility. and we're determined to preserve that. we have said all along the stimulus we put in would be temporary. we didn't create any new bureaucracy that would want to sustain that. and now we're moving very quickly in the context of the majority government. you have a lot more flexibility. >> that makes a difference. >> it does. we are moving quickly now to ensure that we get returned, we will return to balance in the course of this mandate. in fact, we are about half, maybe a little less than half the deficit we had at the

height. and we should be by 2015 at the latest imbalance. >> imbalance. wow. i would just teachers, can you give us more information about what this team is program did, and how you were able to avoid an overhead of bureaucracy to get the money to where it needed to go? >> there were a lot of components to this team is program in canada. but the lion's share was essentially the federal government funding a portion of so-called shovel-ready projects, of infrastructure already planned and close to launch, infrastructure projects of other levels of government, colleges, universities, and in a few cases the private sector. so what we did is we went for projects that were already going to go ahead. we just accelerated the timeline, they largely did outside of our own government,

and we required in most cases contributions for all other partners. so they have not just a stay, financially, they also had a stake in the thing on the indefinite. so we found that was pretty effective program. >> was there private sector money and go? >> there were some private sector projects but they're mostly governmental project. >> was there tax revenue involved in some of his? for example, in los angeles, close to my heart, there is a program called, or it hasn't been realized yet, 30/10, and the goal is to take some of the sales tax that has been dedicated in los angeles, applied to the buildout of infrastructure, back to the federal government to front load some of the money so that instead it taking 30 years, paid for by tax revenue, it will take 10 and will create tens of thousands of jobs. is that the kind of thing you didn't? >> we didn't have anything quite like the. as i say, we did require shares from the others, and we also did

have available, for some municipalities, and both us and. although it wasn't actually that broadly used. but we didn't use tax revenue. >> did not. we have a variation on that proposal called and infrastructure bank, sounds like a bat. let me turn to energy, a subject that everyone hears about. canada is rich in energy resources. today, the president talked about a joint effort among the three countries to build clean energy jobs. my question is this. it relates to energy security. i think that would be the least polarizing word we can use. do you see a possibility of north america, again, the three countries, putting in, you know, into the game, the energy resources we have with pipeline and other capacity to move those resources are round, and

achieving energy security? that would mean no reliance on middle eastern oil, or at least that's what it would mean to me. it could mean other things, that the ability to basically power whatever our needs are. some mix of clean energy and oil resources, other, and if you can see that future, what role do five line display? does the decision to delay a portion of the keystone xl pipeline the fact that timeline? and does canada's interest in having other energy partners, especially asia, duluth the possibility of canada will bring enough energy to the table to achieve this north american energy security objective? >> first of all, you know, there's several portions of that question.

canada, i like to say that whatever the energy of the future, candidate will be a major supply. canada is among the top two or three and virtually every single energy source that is out there. so energy security for us, not the we don't know there are energy challenges, but energy security for can't has there been the same thing for the united states. we don't have the same kind of fundamental threat of an energy shortage. in the case of north america as a whole though, obviously the shale gas and all, the natural gas in particular, income as president obama said earlier today, have capacity for enormous geopolitical shift. the u.s. is particularly rich in natural gas, and this does create potential for north america as a whole to be essentially, not just energy

self-sufficient, but an energy exporter. in fairness though i have to say that canada's interest here are a little bit different, and particularly i might as well be frank, in light of the interim decision at least on keystone, what it really has highlighted in canada is that our issue what comes energy and energy security is not north american self-sufficient. our is diversifying. we cannot be as a country in a situation where really are one in many cases, our only energy partner could say no to energy product group we just can't not be and i can position. and the truth of the matter is that when it comes to oil in particular, we do face a significant discount on the marketplace because of the fact that we are a supplier. so we have made it clear to people in canada, one of our national priorities is to make

sure that we have infrastructure and capacity to export our energy products outside north america. now look, we're still going to be a major supplier to the united states. a long time, if ever, if united states is our number one export market vote for us the united states cannot we are only export market. that is not in our interest, either commercially or even private. >> in clean energy be an increasing part of the next? it does seem to me we're trying to export clean energy technology, too, to asia, especially to china and solar and other issues are in that mix. but today at least as i was sitting president obama he was talking about clean energy and obviously if we have an easy choice between reforms of energy, and clean energy, who wouldn't a clean energy? how big a piece of the energy by do you think that is? >> clean energy is going to be a growing part of the mix, as far as fossil fuels coal, natural

gas is a clear form and that's where the growth is. in terms of clean energy and climate change, we have engaged in quite cooperative action with the obama administration, for instance, on transportation regulation to try and get better and cleaner energy usage, like the united states. we also invest in newer technology, wind, solar, carbon capture and storage, you know, all kinds of energy innovation. but i mean, the truth of the matter is this, and you know i know this is going not to be a popular thing to say, but the truth of matter is that if you look at supply and demand curves for energy in the future, even with the growth of clean energy sources. in fact, the argument i make too many people, especially those who are more skeptical of the

climate change is that if you simply look at supply and demand issues, that we've got to be finding ways to get plentiful, reasonable cost sources of energy outside of hydrocarbons. because i'm not sure the hydrocarbon production -- sermon oil production cannot keep up with the men. why there is, you know, not just right now but over the last several years a rise in price of oil. it's simply a supply and demand phenomenon. so look, the way i see the energy of the future, we're going to have hydrocarbon still in the mix, increased natural gas. as a partner as it also is, nuclear is going to have to be a growing part of the mix, not withstand the challenges and risk of nuclear energy. it remains the other, the only other today large scale, reasonably cost, reasonably cost

effective option. other options, we all have great hope for, either today or not large-scale or they are not reasonably priced. >> i hear your view on nuclear. there are some new ideas. there are a also decide to which any are familiar with about an international fuel bank that could provide for this function around the world. that might be in some future lifetime and answer to iran. in fact, we talked about a few years back the fuel bank would've in russia, that it could be a world wide solution. the iaea is talked about that too. for all countries engaged in nuclear production. at any rate there's lots more to talk about, car production, clean engines, i mean, the canada-u.s. collaboration on cars is huge. most people don't understand that exports between the u.s. and canada keep adding content

on both sides of the border. the same thing is true in mexico. >> the average cars, the average car, north american car, when being produced crosses the border 16 times. after being a symbol. >> just did, the mexico institute, said research on our shared border with mexico which shows that 40% of the content of export to mexico, and imports from mexico, have contributed by both sides of the border. so it's very different from an import export relationship with china or other countries but let's just finally turned to foreign policy, and david, if you have these cards, you need to be bringing them up to me. so if anyone has questions, i hope you handed them off someplace, please. foreign policy, as i told you, my focus in congress was on intelligence and security. we have and extraordinarily

close intelligence relationship with canada, and have had it for years. and on security, canada has been our closest ally, or certainly one of them, in terms of things we have done and are doing in the middle east region, hard things. one of those are things is trying to find some better answers on syria. and i did ask prime minister harper whether his country was at the friends of syria meeting over the weekend. they have decided tentatively, at least as i understand, or we have decided with some others, to provide some humanitarian aid and communications equipment to the opposition in syria. how do you assess that? are there any better answers? and if we could bring syria away

from iran, my suggestion has been to grant immunity to the bashar al-assad family and hope we get them out of the country and do what we did and yemen, to provide a stable alternative government. but if we can achieve that, how do you ask the leader of can't see a way forward? >> well first of all, we agree with the united states, with all our allies that there is no resolution without assad stepping down. that is an essential part of this, and we are working cooperatively with all our allies. obviously it would be helped along if all members of the security council were cooperating with our objective here. this is though, i think you have to be frank in saying this is a more complex situation than we face in libya. in libya we faced essentially a

family regime. >> where canada played a very leading role. >> we played a significant role. general bechard was the command of the nato force. we are very proud of the work he did. but in the case of libya we face a family regime and the widespread consensus and a widely formed opposition against that regime. in the case of syria, it is more complex for support for the assad is deeper. and the opposition is much more fragmented. and the possibility of prolonged and widespread and dangerous chaos is much more market. and so i think what would all like is he is obviously would like to see more unity. we would like to see more unity

and strength among the opposition, but would also like to see the government make changes and reach out and work with the opposition. it's hard to see how this ends well if both sides don't do that. our assessment is that, you know, the government, the opposition does not appear strong enough to overthrow the government. and it's not clear to us that there would be a unified opposition if they did take place. and it also appears, and it should be, you would seem clear to assad and his people now, that it doesn't appear that any amount of repression is after going to stop the opposition or the demonstration. it would be grateful helpful if we get all minutes of the security council pulling toward a resolution, but we don't have the. >> right. i need some questions in my hands. somebody bringing them? i assume you're asking questions.

how many of you have written questions down on cards? we need this. [inaudible] >> here he is. the question man has arrived. this was the plan we had. okay. sorry. we have received questions on keystone xl. what a surprise. here they are, or here's a summary of the. americans are concerned about increased greenhouse gas emissions and oil sands. should companies be forced to offset the oil sands production with reproduction? let me put these together. and if keystone xl can be approved after the u.s. presidential election, will this affect your government's position on the northern gateway pipeline? >> well, first of all, i think, first of all, you know, everything i have seen, the united states indicates pretty overwhelming public opinion in

favor of the keystone pipeline the president obama has told me repeatedly that this decision will ultimately be on the basis of its merits. i have no reason not to believe him on that. but in terms, look, i think there's two things, three things that are very important about this keystone pipeline. the first is, one should not in any way minimize the sheer economic scale of it. this has the capacity of employing up to 30,000 people. this is a huge energy product, project that will have enormously positive employment and economic effects across a range of industries in both countries which is why business and labor is so strongly supportive of it. secondly, we talked about this earlier, energy security.

the united states, it is not possible for the united states to get a friendlier and more secure supply of oil than anywhere and from canada. it's just, and if one looks at the options, middle east, venezuela, i mean, it's so obvious that this is the better option for energy security but the third is the environmental impact of this should not be exaggerated. oilsands, while they are heavy, are not heavier than crude, no heavier in venezuela for example, were a lot of the displaced oil will be from. not that there aren't environmental challenges in the oilsands. they are, but they should not be exaggerated or some that you need are somehow out of the mainstream of the oil industry. that's just not the case. in terms of your second part of

your question, would approval of this change our mind? the answer is no. look, the very fact that a no could even be said, underscored to our country that we must diversify our energy export market. but as i say, we have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a capital so far, and that does not make sense in terms of broader interest of the canadian economy. and look, i'm a strong and firm believer in the important, economic importance of our relationship, security import, and the import of the united states in the world, but we cannot, we cannot take this to the point where we are creating risk to significant economic penalties to the economy, and not -- when asia is the going part of the world.

it simply makes no sense to canada. >> canada has every right to take the position, and i don't speak for the obama administration, but i do think most americans would prefer to buy oil from canada than from a long list of other countries. but i also think, in our country with a song environmental issue. it is this issue, about offsets because as you say, it's heavy crude and we buy from other place. but i think a lot of people are concerned about that and there were some concerns, i assume they're still are, about the moving of the pipeline. >> my understand is the routing concerns have been addressed in nebraska so. offsets, look, i'm not sure i'm much of the player in offsets. i think if you're concerned about, if you're concerned about emissions come to find a way about controlling emissions. offsets are a way of pretending you've addressed issues that you really haven't.

>> changing the subject -- [laughter] when both canada and the united states, i guess is a question to you, when both canada decide to form a customs union? >> well, i think that's a fairly theoretical question, because i certainly, you know, since we have signed nafta there's obviously been a tremendous growth in trade, immigration and integration of supply chain between our economies. but ice and snow appetite, particularly in the united states to take the economic relationship to any fundamental level like it is today. in terms of things like customs union. so i just don't think that's in the cards, particularly in the context that nafta probably has more to do with the

mexican-american relationship and with the american canadian relationship. but nevertheless, i think that's the situation but what we have done with the obama administration is we have beyond the corner initiative, where we are finding ways of avoiding duplicative screening when we crossed the border, where we are finding ways of doing more and more of our screening and security checks on the perimeter of the continent rather than at the board. so these are ways to significantly increase integration and trade and tourism flow across the border. but i don't think, i just don't see a customs union being in the cards. >> i also think they were very smart initiative. another term for that is a smart border, and pushing the border out that way is smart. we did that in the united states, states with something called the safe port act which requires cargo which can be a great risk to our country to be screened at the point of embarkation in china over some

other asian port. and then the cargo secure across the ocean so that when it arrives at our ports it speeds up. there are ways to measure these priorities and it seems be the initiative. >> you know, if something, i forget what exactly is, check once and verified twice a century. once it is checked in one country it is good in both. >> i am checking my watch but i think we sought more time so i could use a few more questions, and thus i can't see the clock very well, which i can't. but here's one. you made -- ice in the arctic ocean has been melting at unprecedented rates causing concern among some but opening previously unavailable resources as well as new shipping routes. is the arctic a place for cooperation or competition? where does canada that? >> it's probably a place where little bit of both your it is,

it is true that, it is true that more of the ice is melting. it's also true that i think the economics of commodity prices are going to drive resource development in areas like the arctic where costs are higher and were traditionally it's been harder to make economic projects viable. we have put the emphasis, i mean a big part of our country is actually in the arctic region. we put a big emphasis on securing our sovereignty there, and seeing those resources develop, not just for the benefit of the country but particularly for the economic opportunity of the people who live there, through the arctic council and others, we, you know, we do cooperate. we are cooperating, for instance, on the united nations convention on the law of the sea and the mapping of the arctic seabed, and the resolution of

various claims. but those things all said, as there are in all parts of the world these days they will also be some pretty i think increasing, increasingly intense competition for economic activity in that part of the world. >> changing the subject back to the border. can we do more on each side of the border, such as biometrics to allow good people to cross faster and easier? >> yeah. beyond the border initiative i mentioned earlier, enhance investment in biometric, in information sharing between our various security agencies, those are all part of a program that we put together with the obama administration. the principle is really, is really very simple. it's how do we, how do we increase the ability of ordinary businesses, ordinary travelers, tourists, friends and neighbors, to cross the border regularly

and seamlessly, while at the same time being able to identify risks and threats and identify them early. and for biometrics information sharing, all of those things are part of the answer to that, to that equation. i'm of the strong view that, you know, we have seen this all over the place. i'm of the strong view that, you know, checking millions and millions of people, making them go through linux, making them go through screening is not in and of itself an effective way to identify the potentially dangerous. and we have more such as gateways are doing that. >> i think you're just describing tsa. [laughter] but having talked, having been in at the creation, i just would say a couple things. one, we are getting smarter about how we do that. but, two, we have in our

country, and i'm sure you do too, we have layered security. we don't just have one way to try to catch people. and these things are all determined to unfortunately they are also some of them in enormous inconveniences and seemed very silly. i would just point out one of the things that tsa is always hit with, why do little kids have to be checked, or babies? well, if some of the folks trying to attack us have no respect for human life and are happy to use babies or little kids, you know, with explosives underneath them or strap them, things onto them, and it's highly unfortunate that they don't value life the way we do. so, therefore, we do need processes sometimes that look at people who would not logically or likely in most cases the suspects. but changing the subject to health care which didn't come up, i didn't raise it to you didn't raise it either. it's kind of a big topic in this country the last few weeks. as the head of a country with long-standing universal health care, do you see this as a

budgetary burden or bloom? >> that's a -- >> thank you, questioner. >> it depends on the context. many canadian businesses will tell you that having universal, single-payer system, simplifies life for them, it reduces the cost of doing business. on the other hand, we can't fool people and not tell you that the growth, the sheer growth of the health care in canada is a serious concern to all of senior government, health care budget. over a long period of time has been growing faster than our economy. now mind you, jane, i would make this observation that i know that the health care system of the united states is very different than health care system of canada. and you know, all the westerne westerners, developed countries, have variance of a mixed health

care system. my observation would be that in spite of these various differences, their problems that afflict virtually all of them are the same. and that is the costs and the pressures on keep growing faster than the ability of western countries to sustain economic growth. why is that? i think there are two reasons. one is that act of the matter is, this is a good thing, the fact of the matter is that nowadays we can do so much in terms of health care, so much in terms of cheering people and extending life. in fact if we have an unlimited supply of money we can almost an unlimited amount of things. the problem is we don't have an unlimited amount of money so we have to find ways of limiting it. but our capacity to improve and sustain life has grown enormously over the past couple of generations. that's it more difficult problem. the other problem, of course is

our economies are not growing fast enough. and this is something i talked to the canadian people about. i mean, we just want a national election in canada by emphasizing the fact that the canadian economy has done so much better than other developed economies over the past several years during the recession and recovery. but the truth of the matter is that's not a very good measure because most developed economies are not growing the way they need to be growing. and one of the things we've got to do in canada, and everywhere, is find ways of increasing the productive capacity and growth capacity of our economy. that's why as i said, we had a whole range of measures there, not just this coal measures, not just the obligatory measures, integration and innovation and other kinds of measures, so that we can keep growing our economy, and keep funding programs, like our health care program, which

our citizens want and our citizens value. but the truth of the matter is, i say, i tried to say this as a wicked to call to canadian. the same thing i would say here in the united states and in europe, and, i traveled to asia. i know many people in the audience to hear in other parts of the world. when you see these big emerging economies and these people are smart, they are hungry and they're hard-working, and in less we find ways of competing with them and growing we are going to be under considerable pressure regardless of what the nature of our health care system is. and that is the real challenge we have. >> i surely agree, i think i don't agree some of the challenges are. one of the big issues that came up to health care fight, i was been conned, was this issue of rationing care. and the disproportionate amount spent at the end-of-life. i assume you have the same issues, even with national health care. >> absolutely. even more.

>> because there are defined benefits that go to a certain point. >> the government is the sole provider, so that land directed on the government's lack. and, frankly, it's the provincial governments figure out how to ration the service and have to make the best use of the dollars that are increasing the difficult decisions. >> right. all right, well, we have a lot of other questions, and i think, i can't really see but i think we have 11 minutes ago or so. so let's just pick a few random ones. this one about the trans pacific partnership. it didn't come up to date about the tdp and canada's interest in joining it and mexico, too. and i think president obama was asked whether he would support that. and i believe he said yes. >> he was very positive. >> so this question is when will canada join the ttp? you are the prime minister. we expect you to know the answer to this.

>> well, canada is certainly indicated our strong interest. we have a very aggressive trade negotiation agenda. i remind people that when our government took office in 2006, in spite of the fact that we are one of the most open trading economies in the developed world, canada had trade agreements with only five countries in the entire world which was one of the absolute lowest. we signed trade deals with nine edition countries and where in the process of negotiating with others, including right now the european union who are still optimistic about signing an agreement with us this year, with japan, with india. and so our interest in joining the trans-pacific partnership is only natural. we already have agreements with three of the countries in the trans-pacific partnership, including obviously the united states. and our strong sense is that most is that most of the members

of the trans-pacific partnership would like to see canada join. i think there's some debate, particularly within the administration about the merits of that. but our strong view is that if we are to build on a north american advantage, integration you have here at nafta, and, frankly, to get around the table, where you want people with shared interests, it makes sense for all three of the nafta partners to be part of it. >> we have, i will put these together got a couple more environmental questions and then under the border question. you have just instituted spending cuts, and this questioner has heard that there were because to air quality programs. he or she wants to know whether canadian scientist can continue to collaborate with their u.s. counterparts? and another question that could be answered together is what role should hydropower plant in

canada's clean energy exports to the u.s.? >> first of all, just on the governments budgetary savings, the scale of our savings program in canada is really very modest compared to what you're reading about in most western developed countries. our budgetary plan to get back to balance involves essentially a 2% reduction in federal spending over a three-year period here so this is not, these are not enormous sums of money. what we are trying to deal in all kinds of government is essentially find ways, i won't say we aren't cutting the programs that were essentially trying to find ways that we can deliver similar services and goods for the canadian public at, frank, a lesser cost if we believe there's lots of room for efficient and the federal government. i hear rumors about that in the federal government here as well. look, you know, the fact that we

engage in air quality programs in collaboration with our american counterparts, that isn't going to change. what was the second part? >> hydropower. >> we already are a significant exporter of hydro energy to the united states both from manitoba and from québec of course is very big exporter of hydropower. we have a fairly integrated electricity market between the two countries already. but look, there's lots of capacity for canada to dramatically increase its hydroelectric power, and to export more of that power to the united states. this is one form of energy we will not be exporting to asia. so we have -- >> that would be tricky. >> we have tremendous capacity for growth here. and there are regulatory obstacles on both sides of the border.

we are addressing the ones on our side of the border, if they don't make a lot of sense for the united states to find ways to purchase more clean hydropower from canada. >> speaking of borders, this is very specific. the new bridge between windsor and detroit will help make our border seamless. one afford an agreement with president obama on this? >> yeah. we have been working with american governments are some years. some of you may know that there are unusual circumstances, i want to say, around the detroit-windsor crossing that we're trying to overcome. we think it is essential -- well, let's be frank about that. there is a bridge their today that has a private owner. and my understanding of the private owners position is that he not only owns the bridge but somehow owns the water across. ..

>> we have a very good working relationship with the governor there, and we believe we're making significant progress to realizing a new crossing, hopefully, before i leave office. [laughter] >> well, at least we can agree that that's not a bridge to nowhere. [laughter] >> well, this is the biggest, this is the biggest single, you know, this is the biggest single corridor of trade in the world. and the concept that somebody could claim that he privately

owns it all is, to me, is, to me, ludicrous. but to some degree that is the situation we're dealing with today. >> um, good questions, don't you agree? thank you, folks. a few more. we have five minutes. i don't want to presume on your time, but here's one on immigration. how have canadian immigration policies helped it attract highly-skilled labor, and there was a question at noon put the you about visa policy, especially visa policy with mexico. i think the mexican president asked that. so we're not doing so well on immigration policy. how are you doing? >> laugh -- [laughter] >> well, you know, like the united states, canada has always been a land of immigrants, and, you know, i like to remind people as in the united states you will hear lots of critiques of canadian immigration policy even in many cases from

immigrants themselves. but the fact of the matter is notwithstanding all of the deficiency of canadian immigration policy, that immigration has been, and immigrants, have been overwhelmingly successful in canada. and, you know, the diversity and the dynamism and the energy and the hope that immigrants bring to our two countries i don't think we can really overstate how important that is. you know, you can look at immigrants just as people who contribute to the economy, but they provide a vitality and excitement about our nations that really is unmatched anywhere. and there are so few places in the world -- canada, we like to think we're number one many terms of the ability for someone to come from anywhere and become, ultimately -- >> as this event winds down, we'll leave the last few minutes letting you know you can see all

of it in our video library at c-span.org. we'll take you live, now, to the national press club for remarks from the head of the benefits corporation, addressing the retirement crisis facing baby boomers and why more flexibility is needed in the modern workplace. live coverage here on c-span2. >> and he'll speak for 10-15 minutes, and after that we'll take questions from both reporters in the room and on the phone. the press club invited mr. gotbaum here today because we live in a time of retirement insecurity. for in the golden years -- for many the golden years aren't so golden. 10,000 people will retire every day for nearly the next two decades, but what kind of income will they have in their retirement years? many baby boomers are without traditional pension plans. an economic downturn and a drop in housing prices has wiped out assets. those lucky enough to have

defined benefit pension plans find them under pressure. our speaker today will discuss how we can improve retirement savings for millions of americans and, also, the aggressive actions he has been taking at pbgc to preserve pensions for millions of americans fortunate enough to have pension savings. before we begin, though, let me tell you a little bit more about mr. gotbaum and pbgc. josh gotbaum is pension director of the pension benefit guarantee corporation and was appointed director by president obama in july 2010. he has helped manage public, private and nonprofit institutions for three decades. for more than a decade of that time, mr. gotbaum was an investment banker in new york and london where he advised businesses, unions and governments on a diverse range

of mergers, acquisitions and restructurings in steel, transportation and other industries. during the clinton administration, he helped positions -- he held positions at omb, treasury and defense, and he worked on the white house staff during the carter administration. and while mr. gotbaum was appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate, pbgc collects insurance premiums from employers that sponsor insurance pension plans, and it earns money from investments and receives funds from pension plans it has taken over. but i'm not going to talk anymore about what pbgc does, i'm going to let you do that. so without any further adore, josh, let's -- further ado, josh, let's turn it over to you. >> i want to start by thanking jamie and the club for inviting me to talk this morning about what it takes and what we can do

to have a secure retirement. it is not news that americans are concerned about retirement. most people know they're not doing enough to prepare. and they fear that they won't have enough to live the life they want to live when they retire. but that can be changed if we act. what does that mean we should do? individuals, people need to save more. businesses can help their employees by providing plans and by contributing to them. and at pbgc and within government we can do what we've always done, to work to strengthen retirement security and to provide a safety net. pbgc's job, as jamie says, is to encourage and preserve retirement plans by u.s.

companies. when companies can't afford their plans, we're a safety net. right now we're responsible for benefits for almost a million and a half people, and we do it without a dime in tax dollars. we're funded by premiums there the pension plans we insure. but first we try to preserve plans because people always feel more secure if their plans are intact. our mandate, however, is broader than that. under the law we're charged with encouraging voluntary private pension plans, and that, frankly, is why i'm here today. each and every day some 10,000 baby boomers reach 65. that used to be thought of as the normal retirement age. but many of them aren't retiring because they can't. the basis of this challenge is

good news: we are living longer, healthier lives. when jfk was president, the average retiree didn't live to see their 80th birthday. today the average retiree will live well into their 80s, and a quarter will reach their 90s. so people are living longer. but that means that retirement will cost more too. now, some folks say all it takes is for people to work longer, for people not to retire so soon. well, people already are working longer. from the mid '90s to about five years, the average retirement age went up by two years. and that was before the market crash.

so the fact is, people are working longer. but even though they're working longer, they're living longer still. and that means that in the future retirement is going to cost more, not less. pensions that were enough in the past won't be in the future. now, half of the people working today don't have an employer-provided pension at all. most of those who do have 401(k)-type plans. those plans have some very real benefits. they move with you from job to job, and people feel comfortable knowing that they have their own savings plan, that it's theirs. but as millions of people have learned in the last four years, those plans aren't guaranteed. if market drops when you're planning to retire, you're not going to retire when you want or

have the life in retirement that you hoped for. there are other issues. with a 401(k) plan, each of us has to figure out how much to set aside and to guess how much we'll need in time. retirement. it turns out that employees just don't do that as well as employers do. and if people guess wrong, they don't find out until well after they've retired. when there's not a lot they can do about it. and that's why at pbgc we work to preserve traditional defined benefit pension plans. because with traditional pension plans, employees don't have to guess about how much to save. employers figure that out. and because traditional pensions offer lifetime income, steady payments for as long as you live, people don't have to worry about whether they will have enough or whether they will outlive their savings. furthermore, as a person who

used to spend some time in finance i should also point out that traditional pension funds also fund much of our nation's venture and other entrepreneurial capital. so we think traditional pensions are important. it also turns out there are plenty of them to preserve. today 75 million americans and their families are in traditional db plans. that includes almost 40 million active workers. and in the corporate plans that we insure, the vast majority of plans are still operating. they are not frozen. more than three-quarters of the people in them are still earning benefits. and that brings me to american airlines. american airlines is an example of what we do every day. what we're trying to do working with american airlines is to

preserve both the jobs for 80,000 people who are working and pensions for 130,000 who depend on them. the first priority has to be for american, for the 80,000 people who work there and for the millions who are passengers, to succeed. that's the first priority. but plenty of businesses, including other airlines, have managed to reorganize without also terminating their pension plans. american already has lower pension costs than some of its competitors. and so pbgc has worked as an active creditor within the bankruptcy process to see whether those plans can be preserved. part of the reason pbgc can do so is that it is a very unusual government agency. speaking as a person who spent

most of my life in business, one of the terrific things about the pbgc is that the staff actually understands business. they can analyze financial statements, they understand business plans, and they work with businesses to see what is possible. sometimes it is clear that companies cannot afford their plans, and in that case pbgc steps in and pays benefits. other times we find that companies can restructure successfully and keep their pensions intact. that's what we found at american airlines. it's now clear that american can do both. it can restructure, it can be competitive and still keep its pensions and pay a pension in the future. american is not alone. there are plenty of other examples. the grocery chain a and p just came out of bankruptcy and kept its pension plans. so did visteon, the former auto

parts business of ford. in fact, last year pbgc worked with 19 different companies that emerged from bankruptcy with their plans, preserving benefits for more than 74,000 people. that's what we're doing. we think that's important. but the fact is that government doesn't require pensions. government can't insure retirement security. everyone has to do their part. as individuals, each of us is going to have to save more. if retirements last longer, if you have an active, healthy life, you've got to save more. most of us cannot just rely on social security and a traditional pension. we've got to save. a good target if you don't have a traditional pension is to set

aside 10% of your income each year. that's easier to say than to do. it's perfectly natural when retirement seems years away or when times are tough to put it off and say, oh, i'll do it next year. it's perfectly natural. but it's a mistake. the way to have the life you want tomorrow is to save today. but people don't do that alone. businesses are critical too because businesses set up the plans that make it easier for employees to save. and the vast majority of employers contribute to those plans. they set 'em up, and they help fund 'em. in some cases those are traditional plans where the employer provides the funds,

handles the administration, worries about the investments, guarantees the benefit. in many cases they're 401(k)-type plans where the employer does handle administration, where both share in the costs, but where employees take the risk that there's enough there. one of the things that i think is important is that a lot of employers dissatisfied with either option are looking for better models. some are looking for 401(k)-type plans that provide a minimum benefit or a lifetime annuity benefit, or they're looking for a hybrid-type, traditional defined benefit plan where the investment risk is shared with the employee. all of these efforts are important. because businesses are better able than individuals to figure out retirement plans.

i am, i've worked in finance for more than a decade, i have a variety of certifications from the national association of securities dealers, but i don't pretend that i have the time or the expertise to set up a retirement plan. employers do that, and that's why it matters that they do. every time a business says you're on your own, fewer people get a secure retirement. now, fortunately, most businesses offer retirement plans. two-thirds of american workers today, two-thirds, have access to some sort of employer-provided plan. and, not to hit a point too hard, american airlines is an example here too. american is a company that is working both to succeed and to provide retirement security for 130,000, well, americans and their families.

now, how about government? what does government do? government doesn't require private retirement plans, but it does encourage them. it sets minimum standards. if a business promises a pension, it should deliver on that commitment. if a business gets tax benefits for its pension, it should help all employees -- not just senior management -- government steps in to make sure those things happen. government encourages both existing plans and new approaches. we provide tax incentives for employers to offer plans and set them up, and i think this is important, too, government is making changes to take into account the fact that people are living longer. so that the standards that are applied to pension plans

recognize the reality that people are living longer. and similarly, government can and is making changes to insure that employers have options, that they have options within the traditional db model and options within the 401(k), the so-called defined contribution model. and, of course, since i am from the pbgc, i should mention that government does -- if plans fail -- provide a safety net. i started today talking about baby boomers partly because i am one. but retirement security is not only a concern of baby boomers. last year gallup asked people age 30-50, people who are decades away from retirement, about whether they were concerned, whether they were

worried about retirement. and more than three-quarters of them are. now, i'm a baby boomer. i'm also a singer. and in my youth i saw the who perform, and one of the iconic songs is "my generation." and in "my generation" there is a line that pete townsend put that says "i hope i die before i get old." ♪ hope i die before i get old. a few years ago the rapper, will.i.am who is definitely not a baby boomer for a commercial rewrote the words. he didn't say "hope i die before i get old," he said "i don't want to die, i want to get old." so i don't think there's a generational divide on this. i think we all care about having

a decent life when we can no longer work. and we can have it. if we as individuals save more. if business continues to provide both plans and funding, and we in the government continue to provide support, standards and a safety net for those in need. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, josh. we'll now open it up to questions. let's start with questions in the room. yes, sir. and, also, if i could ask you to identify yourself, your name and your news organization, if you would, please. >> yes. i'm robert england with hr executive magazine. what exactly is pbgc doing to promote pension plans of any -- of course you're promoting mostly, i would think, defined

benefit plans. is there some kind of program or systematic effort to do that? >> and, josh, you might -- i'm not sure if everybody could hear that question well. if you could, um, basically summarize the question too. >> the question is, what is pbgc doing to encourage pension plans. well, one is -- and i guess one thing i should be clear is the agency's mandate from the day it was created is to encourage voluntary private pension plans. and so we take that, our job, as trying to do several things. one is preserve the plans that are already there. that's why we work with companies like american and be others to see if plans can be preserved. two is to try to make sure that

we don't accidentally or that government doesn't accidentally make it harder for employers to offer pension plans. and this requires thinking through how do you regulate, how do you set your standards. we do that too. third, talks like this one which is to clear the air that there is general goodwill and a desire on the part of everyone to have good retirement plans. and so one of the things that happens when you are in an agency that focuses on plans when companies get in trouble is you tend to think, well, is everyone trying to stop their

pension plan? and the answer is, no. and i think that is really very important. the vast majority of companies in america are offering pension plans to their employees. the vast majority of companies in america are contributing to those plans. and we think it's important to recognize that and to encourage that. >> any other questions in the room? yes, in the back, please. >> i'm -- [inaudible] and i would like you to talk a little bit more about the impact of defined benefit plans on the capital markets and what the government can do to support, to support their involvement. >> hi, nell. as i mentioned, one of the roles of traditional pension plans

that is not widely trumpeted but is important is that pension plans in addition to being professionals about setting up benefits and figuring out how to pay people, pension plans are also professional investors. and that means that pension plans were among the first people when a new class of folks -- call them venture capitalists -- went looking around for funds. pension funds were the place where there were sophisticated enough investors to say, okay, we'll provide capital so that you can actually create a venture capital industry. same is true with what became the private equity industry. it didn't start as a private equity industry. and so the way i look at it is that because pension funds

create a group of professional, serious investors, they create a knowledgeable group that can, in fact, innovate in investments. now, some of those innovations don't work. that is what the capital markets are about. but what i think is important is that pension funds provide them. and i think, equally important, is that because pension funds are sophisticated, they can watch their investments. they can provide oversight, they can provide the kind of governance that i know you worry about. and so from my perspective, an entirely separate benefit to us as a society is that in traditional pension plans we have a group of knowledgeable, concerned, smart folks who participate in the capital markets in a way that isn't random and isn't fly-by-night.

>> and i just want to also remind that reporters that might be listening -- well, we know there's quite a few on the phone, feel free to, um, follow instructions and ask a question. other questions in the room? yes, in the back there. >> [inaudible] pbgc's interest -- oh, i'm sorry, i'm with cna. to what extent is the pbgc interested in raising premium rates have to do with longevity risk? i know critics of the rate increase say that interest rates will surely come off at some point, and that will mitigate a lot of the pension obligations. but is there -- are you factoring in longevity risks when you look at your pension -- >> yeah. the question here is when we think about what the right premiums ought to be for pbgc, should we take longevity -- the fact that people are living longer -- into account? and the answer is, of course we should.

the -- our view of the role of pbgc, which is how the law created it, is that it is intended to be an organization that provides a safety net without using taxpayer dollars. that means that the premiums we charge have to cover the benefits we pay. historically, those premiums are set by law and, frankly, they've lagged what they need to be. and so from time to time the congress of the united states has recognized this and acted and raised those premiums. we've gone to the congress and said rather than waiting until you do pension legislation and rather than doing it in a way that everybody pays the same, why don't we do it on a more businesslike basis and let us

figure out which rates apply to which people. because the way our system works right now is that there's a fundamental unfairness in it. think about -- let's put aside pension insurance, let's talk about auto insurance. you're required to have auto insurance, and you get a rate based on what your record and your situation is. well, suppose you got a note from your insurance company because your neighbor had three accidents last month. your rates are going up. you'd be ticked. that's the way our premiums are set. right now the people who pay our premiums know that their rates are raised because of the actions of other companies, not themselves. and we're trying to change that. we've started that discussion with the congress, and i hope

when there is pension legislation in the future, that they will take that into account. because we think the result will be a better, fairer system. >> i want to use the discretion of the chair here and ask is a question myself -- ask a question myself. you alluded to american airlines, and you've been in the headlines a lot for a very aggressive stance that you've taken. is this typical of what you do with companies, or is american a special case? they certainly reacted like they were a special case. when you put liens on their foreign properties and other, took other actions. could you, could you explain how american fits into the picture of, i guess, enforcement or actions you take against companies? >> sure. happy to do it. the fact is that what pbgc did at american is what pbgc has done for decades.

when a company is in bankruptcy, the job of the pbgc is to engage. it has done so for decades as a creditor. one of the things i like about the agency and i admire about the agency is that the people in it are financial analysts, the lawyers, the actuaries are terrific and professional, and they are experienced. and so what happened when american filed is that pbgc used the talented staff it has, it used the tools that the law gave it 37 years ago to protect pensions. and that's why we're there. we are there to make sure, obviously, that the company survives and, but also, if at all possible that pensions can as well. there are, as i mentioned, there are plenty of other cases where we do that, and we conclude that

companies can't afford their plans. if we were in different economic times perhaps and certainly when there were different economic times, we came to a different conclusion. and in that case we took the plan. but my view of this is that we are doing the process of protecting pensions, we hope providing peace of mind to 130,000 people in a way that preserves the jobs of the 80,000. and that is something which pbgc has done, perhaps unnoticed but done, for decades. >> um, yes. please. >> good morning. thank you so much for being so optimistic. i wish i could say the same. back in 1985 there were more

than 125,000 db plans. today there are fewer than 20,000, and companies have been freezing them, checking them down, you know -- [inaudible] and have been saying that in recent years the very low interest rates are the culprit for the death of these pension plans. um, and now we've seen attacks on public pension plans, california, new york, in about 20 states i think there are legislation either actively or under consideration to convert the db plans into some kind of defined contribution plans. so what is the pbgc doing to, um, in its role to encourage traditional pension plans to look beyond the insured

corporate and private pension plans to create some kind of a public/private partnership that will encourage more retirement security for the vast majority of americans? >> i'm sorry, i didn't catch your name. >> [inaudible] from the afl-cio. >> what we are doing is trying, first, to preserve the plans we have, and i'll talk about that in a second. but also to try to encourage options so that employers and employees can work out plans that work for them. let me first talk about preserving the plans we have because i've been at the pbgc for a year and a half, and i'm

always reminded of mark twain's remark about the rumors of my death have been exaggerated. it is absolutely true that the number of plans offered of the traditional defined benefit kind has declined in the last 30 years. it is also true that the number of people covered by those plans has increased, not decreased. there are more people covered by defined benefit plans today than there were 30 years ago. now, does that mean that a lot of folks aren't choosing other ways to provide retirement security? no, it doesn't. but from my perspective it is important to preserve the plans we have. we think that traditional pension plans serve people better, and we are doing that. but, and this is where i think it is important to recognize the realities. it is also important to offer alternatives so that as

circumstances change, as companies change, as lifestyles change we still have those kinds of plans. and i mentioned that before, but i'll say it again because i think it is really quite important. most people know that there is the traditional pension model and there is what has now become the traditional 401(k) plan. and the traditional pension model is the employer does everything, takes care of everything and pays for everything. the traditional 401(k) model is the employer writes a check, and then you're on your own. not just government, not just employees, but employers recognize that that's not satisfactory. and so there have been efforts, efforts that government has

tried to facilitate, to do, to modify and offer options on both models that serve people better. so, for example, my colleagues within the administration have worked very hard to make it possible within the what i used to call the traditional defined contribution model to offer people a chance to have real lifetime income. so that the employer makes a contribution, but the employee can with that contribution get something that offers lifetime income. that's happening now. i think it's very important. i think it will, by offering new possibilities, it will give people new possibilities for retirement. i'll also mention one more. a lot of employers when they first began to worry about the fact that they were taking responsibility for everything

tried to within a traditional framework pass the risk to the employees in the form of what are called hybrid plans. and there were lots of difficulties. there were questions about whether they were fair, there were questions about whether they were lawful, etc. but what has happened is we're now realizing -- and congress passed a law five years ago, six years ago saying hybrids ought to be allowed. and so what is happening now is within the government we are, within the administration we are working to set up a set of rules that are clear enough o that businesses can decide whether or not they want to use these options. this is a long-winded answer, but i do think it is important. we are not going to enhance retirement security by just ticking to the old models -- sticking to the old models.

what we need to do is provide options so that case by case, by employer and employee they have choices. that's what we're doing. and i think that, actually, is an important part of the future. >> that might be a good note to end on. [laughter] i'm sorry that all the reporters we have on the phone were too shy to speak up, but before we go i just want to give a plug for a couple other events that the club has going on. um, our luncheon speaker later today is deepak chopra, and tomorrow's luncheon speaker is rs commissioner douglas shulman, and this friday at ten we'll have another newsmaker, and it'll be a panel discussion on nuclear security and preventing nuclear terrorism.

but for today i want to thank you for joining us and thank all of you for coming and for all of those watching, thank you as well. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> you renegotiate them, but -- and so from my perspective, you should be -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> but it didn't walk away from -- [inaudible] and so my perspective the thing

that -- [inaudible] >> and more live events to tell you about coming up on the c-span networks today. at noon eastern, republican presidential candidate mitt romney speaks before the american society of news editors' conference in washington. the former massachusetts governor took first place in all three gop primaries yesterday, wisconsin, maryland, and the district of columbia. we'll have his remarks at noon over on c-span. and here on c-span2 at 1 p.m. the institute of medicine will be unveiling a committee report on medical products and food safety. the report's expected to address stronger regulatory measures abroad to insure the safety of foods and medical products, and we'll have that at 1:00 this afternoon. and president obama today will sign the stop trading on congressional knowledge act or stock act which bans insider trading by members of congress and their staffs. that'll take place at the white house at 11:55 eastern, and we will have live coverage here on

c-span2. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter who's been covering this story. >> president obama today signing the congressional insider trading bill. rachel bade is with cq covering the story. what will this stock act do when it is signed into law? >> guest: yeah, that's a great question. so the stock act is, basically, a reactionary piece of legislation that followed a "60 minutes" piece last november accusing lawmakers of using their positions to get rich on stock trades, basically using nonpublic information that everyday americans, you and i, don't have and trading on that information and making a profit. it was, basically, a pr problem, if anything else. so members wanted to clarify, hey, we're not doing this, you know, especially given their approval rating right now. so they came up with this bill to, basically, clarify that, yes, we are covered under insider trading bans. but since then it's basically

expanded to overhaul financial disclosure forms, and it's not just lawmakers that are going to be effected here. it's also employees in the federal government, um, and it basically rewrites, um, the whole post-watergate era of financial disclosure forms. it's a pretty big overhaul. >> host: you wrote that it was changed a bit by some pressure by majority leader eric cantor, so thousand the bill, the law is broadened into the executive branch and the judicial branch, initially was the senate in favor of that version? >> guest: um, well the original senate version introduced by joseph lieberman, an independent from connecticut, it didn't, it included some, basically just a few thousand executive branch employees, and those -- really the top-level people that were planned by the president, folks running agencies, so that was really understandable. but since then shelby, senator

shelby had introduced an amendment, and it just barely passed. it got 60 votes -- 61 votes, i believe, and it needed 60 to expand that number from just several thousand to include, you know, more than 350,000 federal employees. >> host: the bill as you wrote in your cq piece intended to clarify the obvious in that these restrictions against insider trading were already in effect. does the bill add any additional punishment for breaking the law? >> guest: um, i think it puts more responsibilities on the lawmakers. cantor's version, and the cantor -- the version that obama will sign, um, basically one of the specific things that is not in effect right now is saying that if lawmakers are accused of this -- not merely accused, but are found guilty of this, then they're not going to get, you know, retirement benefits from the government if they are found guilty of something like this. >> host: there's a piece that's not in the bill, one of the

original sponsors, louise slaughter of new york, wanted an element in there dealing with lobbying, with k street, the political intelligence element. can you explain that for us? >> guest: sure, absolutely. so the political intelligence piece is basically a provision that was taken out of the bill. it was a piece that said folks that come in and befriend staffers and lawmakers and use that friendship to get information about, say, upcoming bills that might effect certain companies or investors, they use that information, and they sell it to these people who will pay big money for it. you know, to keep business up with incoming legislation. and, basically, this piece said if you're going to do that, you need to register like lobbyists do so we can, you know, make sure we know what information is come anything and out and -- coming in and out and is it spreading. but what happened is people saw that, some folks said, you know, that's a freedom of speech thing. they said that's not -- this is

a really gray area. we shouldn't regulate this yet, we should study it. so they ended up taking it out of the bill, um, and simply putting in a requirement for a report on this so-called political intelligence. right now it won't be regulated, it's just going to be looked into. >> host: rachel bade with cq, and you can follow her stories at cq.com. thanks for the update. >> guest: thank you so much. >> and a reminder, president obama signs the bill just before noon eastern. we'll have live coverage from the white house here on c-span. ahead of that, part of this morning's "washington journal." the supreme court this week ruling 5-4 that prisoners can be strip searched. we talked to a guest this morning about the impact of that ruling. >> host: david shapiro is staff attorney at the aclu's national prison project, here to talk about the supreme court's decision, 5-4, on monday that prisoners can be strip searched before joining a jail's general population regardless of why they are arrested.

let's just begin with how this case came about and albert florence. who is he, and what happened? >> guest: albert florence is the main plaintiff in this case, and in 2005 mr. florence was in a car in new jersey, and the car was pulled over, and mr. florence was arrested for no reason at all. there had been a warrant out for mr. florence, but it was based on a fine that, in fact, he had already paid. there was an error in the system. so he's pulled over for no reason. he's first taken to one jail in new jersey, the burlington county jail, where he's subjected to a strip search. in less than a week, he's taken to another jail in new jersey, the essex county jail, where he is subjected to yet another strip search and, ultimately, he's released without being charged with anything when the error is corrected. >> host: so what is the scope of this decision? because "the new york times"' headline says "justices approve strip search use for any arrest." where does this go from the decision?

>> guest: there are really two readings of the scope of the decision. there's the majority opinion is quite broad and would seem to authorize strip searches even of individuals such as mr. florence who are charged with extremely minor offenses, misdemeanors, things like traffic violations, jaywalking, almost anything could result in a strip search and that that strip search could occur not only to these individuals who are charged with very minor crimes, but without any basis for suspecting that a given individual is in possession of contraband such that a strip search is necessary. and the policies that were upheld in this case were, in fact, blanket, indiscriminate stipsearch policies in which everyone who came into the jail was strip searched. what's interesting, though, is that justices roberts and alito wrote concurring opinions, concurrence is written when a justice agrees with the majority opinion but believes that there's something more that needs to be said. and what chief justice roberts and justice alito suggested is

that in cases where an individual is placed in a holding cell but isn't introduced into the jail's main population, it may be unreasonable to strip search that individual. and oftentimes when an individual is first brought into a jail, they're held in a holding cell x they see a magistrate -- and they see a magistrate or a judge who will review the basis for their detention before they're transferred into that general population. >> host: this blog notes that justice thomas, also part of this concurrence brief, apparently, did not want to leave that option open for a future challenge, and so that was why this was written. >> guest: the option is, i believe the option is leavitt open for -- left open for future challenge that if an individual is placed in a holding cell, is not introduced into the jail's general population, that a strip search may not be permissible. and i think that it's a question that's, to some extent, left open by the court's decision and one that will be explored through future cases in all likelihood. >> host: well, there are ten

states that already ban strip searches; colorado, florida, illinois, iowa, kansas, kentucky, missouri, new jersey, tennessee and washington. so what happens to those laws, those state laws on the books? >> guest: right. so those state laws say that strip searches can be conducted only on the basis of reasonable suspicion or even a higher standard such as probable cause. and the supreme court was interpreting the constitution, and its ruling means there is not a constitutional right. however, those state laws continue to remain in effect. in fact, there's a similar law in new jersey where mr. florence was arrested that requires strip searches to be performed only on the basis of reasonable suspicion. so in some states which, fortunately, have these laws individuals will continue to be protected. >> host: justice kennedy who sided with the conservative justices in this 5-4 decision wrote this:

>> guest: i think the security risks that are at issue in the florence case are easily overstated. again, we're dealing with people who are charged with the most minor offenses possible, things like traffic violations, jaywalking. and we're talking about individuals where there's no basis for an officer to suspect, no indication that that person has contraband. these are people who are the least likely to be in possession of contraband. and strip searches are incredibly invasive. they're one of the most humiliating form of search that the government can subject an individual to. typically, you are in a room alone in a jail with one or two, perhaps more correctional officers. you are forced to remove all of your clothes, you may have to hold your arms out, squat and could, lift your -- cough, lift your ears. in the case of a man, typically, you have to lift up your

scrotum, you may be required to roll back your foreskin if you're uncircumcised, women may be required to lift up their labia. in one of the officers in the florence case was about an arm's length away. so it's extremely humiliating. thirteen million people are arrested every year, there is the potential that all 13 million could now be subject to strip searches in these very cases where there is the least reason to suspect that a strip search is actually going to uncover anything. >> host: the county sheriff in sussex county, new jersey, had this to say: i think it's a great decision that before this ruling our hands were tied. >> host: and also let me just show our viewers the list of amicus briefs in support of

respondents, a brief for the national sheriffs association, county commissioners association in pennsylvania a lot of security-type groups if support of this type, in support of this ruling. >> guest: some are in support of the ruling, but i think it would be a mistake to assume that all law enforcement officers think that blanket strip search policies are a good idea. in fact, the friend of the court brief that we submit today the supreme court was on behalf of five former attorneys general of new jersey who all said that it is not necessary from a security standpoint to strip search each and every individual who is charged with an incredibly minor offense where reasonable suspicion doesn't exist. and certainly it's the case that in some jails and prisons as we speak policies are being rewritten in response to the supreme court's decision on monday to allow blanket strip search policies. >> host: but before we get to calls i just want to be clear, so what -- give us some examples of when people are arrested when they cannot be strip searched.

>> guest: well, i think that's an open question. under a broad reading of the majority opinion in this case, pretty much anyone who's arrested -- all 13 million people -- could be strip searched. under the view adopted by chief justice roberts and justice alito, some of the more conservative justices on the court, it remains an open question whether when you're initially brought in when you, before you have the opportunity to see a magistrate and before you're transferred into the jail's general population, um, you can be strip searched. so if, ultimately, going forward that view of the law is upheld by the lower courts and through further decisions, individuals charged with very minor crimes who are not introduced to the jail's general population may still find constitutional protection. >> host: "the washington post," though, reports it like this:

>> host: let's hear from cynthia, she's a democrat in watertown, connecticut. go ahead, cynthia. >> caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. >> host: good morning. >> caller: also, i just have to say that the aclu is a gem in our country today. i'm a card-carrying aclu member, and i'm glad to see the attorney on today. um, my comment is about the decision because i think it's extremely scary. um, again, we're seeing the radical right republicans on the supreme court putting forward an ideological agenda which takes away freedom. um, i think back to the 1970s when i was a teenager, and i remember the freedoms that i had, and i look at our society today, and it's not the same country anymore. um, and i really am so happy the

aclu is talking about it, but is there any way that this can be pursued and turned around? i mean, is the only way going to be legislatively? or can another case be taken through the courts to overturn this decision? >> host: david shapiro. >> guest: well, first of all, thank you very much for your kind words about our work. i think that it's important to realize that one of the reasons that this case presents dangers is not only that it expands the power of individuals to strip search people who are arrested, but the sheer number of people who are arrested has been increasing absolutely exponentially in recent years. thirteen million people are arrested every year. more than two million people in the united states are incarcerated. that's more people both per capita and in absolute terms than any other nation in the world including russia, china and iran. so the problem is not only that the government's power to humiliate people who are brought

into custody is increased, but that the net of who is brought into custody has been significantly widened. and so part of the legislative solution is to reduce the nation's addiction to mass incarceration and to make sure that people who are charged with absolutely minor and largely trivial offenses aren't subjected to long sentences or in some cases aren't even subjected to the criminal justice system at all. >> host: bill king on twitter: just wondering, is there any provision to male or female guards searching a male or a female prisoner? >> guest: generally speaking, we are talking about male on male searches and female on female searches. most, if not all correctional institutions do require a same-sex strip search, um, and some cases have actually suggested that that is a constitutional requirement. and there's nothing in the supreme court's ruling that would disturb that. >> host: bernie, a republican in brooklyn. you're on the air with david

shapiro. >> caller: thanks very much to c-span. except for last night and a few other nights when they had political live on which i don't understand at all given what c-span represents. with respect to the gentleman who, um, makes the point in this case, you said that he -- there was a mistake made by the justice department, the government in this case. if there was no mistake, would you, would it have been okay for the strip search? and i blame the whole process, what's going on in this country, on the eskimos. thank you. ..

the reason for a fact is strips searches are a humiliating. individuals who are in prison have been exposed to sexual abuse and sexual traumatic much higher rate than individuals in the general population. so there's an enormous cost, risk of exacerbating that trauma and harm that is attendant to strip searches which is why when someone is charged with a minor offense and no reason to think they have contraband justification for this search isn't there. >> lee says the fourth amendment has been thrown out the window. what is the fourth amendment? >> it is a provision of the constitution that this

individual the free from unreasonable searches and seizures and that was a constitutional provision that was at issue in the florence case. there are conflicting interests the supreme court has to balance. on the one hand the supreme court has been clear time and time again that once constitutional rights to not cease to exist when a prison gates slam shut. courts generally differ to judgment of jail demonstrators and courts are reluctant to meddle in day-to-day affairs -- the court struggled to strike. in this case i believe the court went too far in deferring to correctional administrators saying there is justification to perform this search when the evidence that this is actually a threat are flimsy. >> pam in new york. welcome to the conversation.

>> caller: sometimes i feel like alice down the rabbit hole when i watch a campaign based on liberty and freedom and the rhetoric that the government is taking over our lives which is coming from the gop and then i watch right leaning supreme court make rulings that allow government to take away our homes through eminent domain, allows campaigns to be drenched in money, virginia or west virginia want to insist that a woman have a vaginal probe before she has an abortion. it amazes me the doublespeak people still the placard the campaign says get government out of my life but the gop is insisting on these heinous regulations. i do have a question. in my local paper it says the gentleman -- this happened to him before, starts being

detained and had a letter with him that says that fine had been paid and the police officer ignored that wetter. could you comment please? >> i believe you are correct about the fact of the case and a letter. underscore is the point that many people in this country every day for somewhat trivial reasons and frankly often arbitrary reasons. certainly that was the case with mr. florence who have already paid the fine for which he was supposedly arrested for and as i was saying earlier the prison system or incarceration system is sweeping in more and more people and that is an enormous expansion of the power of government and it becomes particularly worrisome when the protections for basic human liberties like being free of a strip search of individuals who are incarcerated are being

rolled back. >> host: republican in cleveland, ohio. >> caller: i grew up with one of the first persons released from prison on dna for a rape he didn't do. the question i had is do you think native americans -- technically their land. should they be strip search if they are waiting for dna evidence to prove they didn't commit a rape? >> guest: my position is no one should be strip searched if they are charged with a minor crime and where there is no particular reason to think that individual is in possession of contraband and that is a view that would apply across the board. it doesn't matter -- the principle is when an individual is arrested on a very minor charge and there is no reason to think that that individual is

concealing any sort of contraband there is no constitutional basis for a strip search. >> host: eric in chicago. you are on the air with david shapiro, staff attorney for the aclu. >> caller: when i was coming back from deployment in iraq one of the big stories that was going out was photos of the mistreatment and one of the big photos people have a problem with was the fact they would make of strip and do things that were derogatory and i definitely agree with that assumption of the american people and the world as a whole but my concern is when we look internally at ourselves and look at our own judicial system we find a way to justify that we can do this -- definitely a security issue involved in the safety of the workers of other inmates but i do feel that we can sit here and say we should be treating prisoners of war with a certain amount of dignity and respect. why should we not expect to

treat our prisoners, specialties those in misdemeanors like jaywalking and such? >> guest: i agree with you and since you raised the issue, one of the issues that is raised by a abu ghraib is the potential for abuse when people are in custody. when someone is strip search did it that someone has to endure this when they're at their most vulnerable, least empowered. air force to remove all their clothes, an officer will inspect their nude bodies often at close range and may be required to -- it is an extremely disempowering position to be put in an extremely vulnerable position and that is why constitutional protections from the courts are so important. this is the sort of area where there is an extreme potential for abuse if there is in

adequate oversight and supervision and abu ghraib is an illustration how far those problems can go if there is an oversight. >> host: the aclu always sees the most extreme scenarios. i doubt someone jaywalking will be stripped search did it. >> guest: i hope you are right but the supreme court has said in the atwater case that it is okay to arrest someone because they were not wearing their seat belts and the belief lawrence case of a-anyone would be subjected to a stripped search. i believe anyone -- many prison officials will say just because the supreme court says i can stripped search everyone doesn't mean i should or am going to not only because it is a point atwest humiliation but prison

administrators are busy people with important wives and they may say stripped searching everyone charged with minor offenses isn't useful thing to do with my time and i will spend my limited time on real work. i hope that will be the case and i believe that will be the case in many jurisdictions. >> host: joseph on the line for republicans. >> caller: good morning. i am a retired new york police officer and i agree with the supreme court decision to stripped search prisoners because it is a safety issue not only for the staff. not only for the staff. >> host: you still there? we heard you not only for the staff? >> caller: but also for the president -- prisoners incarcerated. we had a number of incidents were people are arrested with suicide by contraband they may

have. another big thing -- the reason they do the stripped searches, many people without identification on them we don't know who they actually are. until they are fingerprinted and reports from new york are from albany, we are not able to determine whether or not they have an arrest warrant in another jurisdiction. i made an arrest on a trivial traffic incident and he had a murder warrant on him from detroit. we didn't find this out until 24 hours later. when people are arrested they don't say i am one did in detroit for murder. that is my comment on it. >> host: you still there? a tweet from dennis lane who says when does innocent until proven guilty come in to play with forced stripped searches?

>> caller: it doesn't. many cases develop after people are arrested. they are arrested the day shift they are arrested on a trivial charge many cases develop. after they are taken into custody. >> host: you give the example you just did of arresting someone on a trivial charge who turned out to the murderer in another state. >> caller: happens all the time. >> host: was he put into the general population? >> caller: many times we don't release the prisoners. the judge will arraign the individual and the judges usually don't release the person until we can positively identify who he is through fingerprints. >> host: your response? >> guest: thirteen million people are arrested every year. no question that some small

fraction of them are going to be in possession of some contraband. if you took thirteen million people at random anywhere, some fraction will be in possession of contraband but the question is whether the rare cases we're talking about an individual charged with a minor offense and there is no basis to think they are in possession of contraband, whether everyone should be blanket stripped searched when there's no reason to think they have contraband or threatening material, it is important to recognize what we're talking about and not talking got out. the issue before the supreme court was whether a stripped search could occur without reasonable suspicion. reasonable suspicion is a standard based largely on the experience and training of correctional officers and allows them--such as joseph to perform stripped searches where there is a reason in his professional judgment to thing contraband is

present. there's no reasonable suspicion there should be no strip search. we are going to trust congressional officers like joseph who have training and experience to know when it is reasonable to suspect someone has contraband and when it is not reasonable to suspect they have contraband and when it is not reasonable use and perform a strip search. >> host: is there break down along race when it comes to win -- when strip searches are conducted and when they're not? >> guest: i am not certain if the breakdown once someone is arrested. it is absolutely the case that there is enormous racial disparity with respect to who is stopped by police and who is arrested. the supreme court's decision is authorizing a strip search of anyone who is arrested that will

fall disproportionately on minorities because minorities are arrested at a disproportionate rate. >> host: up on what constitutional principles did the base -- the court based its ruling? >> guest: it is based on the fourth amendment's requirement that searches be reasonable. what the court said was given the difficult environment of the jail and potential for the introduction of strip search is a reasonable search to perform even without suspicion, without reasonable suspicion under the fourth amendment. the evidence suggests this risk may in fact be overblown. very few cases where an individual was found to be in possession of contraband where that individual was charged with a minor crime and where there was no reasonable suspicion to suspect that. >> host: what president did the court look at? >> guest: the principal precedent the court relied on with a decision in 1979 called

bell versus wallfish which held that after an individual has a contact visit which is a visit where he or she sits across in the same room as visitors that that individual may be strip searched without probable cause and the basis was when there is a contact you know who your visitors are going to be and when they're going to come and there is an opportunity to exchange contraband and that is by the strip search. what is different in monday's decision is when people are arrested they don't generally think it is going to happen. usually causes a surprise so there's not an opportunity for planning to conceal the exchange contraband in the same way that there is potentially after -- the justification for the search is diminished in the case of an unsuspected arrest as compared -- >> host: susan in brooklyn.

independent caller. >> caller: i think our nation at large has gone into a major spasm. if we look at this statistically i am saying we are so many standard deviations from the mean on either side, that is to say that the republicans and democrats are becoming reactive, not responding, no one is responding. no one is having reasonable conversations and by the way the environment of the jail is determined very much on how much money we want to invest in actually rehabilitating people instead of just processing them and disturbing their rights. reeducating them to their rights in a positive modality in the manner of the new book out don't shoot all law officers ought to be required to read it.

it is about people in communities. the law coming together in l.a. and chicago. and saying we can make your life miserable by nitpicking. won't be able to have -- your 97-year-old mother given state rights to have it. >> guest: glad you raised the issue of rehabilitation. is an extremely important one and one that our criminal justice system unfortunately has not given sufficient emphasis to in recent years. with regard to strip searches, there is a problem with respect to rehabilitation imposed by strip searches because it is difficult to rehabilitate someone and to help them upon release to become a constructive member of society and not

mention future crimes. when you are treating them in a humiliating fashion when they are in prison or jail is a disproportionate number of people in prison and jail have been subjected to sexual abuse, sexual trauma in the past and a stripped search is a sort of humiliating experience that is likely to exacerbate and trigger those feelings and psychological difficulties. is not something that will encourage rehabilitation. >> host: arizona. michael on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. interesting conversation. i have a couple issues. number one. i don't see any need to bring up the constitution when you have an innocent person in the jail cell for being booked. a police officer -- probable cause to believe or start asking constitutional questions for

just leave it to the person or the people in jail saying is there a reason to search this guy not because -- there's a reason and then you can rely on what they did without a warrant. and they find probable cause or something, a gun or something. that is a search without a warrant. you can use that to prosecute them. did the search on the innocent arrest, because the person had -- with a injured because of the search because they had it passed of sexual abuse or something. and if it did was that person injured? was that person injured because of anything they did? anything the other side did?

probably start operating as a buffer against police officers. >> host: david shapiro. >> guest: one of the issues raised by your question is how do you know when a search occurs whether it is a reasonable search? something you may not know whether there is going to be contraband. you may not know whether there is going to be excessive injury inflicted by the search because of an individual's past and but they may have gone through formerly but what the supreme court needs to do is craft a rule that allows law enforcement officers to know what the rule is at the time that they perform the search. my view is because in the case of strip searches there is such a high likelihood of inflicting harm certainly a humiliation

will be inflicted on the individual who is strip search and psychological trauma in the past will be exacerbated by the search because there's such a high risk -- extreme feelings of degradation and harm. necessary that some basis exists for the search and reasonable suspicion is a logical requirement. it is certainly less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it occurs for a reason. >> host: before we go the caller asked is there any legal recourse on this issue? >> there is legal recourse remaining. we discussed the issue with regard to but the court left open which is is a strip search reasonable when an individual was in a holding cell and not transferred to the general population. that is an open question and the case going forward going to explore that. it also is the case that when an

individual is exposed to clear and unwarranted abuse during a strip search being touched inappropriately, being mobbed and things of that nature. legal recourse may continue to be possible. what is unfortunate about the court's decision is it may authorize blanket strip searches for abuses are more likely to occur. >> host: is it an issue where more of laws are going to be needed or how is the court going to rule on something -- another challenge that will come before the money issue of general population? >> guest: that is an issue that the court may have to decide in the future and lower courts will have to struggle within years going forward. is it a constitutional violation to strip search someone not place in the general population? my view is it is a

constitutional violation because if the concern is contraband the individual not place in the general population of the risk of transmitting contraband to other members of the jail is -- have not been brought before but there's a basis to be holding them. all the less reason to be strip searched. >> host: how would the court will on that? >> guest: is an open question under the fourth amendment of the constitution. a challenge certainly could be brought if an individual were strip searched when held in a holding cell and not the general population and the court's ruling certainly be the open the possibility that that would be a violation of the fourth amendment. >> host: new jersey, the line for republicans. >> caller: i am having to assemble the conversation on tv and had to share a story. i was 16 years old at a music

concert and i was drinking a beer the bridge will obviously underage but you are a kid and a police officer comes over and doesn't care about the beer but ask for my identification which i don't have because i am 16 years old. he assumes to tell me he is going to have to arrest me because i did it have identification and he doesn't know if i'm a convict. to the jail cell, 16 years old, are am wearing flip-flops. i did not look like any kind of criminal whatsoever. two officers proceed to make fun of me and strip search me and tell me to bend over and coffee. i am 16. experience has traumatized the for the rest of my life. i am fearful of the law and fearful of any law enforcement.

16 years old. my constitutional rights were violated. where is the line drawn. >> host: did you seek legal action against the officers? >> caller: i did not. perhaps i should have. i moved on from this point. the point is if one person's rights are violated which in my opinion my fourth amendment rights were, everyone going -- i know this is a different case but anyone who is search for a minor offense, if one person -- that is a flawed policy. we should not have any -- we should not be judging these situations whether any individual's rights are violated. >> guest: thank you for sharing your story. it is an important one in part because it illustrates the sort of offenses strip searches may be authorized for are the kind of things that 16-year-old

kids--things like driving offenses, jaywalking, having a beer at a concert. do we really want a country that permits blanket policies when our 16-year-olds or 18-year-olds or college age kids are detained by the police or arrested on minor charges when there's no reason to think they pose a threat or concealing contraband. do we want each and every one of them to be strip searched? the decision lead individuals more vulnerable on monday night and monday morning before the decision was decided. >> host: what is next on this issue? >> guest: there will be litigation on the issue of whether there's a fourth amendment violation when an individual is kept in a holding cell and strip searched but not transferred to the general population. i also think the state will have to consider whether to enact additional protections in their own legislatures to protect

against unreasonable searches and seizures and strip searches and ten states have laws of that nature on the books and the supreme court decision could provide impetus for more state laws of that nature and jails and prisons will have a difficult issue to confront. just because the supreme court indicated it may be ok to indiscriminately slips -- strip search everyone means jail should decide to do that as a matter of policy. many jails and prisons will view this not only as an invasion of privacy but a waste of time and jail administrators will decide we will strip search people only when there is reasonable suspicion to believe someone has contraband. >> host: those ten states that have these laws on the books banning strip searches what happens? >> guest: those laws remain on the books and independent protection under state water and those will continue to protect people and guard against unreasonable strip searches. >> host: do they need to pass more laws?

>> guest: not necessarily. there is variation on what those laws require but they say reasonable suspicion or a higher standard of probable cause is required before a strip search can be performed. it is with the supreme court said is not required by the federal constitution but these are some meaningful state law protections. >> host: any state to watch in particular? >> guest: i don't think -- it will have to be made on a state-by-state and jailed by jail basis. certainly prior to the supreme court's decision a number of federal appeals courts in areas such as texas have held that it is a violation of the constitution to strip search without reasonable suspicion so in those states where the law has clearly changed, the federal law will have to change. >> host: thank you for joining us on this issue.

>> guest: thank you very much. >> coming up on c-span2 in half an hour we will take you live to the white house. president obama will sign the stock act. congressional insider-trading bill. that is at 11:55. we have live coverage when it gets underway. for one of the representatives to won't be at the signing is louise slaughter of new york who broke her leg yesterday in new york. shea sponsored the original bill six years ago. we will show you the house debate from a month ago, february 9th, as we wait for president obama at 11:55. >> madam speaker, i am pleased to recognize the regional officer of this bill. because of her deep concern about this matter, i am going to yield her as much time as she may consume. ..as she may consume.

ms. slaughter: good morning, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his generosity. try as i may the majority leader cantor and the house republican leadership were unable to move forward with the stock act without keeping at least some of the reforms that we included in its bill six years ago. however when it comes to k street it appears that republican leadership couldn't stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community. after working behind closed doors the majority removed the major provision that would have held political intelligence operatives to the same sands as lobbyists who come before the congress. i need to put into the record that political intelligence is worth $400 million a year. it is unregulated, unseen, and operates in the dark. fortunately democrats, republicans alike are fighting to keep political intelligence as part of the final bill. senator grassley shares my outrage that mr. cantor would let the political intelligence

community off the hook. together with the supermajority of democrats and republicans in the senate, senator grassley followed my lead and included political intelligence requirement in the senate version of this bill. i think his statement yesterday tells you-all you need to know about his desire to see this language inserted back into the stock act before it reaches the president's desk. i would like to read that into the record if i may. it is astonishing and extremely disappointing, senator grassley said, that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference or other means. if congress delays action, the political intelligence industry

will stay in the shadows just eet in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. and it's hard, the stock act is a statement of how we in congress view ourselves, and out relationship with those who sent us here. no matter how powerful our position may be, or if we believe it is, nor how the walle walks it, we walked. none of us is above the law. with the passage of thee the could move one stop ac step closer to living up to the and trust bestowed upon us by the american people, the citizens whom we serve.eld backn thield back the balance of my time.as. >> the gentleman from texas. >> i yield to two minutes to th gentleman from illinois.speakerr >> the gentleman from illinoised is f recognized for two minutes. >> i want to thank the chairmanr for yielding.de i thank you for your leadershipo also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,d

thiser slaughter, mr. walls for your leadership with regard tome the stock act. the american public believes congress has the ability to profit from their position. while this is illegal to date ik insider trading laws, i think wo sve an obligation to make it even stronger and even clearer since we here in the united states holdng ourselves up us as public servants. i am pleased to say that in the stock act, in this legislation, moving forward, this language from my bill, h.r. 2162, the no pensions for felons bill. this language will strengthen and expand the existing law to require that federal lawmakers convicted of a public corruption felony forfeit their taxpayer funded congressional pension. i know this sounds like common sense, but actually today there are those that are collecting

taxpayer funded pensions that have been convicted of a public corruption charge. while serving in public office. this provision adds 21 new this provision as 21 public corruption offenses to the current law including violations for insider trading and others. additionally this will prohibit former members of congress from receiving congressional pension if convicted of coverage of events that occurred when subsequently serving in any other publicly elected office. sadly we have seen this before. former members of this chamber like one from my state, former governor rod blagojevich convicted of a felony, corruption charges and at age 62 he will be eligible for taxpayer funded pension. not all the is this wrong. is an insult to the american taxpayers and this provision will address such violations of the public trust in the future.

i want to thank the chairman for your leadership. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> urge my colleagues not just on this side of the aisle the across the aisle to support this important legislation and i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. gentleman from michigan. >> madam speaker, i am pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from minnesota who joined with the ranking member of the rules committee in introducing the 0 original bill, tim wallace. i will yield to him as much time as he may consume. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan and i would like to thank the chairman for his support of this bill and eloquent response on it. it has been a long six your journey to pass this reform. it has taken hard work and a bipartisan effort. american people expect and deserve that.

when i came to congress in 2006 after spending a lifetime of teaching social studies in public school classroom i was approached by the gentlewoman from new york, this slaughter and brian bear from washington state saying you were sent here to make a difference and do things differently. if you believe in reform take a look at this bill. i got involved after that and i can say representative slaughter has been a stalwart supporter of this bill. she understood this is more than clarifying insider-trading but restoring faith to the institution. she has done this not -- ethics in vote. it has been in vogue her whole life time. has lived that sermon of ethics and living by the rules instead of giving it and i appreciate understanding the integrity of this institution stands above all else. we must as the sacred holders of the privilege, honor and responsibility given to us by our neighbors to self govern ourselves. make sure that this institution is never tarnished but as though the long way, and the perception

is members of congress are enriching themselves. that is not just a friend to neighbors that we are not paying by the rules the cancer that can destroy democracy. each member of congress has a responsibility to hold themselves not just equal to their neighbors but a higher standard. the public wants as to come here and debate how we educate our children, how we serve our veterans and build our roads and protect this nation and spend those taxpayer dollars. that makes us strong. all these differing ideas to come together for compromise and move forward. if there's a perception that someone is enriching themselves and undermine their ability to do those things so what happened here? we are not here to pass ourselves on the back. this might be the only place where doing the right thing gets you kudos. it is expected of everyone else. we're here to say this is a victory not for us. it is one tiny step on a journey which is about restoring the faith of the american people in the institution. they can believe with all their

hearts that we are wrong. they cannot believe that we are corrupt. they will have us and we will pass and we will be dodged and in this building, this cody will still stand and that is what we're doing here today. i implore folks let's come together in a bipartisan manner. i agree with the gentlelady. i'm disappointed the political intelligence peace is not in here but i believe this is a first step. we can't wait for the perfect to move something forward. it is a good bipartisan compromise. join us on this first step. give this win to the american public and let's get back in here and start working on jobs. let's get here and start working on the national debt. how we are going to protect this nation and educate our children into the future. this lets us do that. showing the american public we can come together. let's have the president sign it and get on to real business. with that i thank the gentleman for the time and the ranking

member and members of this and i would be remiss not to mention a person who was one of the original seven folks on this bill, walter jones has been a stalwart supporter of this. this is a bipartisan peace. ethics crosses the aisle. folks in here are good people coming together for the good of their citizens and for that i'm grateful for today. i yield back my time. >> gentleman yield back. >> i yield two minutes to my texas colleague mr. can see co --canse --canseco. >> i thank my colleague chairman smith. too often the american people feel that members of congress live by and benefit personally and benefit personally from a different set of rules by which ordinary americans live, this

lack of confidence is unacceptable. it is imperative we rebuild the trust of the american people and elected representatives. it will do just that. it explicitly bans members of congress and congressional staffers, obtained on the job at using it to profit from securities trading and give securities and exchange to investigate and prosecute them, and the american people expect those who serve in government to do so with integrity. the stock act will help insure that those in government meet the expectation. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from michigan. >> i am pleased to recognize bobby scott, the chairman of the ranking member of the subcommittee, the richest -- to

hold hearings. i yield to him as much time as he may consume. >> i thank the gentleman who yielded. we are considering the stock act would prohibit members of congress and other legislative branch employees as well as executive and judicial branch employees from using nonpublic information derived from an individual's position for the performance of an individual's duties for personal benefit. today we are amending the senate bill by 2038. with a substitute for regrettably, and be disclosed. these firms obtained inside information for members of congress, staff and sold at 2 investment firms and these types of contexts. with this bill our goal is to

hold members of congress, hold them to the same standard as those in corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not available to the general public and most members of congress believe this type of activity was wrong. whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject to the ethics committee sanctions. most of us assume food and drug administration official could not call the stock broker shortly before a blockbuster drug is approved and profit off of that insider knowledge. we just assumed that was wrong. this bill could defies what most of us thought was the law. this is not a complicated issue. this is the same standard that applies to those in a corporate context. it is wrong to trade on nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the public. the public has a right to expect

that public interest comes first and people should not have to worry about what may be motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them. i want to acknowledge the work of colleagues, the gentlelady from new york miss slaughter and their leadership in drafting and introducing the house version of the stock act. this legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what most of us -- the national government officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic information they learned by virtue of their position and so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman from texas. >> i yield two minutes to mr. duffy who was a member of the financial service committee. >> recognized for two minutes. >> i think we are all aware of this issue came out when peter schweitzer wrote a book called throw them all out. after that 60 minutes did a

special story how members of congress were benefiting by using insider information or information the rest of the public wasn't privy to. that story, and succeeding several months, has created a deficit of trust between members of congress and the american constituents. what i did was introduced a version that would deal with this issue very simply. i felt we should mandate that members put their assets into a blank trust so there's a bright line between information and they're trading portfolio and if they chose not to do that they would have to aggressively disclose every trade within three days. my bill is on the floor today but the version we have today is much improved from the original version that came out. we have an improved requirement that goes from 90 days not to three but 30 days which is much

improved from the original legislation. we included the executive branch which is imperative and language that uses the blind trust as a potential opt out if you are not managing your funds. as we gather around and vote on this bill and debate this bill is important to note that this is the first step. a step in the right direction. as we come together and evaluate what we got, there are many more steps to take to ensure members of congress don't profit from the information they come across as a member -- i yield back. >> gentleman from michigan. >> i am pleased to know -- to recognize a member of the judiciary committee that worked on this matter even though we couldn't hold hearings. gentleman from tennessee,

steve:--coh steve:--cohen. and recognize him for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. this is an important bill and i appreciate the efforts put in it by this slaughter and mr. walz and republicans for coming in with a bipartisan effort. the bill had been improved by the senate. was improved through the service statutes added to in which our committee debated and passed in a good the fashion. that was one of the most important aspect of this bill. there are public officials throughout this country who have abused their position of trust and that has hurt all of government by using it for personal gain. the statue to the vehicle by which u.s. attorneys go after it. there was a defect in that law. it has been corrected in this

bill. and for their own benefit, and restore public trust. from the courthouse to congress. and they're using inside information here to be making money in the stock market and other places. all of that destroys public trust. it is so much better than the red ink the public gives us. some have a few bad apples. this bill will go a long way toward cleaning up congress and local officials, and appearance of impropriety which is important as impropriety. we need to be beyond reproach and this bill does a lot towards it. and i am proud to be one of the original nine. i yield back the balance of my time. >> evelyn from texas. >> i am pleased to yield one

minute to the gentleman from virginia, majority leader mr. kantor. >> recognized for one minute. >> the gentleman from texas. madam speaker, it was founded on a promise. and elected officials, we all have a duty to honor the trust of the american people. they worked faithfully on their behalf. it is unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or their staff to profit from information that is not available to the public. people in this country have a right to know and trust, officials and other levels of government living on the same rules that they are. if there's the slightest appearance of impropriety we ought to go ahead and prevent

that from taking place. their elected representatives. members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue. i would like to express my appreciation to representative tim walz and louise slaughter for their years of work on this effort. congressman walz was a leader on the stock act since he took office at the start of the 110th congress and the recognize his willingness to reach across the aisle and keep the lines of communication open as we work to make clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the american people. this bill we are bringing to the floor today put in place measures that strengthen and expand the senate's work on the stock act as well as remove provisions that would have made

the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than they would have answered. we expanded the bill to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in congress. we must all live under the same rules. we included a provision championed by representative robert dold to ensure those convicted of a crime did not receive taxpayer funded pension after the fact. finally, madam speaker, we added a provision to prohibit members of congress, executive branch officials and their staff from receiving special access to initial public offerings due to their positions. madam speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the president a strengthened, workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the trust of the american

people. and i urge all my colleagues to support the stock act and i yield back. >> the house passed that bill as did the senate. the president will sign the stock act. we will take you to the white house when it gets underway. when we spoke earlier today to capitol hill reporter who covered the debate on capitol hill. president obama signing of the congressional insider-trading bill. rachel daid is covering this bill. what will this do when signed into law? >> great question. the stock act is basically a reactionary piece of legislation that followed a 60 minute piece last november. 60 minutes -- using renditions to get rich on stock trades using nonpublic information that every day americans, you and i don't have an trading on that information and making a profit.

basically a pr problem if anything else some members wanted to clarify we are not doing this especially given their approval rating right now so they came up with this bill to basically clarify that we are covered under insider-trading bans but since then basically expanded to overall financial disclosure and not just lawmakers will be affected but also employees of the federal government and it basically rewrites the old postwatergate era. it is a pretty big overall. >> you wrote it was changed a bit by pressure from majority leader eric cantor so the bill, the law is broad and in to the executive branch and the judicial branch initially was the senate in favor of that version? >> the original senate version introduced by justice lieberman

independent from connecticut, included basically a few thousand executive branch employees and those are top-level people planned by the president. folks that are running the agency. that was understandable. since then, shelby, senator shall be introduced an amendment and it barely passed. it got 61 votes and needed 60 to expand that number from several thousand to include more than 350,000 federal employees. >> the bill is intended to clarify the obvious in that these restrictions against insider trading were already in effect. does the bill at any additional punishment for breaking the law? >> it puts more responsibility on the lawmakers. the version that obama signed,

one of the specific things not in effect is saying what lawmakers are accused of this bleak and not really accused the found guilty they are not going to get retirement benefits from the government if they are found guilty. >> shares of peace that is not in the bill. the original sponsor, louise slaughter of new york wanted an element dealing with lobbying, the political intelligence element. can you explain that? >> the political intelligence peace is a provision that was taken out of the bill. of peace that said folks that come in and the french staffers and lawmakers and use that friendship to get information about the upcoming bills that might affect certain companies were investors. they use that information and sell it to people who pay big money for it to keep business up with in coming legislation. this piece said if you're going

to do that you need to register like lobbyists do so we can make sure we know what information is coming in and out and spreading. what happened is people saw that. some folks say that is freedom of speech. that is not -- we shouldn't regulate this. they ended up taking it out and putting in a requirement for a report on this so-called political intelligence. won't be regulated. will just be looked into. >> rachel bade. you can follow her stories and see q.com. thanks for the day. we will take you live to the white house for the signing of the stock act. president obama will be out shortly. among those on the day of the -- eric cantor the majority leader and republicans got brown, senator from massachusetts.

one of those who will not be on stage is representative louise slaughter. one of the co-sponsors of the bill. she broke her leg yesterday in new york and won't intend today. .. louise slaughter, and wish her a speedy recovery. she broke her leg yesterday. so she can't be her in person. i think she will be okay.

but she first introduced the stock act in 2006, and i know how proud she is to see this bill that she championed finally become law. lately, i've been talking a lot about the choices facing this country. we can settle for a country, and economy were shrinking number of people who are doing exceedingly well, while a growing number of struggle to get by. or we can build an economy where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share. and everybody plays by the same set of rules. and that last part, the idea that everybody plays by the same rules, is one of our most cherished american values. it goes hand-in-hand with our fundamental belief that hard work should pay off, and responsibility should be rewarded. notion that the powerful shouldn't get too great one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else. if we expect that to apply to

our biggest corporations and to our most successful citizens, it certainly should apply to our elected officials. especially at a time when there's a deficit of trust between the city and the rest of the country. and that's why in my state of being i asked neighbors of the house in the senate to send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of congress. and i said i would sign it right away. well, today i'm happy to say that legislators from both parties have come together to do just that. the stock act makes it clear that if members of congress use nonpublic information to gain an unfair advantage in the market, then they are breaking the law. it creates new disclosure requirements and new measures of accountability and transparency for thousands of federal employees. it is a good and necessary thing. we were sent here to serve the american people and look out for their interests, not to look out for our own interests. so i'm very proud to sign this bill into law. i should say that our work isn't

done. there's obvious the more we can do to close the deficit of trust and limit the influence of money in politics. we should limit -- we should make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for congress can't lobby congress, and vice versa. these are ideas that should garner bipartisan support. they certainly have wide support outside of washington, and it's my hope that we can build on today's bipartisan effort to get them done. in the monster, we are going to have plenty of debates over competing visions for this country that we all love. whether or not we invest in the things that we need to keep our country safe, integral our economy so that sustained and lasting, whether or not we will ask some of our wealthiest americans to pay their fair