undocumented american. the country doesn't recognize a yet although i know what i'm doing. we are looking at the level of conversation that is almost laughable as to how much it is drenched in ignorance and information. like senator mccain said, i am not in a position to speak from a holier than thou antagonizing, you know, position. i'm going to be as american as i possibly can as i talk to my fellow americans and tell them that i am not an economic burden to them. i am not actually taking a slice of the pie away i'm making it either. but more than that, and this is a message that we are taking with us, next week mark

zuckerberg is helping cohost a screening of his documentary that i have been working on and gabby will be working with us on this and the obeah. this event. we are going to have a marriage of unlikely allies. i personally invited people from the gay workers center to make sure they come to the screen. we understand that the silicon valley interest is far beyond this with engineers. this has to be beyond the dream act and beyond those. it has to be a conversation about all of us. the last thing that i was say is i don't understand this is how people can neglect that next week is the anniversary of the

martin luther king water drops on freedom. as we preparing for this event, we know this. history will record that in this period of great transition, the greatest tragedy is not the clamor of the bad people but the good people. far too many american people have been silent and we need you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i would like to turn to the mechanism of why this legislative change is so important. senator john mccain pointed out that many undocumented workers are, as he said, exploited and mistreated and can you explain why it is that a path to

citizenship can help prevent that exploitation and that mistreatment and i'm going to quote you that you said that those present and working illegally will become fully covered i worked with regulations and minimum-wage laws and other labor market protections are more likely to raise the wages than anything else. can you talk a little bit about the mechanism for how the workforce will be changed by this? >> i would be happy to. i would like to say that i have lived my life with the notion that the numbers can win the argument that they but they never do. i promise you that. [laughter] >> there are a lot of misconceptions and sometimes distortions about the role of immigration reform in the work place in the labor force and our economy. there is this notion that somehow immigrants, undocumented

or legal will take jobs and they will come to live on welfare state. they cannot do both. and if you actually bother to look at the data, you can find that they will float to not just those with robust social safety nets. the idea that somehow folks are going to come here and work is wrong. well, they should work in an american workplace with full protection of the laws of the land and this country has a proud history of both economic growth and commerce and enterprise and taking care of workers and making sure that they are safe in the work replaced you know, the things that workers should know that they have the

right to get protection from. that is what every person in the workplace should have. that is what should happen. if you are an employer, you are not always subject to this. you have to pay them minimum age or lower that is going on and i have always found that this has been quite bizarre. it is also true that the reality of the 21st century that we are increasingly cognizant of is that we are right now in competition with every worker on the globe prayed that the competition has little to do whether we are currently sitting across the room where the state or an ocean and if we are going to have the competition we should open the doors and welcome them to our country and get the benefit that they bring as well. i do not see this as a threat but a great potential boom.

>> doctor manuel pastor, do you have anything to add to that remark. >> i just want to say that i'm glad i went to san antonio before interrupter. [laughter] i think i would agree that most economists are worried about not too much integration but too much immigration. when you look at the fact that this is probably zero and may even be negative and if we say that you will think that we are crazy. the reason is negative is that simply because the imax in and the mexican economy is doing better. thirty years ago, a woman over the course of her lifetime would have about five children now that fertility is about 1.3.

most of my referrers talk about whether or not we will have enough workers to move the economy forward and make sure we make the social security payments and etc. in the future. the other thing that i would add that i think is an important part of this debate is to understand that high skilled work and low skilled work actually go together. which is a little bit of the point that i would make in terms of numbers as well. because every place that you find high-tech workers, there is an army of man he is and daycare folks and gardeners and service workers and etc. who are also part of those economies. austin and boston, so con valley, places with lots of other immigrant workers in the part of the economy as well. you cannot divorce the two kind of laborers from one kind or another and you need to have the kind of labor protections in

place that helped help to bring to those kind of workers. >> we have had all of these conversations of people all across the country. do you have a sense of what it's like. you have been in the workforce. but can you talk about what you have heard? >> i did a week long lecture series at the university of alabama at tuscaloosa. they were taking a class called dirty jobs. just imagine sons and grandsons and farmers and blue card -- blue-collar workers. at one point the conversation gets interesting when this man says wait a decade. and illegals come in and they say that they will take less.

isn't that unfair to my dad? they made a very valid point. one of the things that all of us have to do is listen more. i find myself and experience as a journalist definitely helps. i follow sarah palin round and i just listen. so you are blaming the illegals, as you call them. but how about the employer? you are in the south that was built on the back of cheap labor. we say to mexico, keep out and then what do we say, job wanted. it's not right? yes. >> instead of blaming these illegal workers, why are we saying, wait a?

everyone here loses. these other people get exploited. and worse than say, you're right. and i'm thinking to myself, someone who works from the media was a reporter for 12 years, the media, he does it is, they have largely failed us on this issue. they have failed us not only on the lack of information that the context. we have a date narrative problem and a huge narrative problem. the disconnect has to do with information with numbers and what people feel and also because we have not fully explained to people what we are really talking about. as senator mccain said, this will be crucial and he is right. if we do not have these uncomfortable conversations in the town halls and communities,

we will not get anywhere. this has to be bringing together as many people as possible and not get stuck. >> nobody has said anything specifically about collective bargaining. i am not sure whether anyone on the panel can actually do that. but one of the right that is lost to undocumented workers is to bargain and go on strike and get back wages if your rights have been violated. the supreme court has said that you don't have the right if you're here without status. and i think it is time to wrap up. i will give each of you a chance to say the very thing that you have been waiting to say and i will start with you.

>> okay, one is on this issue, we actually have a couple of interesting immigration reform. one is the issue of not finding competition of workers are actually exploited because they are not protect. but the second is that undocumented workers have turned out to be quite unionize will. that is to understand the exploitation that they have been going too and they have been her a big drivers and this is going to be one way for the labor movement to build itself or its i believe that labor has a very strong interest in making sure that the is successful. but we all have a bigger interest, not just economic interests, but the moral interests. i moved from santa cruz to los angeles about seven years ago. the summer before i left santa cruz there was a community

meeting and what that community meeting organized was community folks and many asked for it was as a second language classes, they asked for more college programs at community holidays. they asked for people to get up to speak and this includes why we needed to be able to move forward and put this in the community. i felt that this was democracy in america and action, just watching this happen. and that night, the fellow who was the president of the pta, the owner of a business and the owner of a house. whose daughter was a valid torian of her high school got picked up by i.c.e. and deported. it turned out that he was undocumented and trying to

regularize his situation. he got caught up with the bad lawyer and with i.c.e. in the family with upgraded. separated for years. so that is not the kind of america that i want to live in. that is not the kind of america that we want to be. unless we actually move forward on this package and make sure that citizenship and engagement and participation and democracy is a part of this process we are not living up to our economic or moral potentials are a. >> thank you for giving me a chance to be here today. one of the things that is that different for me is that young conservatives see this as something that they want to get done. it's a very big change from 2006

and previous iterations like this. this includes individuals like paul ryan and marco rubio. it gives me hope that we will get to the finish line in this reform. i would remind everyone that america is a shining city on the hill and a beacon of freedom and a very messy process. this is going to be a messy process and i would encourage everyone to exercise tolerance by would encourage those who have a voice to speak up. that has been the difference among conservatives this time around. i see great hope to get this through the house of representatives signed by the president of united states.

>> i think we have gotten too comfortable by not challenging each other. we are sticking to our corners and her gunslinger ballpoints. so i think that i'd try across the aisle to talk to people and explain why we don't agree. to try to kind of unpack this messy topic. people's lives are at stake. i frankly wonder how long we can keep waiting. thank you. cnet thank you. >> please think this panel for their contributions. thank you all. [applause] >> hello, we have a new second panel. we have a joint venture of abc news and we are currently in the data stage as a digital network that later this year will we

will be launching a cable network with news and lifestyle. we are targeting more nails in young people and young hispanics as well. so taking a moment to introduce our panel. we have some great people with us. we have gaby pacheco, who is a dreamer and an activist from laura. you may have been her before. she is -- and this immigration reform movement, there have been a couple of little moments, i guess you could say, in the last few years. and she was at the center of one of those. she walked 1500 miles. from miami all the way to washington dc. and along the way, just telling stories and listening to people's stories and talking about this issue. i think it is without moments like that in with what is a has been doing as well. it is hard to have these

conversations. that is an important thing is we move this issue forward. we also have mae ngai, a professor of history at columbia university. what it does is actually get into the idea that america was and always regulating immigration in the way that it is doing today. we imagine it and she breaks down kind of and tells us how that can on how we should look at moving forward. but this isn't something that has been the way that immigration works in this country. we also have alfonso vargas and

he is part of latin works. they are native to the target hispanics and also has done some big contract work with companies like pepsi and anheuser-busch and dominoes. very funny commercials and a super bowl commercial as well. so i think what i like to do is start things off with the economic piece and the meaning of citizenship. i'd kind of like to move more into that realm of personal conversations.

>> so what how do we engage in the subject? >> well, i wanted to have legs were very fit. [laughter] >> actually people that wanted to go to college, i felt that they should have an ability to go to college. like it didn't make any and. that here we were, about to enter the 21st century. it myself and other individuals who were free to tell their stories, used to go around telling people that i didn't have the ability. the people used to come to me and tell me that i'm going to tell you a secret.

i'm going to tell you that i don't have papers. they were talking about hitting a barrier. we are talking about african-americans that were segregated, and here we were done, young people who were fighting to have an education. and i got involved with that. and i felt that education is a right and we needed to fight for that right and a double conviction that we need to go with this conviction. at the age of eaters alike into united states.

i wanted to do this i could, but i was really far away from my family and friends. but i grew up being in america. i grew up learning english. and going on trips, being part of the arts and i wanted to also join the air force because i wanted to serve the nation. i wanted to get a degree and do all of these things. i felt that once they told me i couldn't go to college, i was being deprived not so much of people telling me that you are not part of this nation. but being deprived of my humanity and my ability to give

and be part of the country and this is id that i was living in. >> you are -- did you feel that there is a racial divide were ethnicity component to it that certain people were being targeted by this and not others? >> they would not to be easy to understand. when a friend of mine told me, gaby pacheco, how can we fight for citizenships. and how can we fight this one a young boy, trayvon martin,

didn't have citizenship. and it took me a while to understand that. and i was like, what he means he didn't have citizenship. i was so puzzled by that. citizenship is beyond a piece of paper. it is about the opportunity to live and have an opportunity to be engaged in our community. to have an opportunity to be seen as an equal. for me it has taken a while to realize the race components. because i lived in miami where you have immigrant from all over the world and i think that miami is a microcosm of the world. and you had immigrants who are

white, those that look white, i have a friend that is lumbee and that goes out with me now. when we were walking through the trail calmly he was like the white guy and we had to talk about this. if it was okay for us to go into certain places. so we would say, go into this gas station first. when we were in the middle in the heart of the south. when he brought us then, it was just a little bit on after that. but anyway, -- >> what does that mean? to engage them in the conversation?

democrat is prior to the doj saying, stop that. but they did have a rally. before that we were just engaging because we wanted to this kind of talk to them and see and understand where they were coming from and try to have a dialogue with them. but yes, this has a lot to do with race. >> i am speaking with alejandro. i believe i am speaking with the only naturalized citizen on the panel. could you talk about when he became a citizen when you notice for a difference in your life? >> the short answer is yes, a huge change.

>> i think there was a lot more prevalent. >> yes, my family brought us to the u.s. when i was 15 years old. my mom and dad. we were always worried that we were going to get caught. i shared earlier before we started this meeting with you and all a number of people, that my parents were not unusual. the goal for being in the united states was opportunity and

education and trying to get the children in the family to move forward. they were really nice free lunches. especially the desert. my mother and my dad absolutely refused to allow us to apply for this. it's like we would make whatever we need to make and we would give you guys dumping. most people want to behave in

this way in a situation. my mother would not even allow us to apply for initially because it sounded like a then we are not here to get a. so we had to work our way through. i worked washing dishes, her entire family had to do it. ..

fairly high levels in corporate america, fortunate to start a business that employs about 200 people. i paid millions of dollars in taxes and i'm not unique. i'm one of many people out there that have done best.

of course antonio made me think about this. this that this is one who paid the price a lot of us had to pay and they deserve the opportunity to be american and to be part of this country because it has been made and continues to be made. from that perspective, as i said, my experience is 1i hope we will see repeated many times over as the process continues and bill walz passes. >> one thing we started off is our view of citizenship has changed in the country over the years and that is one of the things you touched on in your research. we were talking week before the panel started on the on lawful presence in the country which they're used to be at some point

so you could be here unlawfully but a certain amount of time. maybe you can tell us a little bit about that and kind of how that informs the debate today. >> most people don't know that before the 1920's and the late 19th century through the 20s if he were here unlawfully depending what reason. you have the beginning of an undocumented or illegal immigration. but people don't realize is before there were restrictions there were no illegals because almost everybody was legal. but even after the restrictions were passed and you start to see a growth in the number of

undocumented people, both of that responsible for the immigration and even the justice department later many ways to legalize people's status because they understood that you could have people living in the shadows. even though there was no legal statute of limitations by the executive agency sound waves to legalize people but i want to add that most people from europe who are undocumented and this goes back to the question of race and i think racism has always been a part of how citizenship has taken different forms with different groups of people. but we all know the free is second class citizenship that comes out of the period after slavery. in my book i talk about a concept called a lehane citizenship. and i will illustrate that to

you by vv personal story. they noted the story you meet somebody and say where are you from? i answer that line from new jersey. they say no, where are you really from? because in their mind i'm not a citizen, i am a foreigner because i am of asian descent and that is a legacy of a long period of exclusion policy where chinese and asians were actually barred from entering the country and nationalization that didn't end until the 1950's. these have a lasting impact. even though i was born in this country and my parents that are the immigrants that naturalized came after world war ii there is still a lasting cultural affect where to this day asian-american's the assumption is that everybody is a

forerunner come and the same goes for latinos and mexican-americans even though the majority of people of mexican descent in the country are not immigrants. certainly not illegal immigrants. a third of mexican born people in the country are naturalized citizens but there is a racism involved where there's an assumption every person of dissent is in the vehicle and that isn't true but that is the power of this kind of thinking. so i think citizenship has a legal meaning which we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the legal status of citizenship. one of the right to vote and number to the right not to be thrown out of the country. they are the only two things that really makes a difference and those are not to be trivial

matters. most civil rights actually every person in the country whether you are a citizen or not have rights under the constitution and that's also very important. so in this morning's discussion i think one thing that we can take away and the link to this one is that his slickly immigrants have always been able to become citizens. you can come in and work and if you want to naturalize, you can naturalize. the one exception to the rule is first it was asians and then here with that status. and that now you legalize people but you deprive them of the last step, the right to make the last step into full citizenship will create a very different kind of country where you will have a permanent second-class group of people. and i think that is a very dangerous road for us to go down. >> that's actually something i would like to throw out to any of you that want to answer.

the question of -- we have for example this immigration bill in the senate that passed this june and that would create a pathway to citizenship or a green card that would take 13 years and they are talking about it in the house bill that would take 15 years. is there a point where these kind of extensions and delays to citizenship become a second-class citizenship in itself where if they said 30 years to mauro would that suddenly be a problem? how do we draw the line and have we already overstepped it with the legislation that's out there? >> i think about the people better 60, 65, and what does that mean for them? if you are 60, then you are up

75. i think that's where this marriage of the paper itself and what it means, being doubled to vote, being able to have the certain rights that citizens have the have to wait in that period to be able to come into play. it's just in my mind a little bit scary that this debate has become about that and how long somebody should wait. there is this punishment and reward system that has kind of been put into the and it's not a debate about humanity and it's not a debate about wanting to welcome people into the country and have a system that works so then you don't have the 11 million people living in the shadow. i try not to get into the debate, and i try to talk about the marriage of being able to

give people the ability to show its allegiance but also the full integration into the country which that to me is what citizenship is. a lot of the people that are green card holders don't become citizens but they are still part of the country and part of the nation and still contributing members. so i think the time that has been given is where we want to punish people for doing the right thing and that we don't look at it and i think you were touching on this, giving things away or giving handouts to people. so it is a self righteous kind

of mentality that we have and i see it on the politicians every day when they are deciding and creating these laws that they feel so god came down but they don't realize they just recently changed like 100 years ago in 1920 prior to that. so, i just feel i naturally think full for all of you for being here and that we are having this discussion. this is a discussion that we need to have in order for us to move forward with the real immigration reform. what we have in the senate i don't believe is real. there's a lot of great things and a lot of bad things. i could stay here to talk all day about this. but even the way that we have reworked the system and we are creating human beings to be a

commodity of the nation not so much being a part of. >> can i ask the question? in your personal experience what would it have meant to add a decade on to your path to citizenship? if oh-la-la had been with the are creating today, how would that have changed your life? >> the issue for me and my family is about full citizenship at the time. it was about legal status because that is the stuff, that is the point she just made. once you have your green card and legal status in this country you basically have every right of being a citizen with the exception you can't vote so at that point, you become what level of appreciation to you have for the alternate path to citizenship? in my time i took a long time to do it and frankly it wasn't

because i didn't want it or because i didn't tell you it. it was simply because of other issues related to more practical things going on in my life. but i have been getting people legalizes is the key but when you limit someone i had the ability to become a citizen after i went through the bureaucratic process you have to go through. i doubt in my estimation a leg up from the moment i was legalized to put that restriction on people today is crazy. my father is not a u.s. citizen. my father is 85-years-old and the only reason he's not a u.s. citizen is because he couldn't speak english well enough to be granted citizenship. heat tried twice and field and now it doesn't look like he's going to get it. he cried over the fact he wasn't a citizen. so, for some people there is an enormous amount of meaning in

the decade. i'm not suggesting it wasn't for me, it was someone the was there and available. if i get the restriction of time i would have been unhappy and i would have been upset that i couldn't do it. i think to do that to people come to punish them so they can feel that there was a cost to be paid for this ungracious -- egregious violation of the law i think it is ludicrous what more do you want people to do than to build your buildings, cut your grass, wash your car and into your dishes come and do all of the things that the labor force made up of the undocumented workers is already doing? i don't know. recently in austin there was a new formula one race truck that was built. an absolutely beautiful wonderful thing. 90 plus% of the people doing

that for migrant workers. i don't know their legal status and i never have put those are the ones that did it and it is a state of the art class. who else would have done it? those people, assuming they are undocumented do they not deserve to have the status modified and not deserve the right to become citizens? because someone decided that they've got to pay this price and hopefully you are alive long enough to be doubled to see the benefit of citizenship. it just makes no sense. >> i want to add to this because i agree wholeheartedly with what has been said. but i want to plan out that the key difference between the 1986 regulation and what is being proposed now is in 1986, people have a green card. this proposal isn't just 13 years of citizenship come it is a green card and being in the strange you can work here but

you don't even have a green card so it is limited and that is a long time of punishment and that's what it is. it's to keep 11 million people from voting for 13 to 15 years. that is from a point of view that is what it comes down to pity the the kind of a u.n. fairness of the weight is important, but what needs to have our attention is the new temporary worker visa and the point system. these are entirely new ideas and they haven't gotten enough attention i think because he 11 million deserve a lot of our attention and concern but the so-called future flow and i don't like this term because i think it's very technical and reduces people to come and you know, something that's not

human. but the idea is that in order to not have on documented labor immigration in the future they will have a temporary visa where you can work every three years and we knew it once and then you have to leave. theoretically, you can apply free card under the new point system that then you are competing with everyone else and there's a limited number of visas. so you either have a new road to the undocumented status, people that don't leave and they don't give a green card to the point system, and you have been a kind of revolving full legal status. they don't have a green card or any hope of ever getting to citizenship. and that is a creation of a permanent second-class group of

people without a chance of a green card. the point system will require a lot of scrutiny because it isn't clear how many points you get. rather than being based on certain family status, you get points and the more points you get you get a green card so canada has this for example. if you get $11 million you can get in right away. the last time the point system was imposed in 2008 if you had a million dollars or an advanced degree, if you spoke english well coming you get points really easily. if he were unskilled or you didn't have a college education and you had a family member in this country coming you wouldn't have enough plants to get an. so it isn't clear how the plants are going to be allocated and if people with low skills would never have the hope to get them into the planned system i think there is some thinking that

there will be more possible than past proposals but this is something everybody has to pay attention to because if we set up the system like this where you have temporary labor with no hope of getting a green card except through the planned system and if it is biased to people with education or capital, then we are set up with a very different kind of political situation in our country, and then we will really have a permanent underclass of workers and i think this is something people don't really realize. say yes it isn't right to ask people to wait 13 years that there is a whole other thing going on that beyond and 13 years you were going to have another mess and i don't think that we have paid enough attention to that. >> can i ask a quick question based on the comments of the congressman becerra he spoke to once this legalization happens, the idea that then immigration

abilities could really go after whoever doesn't legalize because i think in his words these are the people selling your kids drugs. these are terrorists, and i want to know if you all had a reaction to that if an emigration bill like this past, is there a fear there could be some people who don't qualify who are then, you know, basic immigration authorities, for them much more seriously. >> i think that was politics that we heard. >> i think they are going to go after the people with a temporary visa to see if they are expire not. i think the corroding of the system and how we see him and beings -- there are two terms i don't mind that we used a lot in

our talking points to get people to understand. number one, people say children who were brought here through no fault of their own where the children are the victims and who is to blame for that? appearance, they are criminals, why? that is the second term i really don't like, but i'm not a criminal to be the this word criminal we've been using it in such light terms where currently the administration says 70% of the people they supported from the 1.7 million on criminals. so the first question is who are

the other 40%. but more importantly, what crimes have these people done? what have they created or what was the reason for deporting them? and sometimes it is as simple as being called a fugitive of the law. this is a person of was given a notice by each and immigration judge to present themselves to start their immigration case. a lot of times people don't go because they move and they never received the notice. the notice got lost in the nail, or people were just afraid and didn't have an attorney and it just didn't go. so these are people that we are calling criminals, and what's going to happen in a free that

he is showing them the new numbers and figures? from the current population that we have that are undocumented or unauthorized in the country, one out of four of those are going to be able to get through this path. one out for. so what is going to happen to the devotee? are we going to label them as criminals because this was the other percent? are these the less deserving ones? the other day we took the point system test to see how much we would get right now currently and then we did it with our parents when they came originally from the united states and just started putting out scenarios. our little study showed that it

was kneal under the age of 37 with a certain amount of money and a certain amount of education were the ones that the top. the ones the were going to be let in. if you are able men over the age of 47, and if you were poor, forget. who are the people we are fighting for? who are that grijalva for people who had to leave their farms because it now sells and subsidizes corn and all these farmers their education is forming. nobody knows how to form what they do, how to grow corn that they are the ones up here. people from places like guatemala who don't even speak spanish, they speak a mayan

dialect language who are here cutting up the chicken we eat, working in chicken farms and in giving a job like could never do coming you have to do it when you are standing on the conveyor belt. so to me what is going to happen to the people who are going to be left behind and what's going to happen to this new immigration system that further degrades and corrodes the way that we look at our communities as criminals. i've been activist on this and sometimes i don't even know how to move forward. i know the sense of urgency. my parents when i go home the next couple of days i have to go

home and work on the fact that my parents and my sisters have it over their heads that every year we have to figure out how to keep looking at it in the united states. that is the sense of urgency and the reality that we see in our community. but what are the states of citizenship and what we are asking for the cost of corroding our immigration system for other it's citizenship what we are asking for a portion of the population good enough for is that the trade-off that we want to do for the rest of the people that aren't meant to be left behind and i think those are the questions that i'm asking them and this comes to mind. >> one thing that comes to mind is the argument against legalization of people. there are two things people

frequently say would draw them to the u.s. and then sometimes people say where do you draw the line. would you tell the whole world they could come into the u.s.? and if you all have faults for that is there a place where you feel you would draw the line or how should that be done in a sort of immigration policy sense >> on of things that is ironic about the opposition of the legalization or to raising the ceiling on immigration is a lot of the opposition comes from people who consider themselves free market supporters. but they don't trust them to regulate immigration. all of the same thing that was put up on the mexican border from all of the border control we heard about the increase on the number of the border control, all of the technology that is down there.

what stopped immigration from mexico is the 2008 recession. that's what stopped it. personally i believe we shouldn't regulate borders because i think people have no control over where they are born. nobody is born in america because they aren't better than anybody else in the rest of the world it was a chance if you're born here you were born here. the sanctions anybody was born in china or mexico or guatemala there should be restrictions on people pursuing opportunities. that isn't going to happen in my lifetime any way but as long as the nation's to regulate immigration they have to do it

fairly and recognize the benefits that immigrants bring to their country and to treat people fairly and to not create a second class of people. one thing we lose sight of when the debate takes place is a form of the debate usually are the immigrants good or bad for us. we have seen now it is about interest or how different sectors of society's benefit but nobody really talked about the immigrants themselves. the immigrants are a part of us and not only that, but they have always been the ones that have made changes in the immigration law, immigration and their children. as much as i appreciate and see the importance of winning over

business people come conservative evangelicals winning everybody over to the cause is in themselves who are making this change. we wouldn't be having this conversation had not been for the change in the electoral map in 2008 or 2012. that is the bottom line. and i would remind people that in the last big reform of immigration in the 1960's which eliminated the national origin quote as that is made possible because they become important electoral constituencies in the night it states. the use italian-americans, greek americans, they were the ones that drove the civil rights movement that they themselves thought was a cousin to the african-american civil rights movement and that is the reform. they need a lot of allies but

they were the main force and to the it is the dreamers, the latino communities, the asian-american committee that is really behind this change and our environment and i think we need to remember that. so, one of a kind of a darker sides or a less idealistic way of looking at the history is if we want to look at it is the history of inclusion that is because each group has fought its way into being included. people had to fight their way in and that is what we think about today and agreed that the country because people fight for their right to be at the table. >> there's obviously the political reality in congress and the different interest groups aligning. like you said, some of them we've heard from today or heard about. are there things that need to be changed in the framework of the way we see this issue on a personal level and things people

can do that don't need a million dollars to lobby someone with? is their something you can do in your everyday life to see this issue differently or that you think needs to be done to see this issue differently? anyone else that you have any thoughts? >> i don't know what kind of things you can do but what i've done that i think works is that the phone and called elected officials. i've been very surprised since i've started doing that, the lesson is that eventually is an impact or not, i'm not sure. i want to go back to the issue regarding those that use free-market as the reason for some of the decisions they are wanting to make. if people believe that, i think we would have a different mind set at play because the only

reason you have the number of people here who are searching is because the jobs are there and the jobs are there that no one else wants to do. i remember a few months ago when the whole alabama is a tradition to place and all the sudden hispanics left the state in droves and there was a guy they were interviewing that owned a family business that had been in the family for a couple generations and talked about how they were about to declare bankruptcy because 300 employees he used to have left. he is being challenged by the reporter what he tried to do and he said i went to job fairs and this and that and the upper and i had a lot of applicants and he said the first day he had like

30 some people or one particular day they all showed up and when he finished describing with the job was only one was left and they said i will do what i need to do. he worked for one day and didn't come back the next. as you know and we used to do the job. by the way all these people that he hired were non-hispanic americans that needed thomas but the moment they figured out there will be jobs here that people are going to need to take, who is going to take those if you create all of these restrictions, and if you don't think of this population the way it needs to be thought of. so for me the free market idea if you are going to go to the market's, take the time to be fair about it because what they're there is the need there will always be people that are willing to do what is needed and at the end of the that is what the free market is about.

>> so we need to make those jobs better for the immigrants. >> absolutely. i agree with that. >> what is the impact of, you know, if all this pass by come september, no immigration bill, or one that doesn't do the things you all are talking about, what is the impact of leaving the population in that position in the shadows even on a sort of just real-life lovell what does it mean? >> it's terrible. it's what we have now and i don't know when the chance is going to come around in the congress. i'm not a political expert, so i can't predict that. but i think there is an opportunity here and i think it will get fixed but i don't know

how long it will take and for the people that are waiting, it's terrible to be hispanic besides the economic impact, there are the numbers and the justifications, the one thing that was also brought up that's important is there are a lot of people out there suffering right now making a significant contribution and that the team to be cassandra and suffering and hardship and came because they are not legal and that ought to be a reason to do it. these are people that need the opportunity to represent themselves and the opportunity to engage in a political process that helps shape their own future. they can't just be in limbo living in fear, looking over their shoulder every day. it's wrong. it's not consistent with what this country is all about. senator mccain's frustration and how he was talking about all

of this is probably the best example. >> i agree that aspect has come to the front and to that i want to think people like the dreamer's because i think that is repeated for all of us. >> we have a little more time. raise your hand. yes, sir. >> i would like to touch the issue. why aren't they requiring this english language as the requirement for citizenship or green card or whatever is right now. a born and raised in the u.s. it is only the english-language.

can we say right now with 99.999 the words in the definition and the english language born and raised stand up right now. do you have perfect language skills, perfect writing skills come perfect vocabulary. it is coming from people all over the world wherever they are coming from east mobus, number coming you are [inaudible] if the speak mandarin were vietnamese you are trying to attach a greater part of their life from them. is america and not a country of

races? why aren't we detaching this when we ourselves can't even claim perfection? please come and answer me. the history of how that came to be part of immigration may have been something you can answer. it's over a literacy test. when they finally implemented in it was very simple in the native language. so a person coming from china because they couldn't come from

poland they took the test and polish. we haven't made that requirement to enter the country or get a green card and the fact you have to take a test to get a green card after the ten years you don't have to take on to become a citizen. and i don't think it is that high level of english, but it is -- i am not against that on principle. and i think most immigrants want to learn english. they want to know the need to learn english to get around this country to get a better job to navigate the society. all the programs the offer the communities the path to the raptors. they have the kind of jobs and

responsibilities they don't have time to take those glasses some people do want to learn english. it doesn't mean they want to give up their own language or culture. that is a good thing. this is a country that has the least amount in the entire world. so i think we should be fair, the test shouldn't be onerous. there are requirements for the 13 years that you've taken english tests because the green card i think that is wrong because it's not a week, before. i'm not opposed to any moderate english tests, english requirement for citizenship. >> i'm not against it as well. i think the reason it's important for people to learn english as because the business of the united states is done in english. adel lal is an english and if people are going to be citizens

it's serving in a jury. you have to be walter reed ball and so forth -- read a the law. >> one of the things they talk about specifically about the language is that when you are a child is really, really easy. and our brains are kind of liked where they are open for certain learning and things to happen. however, learning english, that door closes sunday just 13. so the adult population and people trying to learn english it is difficult.

there are some people in some areas where their years and years before they are able to act like a man to learn english and in the classroom and do that right. we have to learn the expectations that we have to learn the expectations that are, but i'm not against but making sure people have opportunities and making sure and the integration of being here in the united states learned english. >> just a question and we will take questions from this microphone. >> [inaudible]

you bring real-life to our discussion but it's important. real life is each of us whether you are citizens of the world or citizens of the united states or non-citizens then we have the response of devotee to change the society and the officials manipulated by those people and allow people to speak. succumb if you have the regulation they would say you have a hidden agenda to some funds to benefit the interest groups in the public [inaudible] what we are doing is we have to say we are acknowledging.

can you, 12 months from now, 12 years from now we are giving them hope and we are educating them so they can have a good opportunity and good productivity in the production. they go away in the gdp on the family income. so what we have to do is have a responsibility to improve our society to let them there by the veterans are inferior. >> you are bringing the really good point which is why i'm here. why am i not afraid and at home hiding and being a participant

of this? i could be deported. this comes from my house trying to support me in 2006 and that's why my family is in deportation. of course i live with my family and they found out. but because of a understand that this debate is also about fear and have it is changing and the face of the country is changing and how what she was talking about when they found out and that year and that change that people have made undermined -- made in their mind. i tell people when you go inside a dark room, and you feel something. there is a rush and adrenaline that goes through you because it is a dark room and you don't know what is happening in their and that is how a lot of people

feel. for me why am i in this debate well i believe in this country and the values of this country because i love this country and because in my mind i want to make this country better and i want to continue the legacy. the people that stood up in civil rights koppel with our country is really young back in the days we had a law that said it was okay. there was the year around what's going to happen when we change that. they say that women can't vote and that is okay and we changed that. so we are a country of change. br a country that goes through a lot of fear what's going to happen with all these powerful women that are voting, we change

that. we just got better. [applause] so i think it's really important and we think about what's going to happen that day that people decide they don't want to come to the united states anymore because this is in the country they want to be. what's going to happen to the economy, what is right to happen to the fabric, the foundation this country was built on when you have them here but we barely talk about them. we talk about them in the sense that they didn't ask for papers. we talk about the history of that. so i'm here because i believe in order for me to take a child to this life i want to make sure that the world and this country is a country my child would deserve to live and that our future generations could see that once upon a time we looked

at immigrants as just a commodity of the resource. and the whole us verses of them kind of gets washed away. so i'm here because i love the country and i felt the values we have in the country are beautiful and i want to maintain them like that and i want to find change because right now currently allow all we have on the books and the way we treat immigrants is wrong. that isn't our america that we know. >> another question? >> i want to emphasize a little bit why as dreamers the fight isn't for us that our parents as well and our families and why shouldn't we settle from what some of our congressmen and the house or proposing with talks

about the kids act and tooling with the idea now after so much talk about the dream act and forgetting about a comprehensive immigration reform why do we have to focus on our families and not breaking them apart? >> i think that is a false debate and a distraction to the work that we are doing and that wants to divide us and i think we are falling for eight. i think it's a great that republicans are talking about young children and talking about making sure they have a kafta citizenship. because a few weeks ago they were trying to define a program that will allow for young children or people that came at a young age to have an opportunity to get that. i think we should be celebrating the fact that republicans are talking about this and if they

are trying to use it as a political chollet click create a distraction than self now they are there on the record. a week ago what the hearing i felt like i was in the twilight zone. i have been following this debate for ten years and we are finally starting to talk about it in the way that is irresponsible and brings it where we need to be. so i feel good that republicans are talking about this and trying to create whatever it is. last year marco rubio started talking about that that allows for a debate set of the president could do that. the other thing that i think is important is i'm not in this for the legislation.

i'm here to bring to light a story of one person and of one family that is asking and begging for a chance and an opportunity to remain in this country the country that we have set rates and that people know and understand i talked to republicans all the time because they are part of the question in order for us to get to two need one plus one. you need the democrats and republicans to get their and i talk to people that don't look like me because the matter. they are important and i believe in the opportunity they have to understand this issue in a different context that hasn't been portrayed to them. i know this issue isn't going to go away.

the issue is going to be a real issue until we don't change the paradigm and start talking about the stuff we talked about today. >> my question is if legislation is passed that provides the path to citizenship but it's still a long and an arduous process to you think that would do more harm than good because the way things are there is a legally authorized second class and once the legislation is passed we can still try to point to this defacto class and say this is a problem we need to do something about it but at that point they can point to the legislation and say you already have your remedy and that is the end of the conversation. so do you think because of that there is a chance that legislation doesn't provide the

quickest or the best path to citizenship that might do more harm than good? >> any thoughts from anyone that it could be more harmful? >> all i know is we need something. and again this is my ignorance of the political ingalls on how people work those but if you have reformed the passage that has the most basic and important things or elements could mean, i suppose there's always an opportunity to go back and refine and having people that are fully engaged in that the date continue to put pressure is what will make things improve. i think there have been plenty of cases before things have gotten past and the need to go back and make them better. there would be my hope. at this stage of the game about

improving the existing building need to do it and we need to do it as aggressively as we can and then hopefully by the time the final bill is already a lot of the things that were issued today aren't going to be as big at that point in time. but i think we need to get something passed. that's the most important thing. >> i agree. whatever comes out isn't going to be as big as the senate bill. there are a lot of this tasteful things and bad things but also some good things. clearing up the back wall of, allowing family members of permanent residence to go outside of the quota system that is a lot of people. so there are some really good

things. so i think it's hard to say. we might have to swallow them on a whole. >> my heart that tell me this is bad. but i do see the good and reclaim it as a victory for us because as you look at the history of the different legislation for the last couple of needy ten years there have been worse legislation that has been introduced. and why the legislation is better is at the heart of the debate prior to other legislation it has been more forcefulness from the community. and i think it has and what to do with the voices that have

spoken out and the people in their room having this discussion. that is a question i gravel with everyday. but i feel that we always somehow get it right. and i believe ultimately the nation will get it right and i'm going to fight and continue to get it right and i will speak against the listings in the bill. militarizing the border is that. criminalization as bad. giving a point system to human beings and putting a dollar sign on the value of life is bad and i would speak out against those that i would continue to push because we have opportunities to move in the house and opportunities next year and the

year after that. >> can i just say one last thing? >> sure. >> i want to publicly thank the afl-cio. i think they've done a tremendous amount to change the public opinion, to influence what's going on on the hill. i know they've done a lot of work to make parts of the bill a lot worse in a lot better, and i think that they are not getting enough credit for what they've done for this. and, no, i used to be -- i was the union member for along time before i became a historian, and i remember the first time i walked into this building. symbol doesn't have a good reputation in the chinese-american communities. but, even as recently as 25 years ago, the afl-cio didn't have the greatest decisions on immigration coming and i think it's been a tremendous change -- not just a change in position

that the change in the leadership role. so, i just want to take this opportunity to thank them for inviting us here today and for sponsoring the conversation but also for all of the work that the unions are doing. thank you. [applause] ..

>> we are trying to run a business front at the home. and we can't even get going without having that reasonably priced connection. >> part of america's economic future on booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> to federal regulators testified on capitol hill today about implementing the 2010 dodd-frank financial regulation. and what is being done to mitigate systemic risk on wall street. mary jo white spoke to the securities and exchange commission. is hearing is about one hour and 15 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, today we welcome the committee and making member here at the securities and exchange commission to

implement and reduce systemic risk and a financial market. we are implementing changes in many market funds and credit rating agencies. this has taken effect with the majority in the months ahead. also due to how other nations regulate this.

this demands strong relations to help improve financial facility and command the recent agreement to establish the framework that relies on strong operations between a two jurisdictions as we work to take the csv to continue and we are hoping to keep the market in the direction to make progress of systemic risk to implement the fund reform.

we are talking about the considerable work has been done with the framework with the money market fund. we also look forward to hearing about the sec's efforts to address the flaws in the operations and the operations that were exposed to the credit rating process. i want to encourage the fcc and cftc to continue to protect

investors. that is also why the sec should move forward and implement safeguards in the market. thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with the concerns and issues it raised. we are talking about financial reform and dodd-frank and the jobs act. having just passed dodd-frank's third anniversary, there is work to be done. among other things come mishearing provides an opportunity to learn more about the steps they are taking to fix the lack of coordination and harmonization of rules among the united states and regulators for the markets.

each play has informed the manner in which he cftc and sec regulatory regimes have developed since the 1930s. notwithstanding these differences, it is critical that we harmonize this both domestically and abroad. we must look at this importantly and we must remain so. market participants must not be discouraged to have their investments and build their business. we are talking about a regime that is working against the flow of free capital in the united states and abroad. the cftc has put forth executive

orders and no active letters on active issues. the cross-border implementation of title vii receives this with foreign market participants and regularly is being over expensive and harmful. we have the process surrounding the issuance. the cftc and european regulators and this should proceed. in this password has been characterized as an agreement a number of questions still remain.

we have collateral that needs to be addressed across borders and we need information regarding the treatment of margins for users. timelines remain very much in flux and it does not make mention of canada and various jurisdictions. with these questions unanswered, there is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done on international harmonization. the sec also reopened comments for those issued through very

different processes. the cftc or interpretive guidance and exemptions, the sec through notice and rulemaking. if those requirements are deemed comparable to u.s. requirements. details matter. i look forward to hearing with the chairman on these issues with international significance the current lack of coordination, if it persists, we

are merging the two agencies into a single regulator for swaps markets. and i appreciate your holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing from the witnesses. >> we are talking about the opening statements that will be limited to the chair and ranking member. the record will be open for the next seven days. we will keep it open for any material that members would like to submit. now i introduce mary jo white, he honorable chair was confirmen april of 2013. she is a chairman of the futures trading commission and it was confirmed to this position in may of 2009.

>> of us, we are talking about the systemic risk and capital markets. we recognize the important risk in a manner that preserves the strength of our systems and taxpayers alike. in other steps are described in my written testimony. we have an over-the-counter derivatives market.

basically it every rule acquired under title vii. it is aimed at every financial market. in 2012 along with the ftc, we adopted rules the products and entities. in addition, the sec said capital requirements for security-based swap dealers and describing how those dealers would have to collect a margin of collateral. in the event of failure, these rules are designed to help protect customers and limit the impact on the capital markets and the broader economy. the regulatory would apply in a security-based swap transaction. but those in part within and

outside the united states. second, the commission has been serving as a primary supervisory agency before the financial market utilities under title of the dodd-frank act, we are authorized to make such a designation if the failure is the market utility to increase the risk of significant liquidity is or credit problems spreading among financial institutions are markets. this includes the nature of the risk and entities in result of this. we have comprehensive risk management and operations.

thereby reducing risks in the market. the fourth thing we have established investors to private funds this is better at assessing systemic risks across the market and we have scaled this and the sec gave its annual report to congress relating to the use of the data collected. under title i of the chair of the commission, i serve as a voting member. among other things it is considered whether certain non-bank companies should be deemed systemically important and subject to heightened credentials supervision by the federal reserve board trade commission has also taken additional steps intended to

further reduce systemic risk in the operation of our capital markets. for example in march of this year, the commission proposed regulation fci, which is requiring exchanges and agencies to maintain policies and procedures reasonably to apply corrective actions. the commission also approved a limit down mechanism that will create speed bumps to reduce abrupt market movement and individual securities. we have circuit breakers in the cross market trading halts. we are working for systemic risk engine and the commission proposed reform designed to reduce the susceptibility of money market funds and the heavy redemption to mitigate the effects and increase the

transparency of the risks. we look forward to all public input and the proposal addressing risk concerns or maintaining money market funds as a viable product. we are help mitigating this in the substantial markets and i'm proud that we have completed the remaining task before us. thank you very much and i'm happy to answer any questions. sumac thank you, chairman? >> good morning chairman johnson and ranking member. today we are well along the path implementing the congressional mandated market perform in the cftc has nearly completed these reforms. i am pleased to testify along with mary jo white together.

i am also pleased to say that we have worked on every step of the journey to bring about the market and the swap market reform. just as we have common sense rules, by that i mean traffic lights and stop signs and speed limits and cops along the streets to enforce the rules. we are nearly complete and that includes complementary robust rules of the road to benefit those who trade swap and those who are on the road and those who have standards in our society.

they were the bystanders that weren't even standing on these complex roads called derivatives. it cost a million jobs this is lacking common sense rules of the road and that is because based on what congress put into play, reforms shine on a marketplace that has been opaque for too long. the real-time reported starting last december and it has been phased in. there is some additional hazing days in august and september in over nine months that they guess that like the sec and the federal reserve and we have access to it.

then there is transparency along the way which is very important. completed reforms also mitigate risk and broaden market access with something called central clearing trade a key part that the president laid out in september of 2009. we have already come into the central theory and again key compliance along the way through october of this year. it will be an important day for some of the cross-border swaps to come into the clearing. many will have a choice and consistent with this intent, we have proposed that unclear to swaps will not be collected from such users and to anticipate this question we have been encouraging the international community to adopt that approach and i believe in august we will

publish international standards that will be consistent with that. third we have completed performs and their are many of these that are at the center of the yell out up to five years ago. they are coming under business conduct. completed cross-border guidance ensures that the u.s. financial institutions will be covered by reform either directly or with what we call substituting compliance. if an affiliate is sitting offshore that does not have reform and it somewhere where they do have reform, we might look for those. however, it is critical and i am sure in the american public and in all the state like south dakota and ohio and massachusetts, they say don't forget the lessons of aig and other institutions.

we have worked closely with international regulators collaborating here and abroad and we did come to these understandings with the european union and many of these are included specifically or were acted upon that day. so i view those as agreements and commission actions today. we have this journey and we do have work to do. we are moving forward and most importantly it is to smooth the transition to the new reforms. we do also want to work closely with international communities on these compliance determinations and there are a handful of roles, including capital margin and i look forward to your questions remain

thank you. we will take a short recess and i asked the senators to vote quickly and then return to the hearing room so that we can resume the questioning. committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will now return order. we will now resume the questioning of our witnesses. as we began questions, i will

ask the clerk to put five minutes on the clock for each member. i recognize that there is a lot on the plate of the sec and the congress must do its part to fund the agency. how soon can we expect this to be completed, especially in regards to the volcker rule and what if any barriers are there to completing these rules? >> assure that concerns one of my highest priorities is to complete the congressional mandate that is under the dodd-frank at and the job back. and we have made very good

progress and we are pushing hard to complete those and this includes a precise timetable. we will see through the summer and the fall and throughout the year that there is rule-making coming out in the expectation and hope i'm not. i'm not saying every single one will be done by year-end. but in terms of derivatives as i mentioned in my testimony, our comment on the cross-border proposal ends on august 21. we did have substantive rules that we proposed propose in that comment ended on july 22. so it is my hope and expectation that we will move into the adoption phase when those comments are completed.

this is part of a joint rule-making issue and we are working actively now with our fellow regulators are not. both the staff and the commission level. and that is the hope and expectation that that should be an action that should be taken in the near term. we need to get it right in regards to our objectives and also to make sure that we are dealing with what occurs is that we don't have unintended consequence of their. we are working with leaders on this issue. we have testified before the committee that we need help and the expectation that will be completed by year-end. that is our hope and

expectation. what are the barriers to the rules? >> depending on how you count it under dodd-frank alone, 92 at about dodd-frank rule makings and there's a lot of volume some of them are done jointly with other regulators and some of them are -- i think that would be the factor that i would point to and it had been, you know, no question about it. some backlog and when i arrived there, i tried to make certain that we had parallel workspace working on both the dodd-frank rule making and the jobs act. so that we didn't have the same people working on different rulemaking. so i'm hoping to expedite that process. >> the chairman is consistent with the goals to limit

regulatory arbitrage. the cftc allows swap trade between our customers and rely on substitute components. in comparison, how will the cftc tree swap trades between u.s. customers doing a swap deal? >> we were able to finalize guidance with a lot of public input and this was one of those where the overseas branches and guaranteed affiliates are of u.s. swap covered by reform. it is because so much of that did come back into u.s. for aid. particularly is a question of a branch, the u.s. swap dealers dealing overseas as part of a

legal entity and that we would look to substitute compliance if there are such rules in play. we did have a carveout that said up to 5% of those businesses in emerging markets took place and they might not have to come in. for the guaranteed affiliates, it is truly an offshore entity operating in doing business with local insurance companies. the transaction level compliance with the bat is up to the jurisdiction. similar to this 5% exception for the branches. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in my opening statement i mentioned discrepancies between the rules and guidances that the agencies are engaged in. both in terms of how they are

being adopted and gradual substance. my question to both of you is do you agree that we need to have as much coronation on these rules and guidances as possible. so that both agencies are reasonably possible on the same page and the right page and if you agree with that, are you undertaking actions to coordinate and communicate with each other to achieve these objectives. >> hello, i do agree with the statement and senator crapo very much so. we have different markets and different market participants. but we need to strive for consistency. in the agencies have been before my arrival and working together and having a discussion.

obviously the differences do remain. it is basically the consistency question. what i would like to see if there are open issues to deal with and there is an increase in the depth of engagement at a physical level. >> senator, we have been coordinating all the way back to the legislative phase and sharing our term sheets and we have sent it to the sec and we shared it with the federal reserve and u.s. regulators. we have received tremendous feedback. we have differences because this is the only thing we have so many other things. we overseas markets and some are

well over 90% of the market. there are differences in the law itself and this is not a securities based swap, this is a security that was embedded in the law and i might sound like a difference, but it's actually a big difference and also congress told us and had direction for the cftc that was not included. it is about this direct and significant connection and i apologize. that is what we were at in regards to guidance and we did so. >> i appreciate your answers and encourage you to continue to try to coordinate what is reasonably

classifiable. chairman, a number of questions remain regarding the path forward and in my introductory comments i thought it was more of an agreement to collaborate further. you indicated he felt there was more specificity than what i suggested. could you explain that a little better and what the next steps are to implementing the path forward? >> why, thank you. we decided to put in writing the 10 or 15 pages about the path forward their thank you for highlighting. we have trading platforms in our guidance and we expressly said that a u.s. person could fulfill

some of their trading requirements under dodd-frank so they don't have to necessarily adjust to it here in the u.s. that is also expressly a guidance that everyone can use. we took most of that path forward wherever we could and we put it into guidance or somethings called no options. looking forward we will be working with europe and japan and canada and australia and hong kong or switzerland or you are they comparable rules for where we can on the entity level the requirement? we are talking about compliance determinations before december where we have the ability to alert market participants to that. >> thank you. >> senator menendez. >> thank you for your testimony. chairman white, let me ask about

the comments that are going on now with the sec as it relates to proposed money market fund rules. and i'm sure you already received a lot of responses to that. money market funds remain an important financing channel for investors for companies and local governments to obtain financing through money market funds and they have expressed concerns that one of the proposals about floating a net asset value could potentially cause some investors to turn away from money market funds and increase costs for borrowers. for example, the u.s. conference of mayors in an organization that i work with having been a former mayor, recently adopted resolution and the chairman has consent to talk about this for the record. where they talk about these

concerns, but i'm not mistaken it was the sec itself that among the study said that a lot of these insolvency issues might make it more understanding of what potentially exists in the marketplace. the dating is more likely to create a safeguard when we date this. are you going to be considerate of the consequences in the market that we are ready to determine here. are you going to be considering as part of the equation what happens in the marketplace and what happens with access to public entities like municipalities across the nation as well as other entities in terms of making this decision on what the rules should look like.

>> no question about that, senator. we have that kind of analysis aided by our economists. we have to have a prime institutional fund. we also invited comments on combining things. >> i appreciate the comment.

it is not the ultimate result i hope you will look at the real consequences and she just responded to another entity that may have their own 30. >> as i said, this is a space where the expertise has acted and we take input wherever it comes from. during your confirmation hearing i asked you about dodd-frank, which was the issue of having disclosure and the amount of ceo pay and i ask you to look at that as the chairperson and they suggested that the sec is moving forward with a proposal soon and

is that a correct report or is that an incorrect report. >> i know the report that you're referring to, and we will focus on that. >> okay. >> we have been waiting for several years now. but as of right now you have it. can you give me some timeframe here? >> it should be in the near future. >> i would hope that it is completed in the next month or two. >> thank you very much. >> senator toomey?

>> okay, thank you, mr. chairman. >> madam chairman, i just want to follow up and let me go to the question in implementing a jobs act. i continue to be frustrated for over a year now and it strikes me as a relatively straightforward and simple change in law that has been on the books for over a year. we still don't have a rule. what kind of progress are remaking? >> i think i have commented that from the outside the regulation should be one that should be done comparatively.

one of the reasons is it is taking longer front and center with the staff and to make sure that it is workable. it has not been used in recent years, particularly because one of the issues that we are focused on is not preemption given to that rule. making sure that it is actually used once we adopt final rules are that it's very much several things on from burners. >> along with several others. >> i know how lucky you are to put this on there. but does front burner things get taken care of this summer? fall reign with the same? >> one member of the commission says i hope that we'd reach that by default. >> thank you.

>> i would like to follow up on the question that senator menendez raised. >> can you summarize what you see as the advantages. we are talking about the daily disclosure of greater position, which is one of the proposals as i understand it for the non-prime institutional money funds to we had enhanced disclosures across the board. as you know, a number of them has made this floating alternative and it has been relevant to this. >> the argument that i most

frequently heard was to provide additional were precise information to investors. to the extent that that provided. secondly i would like to discuss the tax implications. but why is it necessary to do so when information is being provided. >> those are among the questions with the proposal. but the disclosure itself doesn't change the transaction value in or you need this to add to disclosure you'd basically be transacting at a market rate. knowing what this is does not deal necessarily what the gaming of the 1 dollar price. the additional money market and

they run the risk of the possibility of a risk or it's so all of that is included. >> it seems to me there is always a first advantage over whether you disclose this operation imposed the main argument that has been about transparency and greater disclosure that is achieved by simple disclosure. as you know, there is a consequence of these new changes affect themselves and have to be monitored. the sec has no authority to make that problem go away or solve that problem. >> that is correct. >> we are working closely with the irs on those issues.

it will be in effect part of the proposal that was adopted. and the irs on that tax aspect says they would not have that negative consequence and another issue that the irs has not concluded on, which includes a record-keeping requirement. but it really allows it to be very important to the bozo. >> i am concerned that the operational challenge and potential remaining tax consequences of this would create a huge disincentive for firms and institutions use. it is very valuable as a tool and i hope you will keep that in mind if you consider finalizing the rule. >> we certainly will. we have stated we are concerned about preserving liability. >> thank you. >> senator brown enact.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> as you know, they rely on aluminum to produce products including cars and other things or anything that rings are using their metal warehouses to delay a woman and her liberties. these warehouses are linked to the exchange and the u.s. and the uk authorities have oversight over these warehouses. ..

sent out notices to at least a couple of banks saying, don't destroy any e-mails. it suggesting there will be an investigation. so my question is, does the cftc have the legal authority to interrogate and investigate and address potential market manipulation occurring in u.s. warehouses that are harming u.s. companies? if not, how can that be? >> senator, we are market regulators overseeing the commodities futures swaps market and have clear authority to police these markets for fraud manipulation and other abuses and will use as the tories appropriately where we see abuses and pursue it.

that is in the physical commodity market as well as the derivative marketplace. we tend to do that when it is related to derivatives. the authorities are there. we also have authorities, dodd-frank included, authorities with regard to something called for and boards of trade. and may or may not be looking at because we don't comment. i think it would be better not to try prejudice anything that

we might be doing. >> okay. this is a question for both this white and mr. gibson. we know that as we heard in a hearing in my subcommittee last week, both some banks and oil trade to five oil tankers and trade oil futures. others on energy transmission rights. they sell energy derivatives. financial institutions in some cases control fleets of oil tankers and can withhold delivery while also wagering on the price of oil or they can speculate on the price of energy will controlling its supplies. we saw in today's settlement. a reuters story, a owning physical assets will trading in financial markets gives you the visibility of the market to make far more successful proprietary trading decisions in both physical and financial markets. trading with material nonpublic information.

the difference, a key point, this market points out the difference compared with equity markets is that it is perfectly legal. that certainly suggests a conflict of interest. should the rules -- and that suggests a question to both of you. should the rules for commodities markets be updated to prohibit trading in this kind of insider -- but at least without judging it call it nonmarket information. should these rules be updated? >> i think it is a subject matter that once it came to my attention fairly recently i have actually asked the staff to examine that question. the series of questions. i can't really respond further at this point. looking into that and frankly the range of possible disclosure issues that could be involved as well. >> based on the dodd-frank reforms we actually did

abcaeight our whole regime above got and manipulation rules. as a finalist about two years ago. and congress expressly focused on information and deceptive practices as it relates to an individual having information, the commodity markets have been looked at a, a grain elevator operator, farmer, rancher made us something about their crop and want to hedge that. we would not want to diminish that operator to be able to hedge that risk even though in a sense they might be the only one to know that the crop is not yielding as well as they thought were yielding better than i thought. there are some differences. the good news is that dodd-frank data include and be finalized rules that give us a lot of enhanced protection. as i say, there is a long history of allowing the hedgers

to really ensure that they can hedge their risk and not concern themselves with the might know something about the crop or what is happening on the ground that somebody else did not know. >> thank you. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses. i have not followed the issues as closely, i think i would simply say that there is knowledge in the field. an appropriate hedging that some of the representations seemingly were closer to manipulation than hedging. appreciate the work. i want to come back, chairman, to my favorite topic which is the jobs act again and the crowd funding issue. i think it is -- i know the senator work on this issue as well. i think there is an enormous amount of opportunity to use

this new tool for equity crowd funding that can really very together in a remarkable way, particularly for markets, where markets, smaller markets the town of accessed earlier stage capital, this really could be transformative. i've traveled around the country. there is an industry waiting for regulations. and what we egg knowledge on the front end, the nature of this will be i don't think the sac will be a perfect first time out and there will be people will lose money, but i do think that there will be the ability of the internet to kind of self police a bit and call out bad actors in an appropriate way and to work with you, i think, is again different than the analogy that was sometimes made back to the old telephone. a lot of fraud. so i am not sure you are going to give me the answer i am

looking for, but back to the analogy, i am hoping you will say this is front burner since it has been more than a year and we are seeing other nations around bubble of moving to the space and take away any potential first mover advantage america has to read how front-runners and within the parameters of what you have been able to say, a lot of folks waiting for you to get these regulations out. >> and i appreciate that, senator. at think there still is despite the length of time a great deal of excitement out there about this. again, i describe multiple threats to some degree, but if the crowd funding will making is certainly on one of those front burners. it has been quite an undertaking to some degree, although there cloud funding legislation does build and a number of investor projections. the funding portals.

there is she's there to make sure that that does not delay. >> because the process. >> tried to land that at the same time for cancer that that doesn't bill then other delays more than it needs to be treated is among the front burner rulemaking. it. >> summer, fall. >> summer. i guess i am defying the front burner to be so far into the fall. i don't want to -- again, what i said before is i really have separated out these works streams and prayer are ties as many as i can. i've get them done as they're ready to be done. it does not take away from what i said that it is certainly among those very front burners. >> i will acknowledge that this is a new space. i would simply make the and toro, that this is the dead. and, you know, i think that

there will be mistakes made. all of us recognize that there were challenges in the space. the potential upside in terms of connecting entrepreneurs that otherwise are not going to exist -- i was in richmond yesterday. i know you are familiar. the portal is a little better. less regulatory burdensome as the equity portal, although they announced the fact that they spent about seven or eight years being told everything there were doing was illegal. close to 900,000 alums and $500 million of lending with the rate of return for -- north of 98%. it is a pretty good system abroad and domestically perhaps. my hope will be that we keep this front burner.

i will run and of time. i simply wanted to get to your comments as well. the swap depository, the swamp depositories, how your work in. whether you will have to read duplicate what your colleague is time. we need to get these registered as quickly as possible. it will be an important part of transparency. >> just briefly on that, the sec has put out what we call the implementation policy. of will make things are our second category. the first is to make sure we get the cross border route and adopted. obviously mandatory clearing decisions have to be made, but i would not anticipate delay. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> senator taken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here today. one of the issues that we talked about over the past has been the

definition of fiduciary. it is coming -- obviously it is here again. now the you have had a few months in office, can you provide an update on the coordination between the sec and the department of labor on this issue of the definition of fiduciary? >> yes. obviously again we are independent agencies. i take all of the points in that space about the desirability for consistency. one of the things that we have done, we talk to representative this before. again, before my rival the staff has been working closely with the department of labor staff to make sure and that they understand the broker-dealer business model impact. obviously in terms of considering the fiduciary duty standard are also told of the things so we can do and not to.

commission structure remains. principal trading remains. what have done, july 5 was when common closed. our request for additional information. that is fairly recent. i have personally met with senior officials of the department of labor and directed staff to read the engage more actively than they have in the past to try to coordinate, try to make certain that the department of labor understands our perspective and we can provide expertise. there again different roles, different agencies, but that is the status. >> i appreciate you taking that effort. i appreciate that. on asset management study, as you know, responsible for the designation of systemically important non-bank institutions. instituted publicly that it is reviewing what risk if any the asset manager's post to the u.s.

financial system. the sec is the expert agency on asset management, both from its longest was oversight of the mutual-fund industry but often more recently with the dodd-frank requirements. advisers to private funds registered with the sec as investment visors. it will rule is the sec playing. is the sec being active here? if so is your expertise being reflected in the study? >> the answer is we're very active. the study is actually with the opposite financial research basically. but my staff is extremely active in providing comments, providing expertise in connection with the study. i can tell you when it will be completed, but we are quite active in participating in that

process. again, not being led by ellis. surely being listened to. and we are very focused on making certain that that level of activity and interface continues. >> one other question back on the definition of fiduciary. dimension to the end effect, the,. what do you see of the time from going forward? i did the sec and the plo setting the actual definition. >> i can speak for the deal oil i think that they are considering what to do next. we are focused on this. there concern is making sure they have all of the expertise in data. in terms of a timetable for what we may do, that is something we are focused on an obviously have a full plate of mandated role

makings. it is important to me that we get to wherever we're going and that as quickly as we can. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to start by saying, you have really done some remarkable work, chairman, last four years, taxpayers, concern worst commercial backbone, something that i hope will act as a model for some of the other leaders of our regulatory agencies, laid out a road map for the cftc to follow in the years to come. and do have really done a great job in identifying priorities where we should be in will we should do. i have a specific follow-up question to which you have laid out. that is, as you know, the cftc has been under sustained pressure to delay implementing the rules the you have already worked out. and so my question is, could you

comment on how important it is to stick to the timetables that the cftc have laid out? >> i think you for that. a think it's important because a million people lost their jobs. there is still risk in the financial system and there will always be risk in the financial system. who will truly and too big to fail when it to cover and finish off his transparency and risk reduction things three a deadline just helps people come into compliance. you're a professor. you know that sometimes having said deadlines -- and so we work with market participants to smooth the transition where appropriate and use tools to give them relief. but stick to the deadlines. >> good. thank you. i wanted to ask both of your question about enforcement. we have spoken individually about enforcement multiple times

and recently you announced that the sec will be requiring admission of guilt. in more cases i think that is powerfully important to read it shows real toughness in your enforcement strategy and that that will help build leverage, even when you end up with some. but when i talk about the importance of being willing to take large financial restitutions to trial, people tell me the agencies don't have a enough resources. there enforcement divisions have a tough time going up against big wall street corporations. so can each of you discuss with you have the resources and importance of resources and having an effective enforcement strategy. ameristar with you? >> yes. there is no question that additional resources are essential to our successful enforcement strategy, including

the change that the chair preferences. one of our specific requests in that budget is for additional trial attorneys. and we can't judge at this point how many additional trials we will have, but we already don't have enough. we have to be prepared to go to trial. we are prepared to go to trial. the records that the sec has had in trials. about 80%. one of the thing is, we need resources across the board. our budget situation is, we are budget neutral, deficit neutral, and i would certainly hope that we can get the funding. it really is essential. >> thank you. >> we have not shied away from bringing cases against large banks and exchanges and sometimes killing straight into court. i would say our enforcement resources are tiny compared to the size of the market.

and you know, the american public to $180 billion in to aig. that is 600 times what the president asked for funding. and our enforcement folks are only about 150 of our people. unfortunately we are trying to make the best decisions, but often we have to delay justice because we don't have the right resources. >> it is a very important point. it seemed clear that if congress wants to have a tough what start it needs to make sure that the dog has not been starved. i appreciate your comments. one more question for you. a deadlock principle of corporate governance. in recent years a number of companies, facebook, linkedin, groupon, have given special

insiders voting powers that are far greater than those available to the investing public. this can have short-term benefits in some cases but undermines the basic concept of ownership and says in effect as some inside owners can help themselves even if it is at the expense of other outside owners. last october the council of institutional investors wrote letters requesting that the private companies seeking an initial listing from having unequal voting rights. ever a follow-up letter to the exchange last month. i have not gotten a very encouraging reply. do you support the principle of one share, one-vote? if so, do you have a position on whether or not these change should required? >> i think it is -- the voting rights and the voting rights structure is dictated by state law actually.

in the sac years ago actually attempted to act in this space in that direction. but there was an authority issue that the court overturned the action that the sec did take. so if there is to be movement in that direction -- and i cannot prejudge because i would have to judge when it comes again, it would come from the sr0 in terms of the legal decision as to the sec authority would not necessarily preclude the has ro. they have a role the private disenfranchisement, but that is different and when you were talking about. >> i understand. the question i was asking his basic support. >> i certainly support shareholder franchise moved to the degree -- to the most significant degree possible. it is not an issue that i think the sec can act on its own.

>> and stan that limitation. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you very much. thank you both for testifying. i wanted to return to the topic that the senator was pursuing. we have a situation now where we have an examination under way. the settlement is pending. talking about the market manipulation strategies ever used to crank up prices that were unacceptable. we have certainly the situation with the libor rate to more recently. a big article in the new york times over aluminum warehouses. we have the public discussion of the s a ceiling.

and correct me if i am wrong, but basically approving a significant share of the copper assets with the anticipation of a strategy that might look something like what is happening in lebanon. i find it fascinating that we have a variety of regulatory powers but essentially dispersed among a number of different agencies a picture of companies, big banks that have enormous assets being allowed to buy vast quantities of a particular commodity and controlled the distribution systems through pipelines through offshore oil tankers, morales is the only providing a huge amount of market permission but also to have the scale in terms of supply and demand and have some influence over price. if you're simultaneously allowed to bet on price and your love to

have your thumb on the scale reflecting the price it is a huge conflict of interest. we have in dodd-frank and within the volker framework conflict of interest provisions that provide some powers. we certainly have the fed that has control over commodity trading assets and a reasonable benefit test that is to be applied to let. and as you noted, the cftc has considerable power regarding market manipulation. despite the powers invested in the fed and the sec in the cftc is seems like their is a huge amount of conflict of interest in the huge amount of market manipulation. does not seem like there is much action. meanwhile this is one -- when these prices, it is a huge tax on the economy whether in the price of a beer can, aluminum

siding, copper and it goes into every electricity channel through the house. should we expect more? is the regulatory palin to dispersed? what needs to be done? essentially the law is written time and time again to try with such conflicts of interest and manipulation and trading commodities while also betting on the price. yet somehow we in the poll that. how are we to explain this and what is to be done? miguel start with you, chair. >> senator, i could not agree more that these markets matter. the matter on the table at night in mater for somebody buying a six-pack of beer. then matter when we fill up a tank of gas and then matter what we take out a mortgage or a stigma on.

we at the cftc oversee markets for commodities and commodities and derivatives, futures and swaps including interest rates. we took appropriately tough action about three banks that were readily and pervasively raising interest rates. we will do similar if we see it whether corn or wheat, metals, energy products. the federal reserve has the authority as to whether bank holding companies are actually in that space. actually hold those assets. what is critical is that the cftc in sure the the markets are free of fraud, manipulation, and other abuses. congress has a strong pull on enforcement. we need to get behind it as senator warren said. i do think we have the strong legal tools to do what we are supposed to. >> a number of articles have said in terms of being

aggressive regulator and manipulation is to be replicated in the metals market. is that a model you're looking to is to think about where the agency goes? >> we have been collaboration. they take the primary need and the electricity market, as you know. we have some involvement if it is in the futures or swaps on electricity. we principle we have used our authorities with regard to those tour of the market's. at think we will continue to do so. but as i said, and as you pointed out, these are important markets. >> is there such an an end conflict in honing commodities in the tools to control the flow of the commodities, lawrences, pipelines, should is simply be a situation where if you're in the

business of putting on the price you cannot engage in this commercial activities? >> i think, senator, the challenge we have is that hedgers, whether a farmer, rancher, -- >> we're not talking farmers or ranchers. we're only talking about a situation where people can no vast shares of the commodity market. >> you're absolutely right. there are speculator scamander have been. the tools congress give us are to set appropriate levels. we do need to move forward. that was a will be finalized. the court vacated it. two trade associations challenged it. we do need to move toward and finalize those rules. we have some interesting provisions of dodd-frank that conflicts that large banks, they have to separate our research. i would say are doing research on oil and gas and are treating. there are conflicts of interest

revisions that we also have. ultimately it is the federal reserve that would decide whether they're in a space of all. >> my time is up. i'm sorry, i don't have time to get your insight. >> of want to thank the chair and chairman for being here with us today. the implementation of wall street reform continues to be high priority. the committee appreciate your hard work. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> mark twain was a very young man when he was here in carson city. 1835 and derives 1861. he's like 25, killing of 26. a very formative time in his life. the experience that he has here, all of the things that he does and then the things that he writes and then the notoriety that he gets beginning in san francisco and new york city laid the foundation for the man who would become one of the greatest writers in american history. i would argue that without the carson city experience samuel clemens could have never been marked lanes. >> more as book tv and american history tv looks at the history and literary life of carson city

nevada saturday at in a stint on c-span2 and sunday at five on c-span three. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. >> president obama today offered a deal to republicans that cut corporate tax rates in exchange for more government spending and jobs programs. he made those remarks will visiting an amazon facility in tennessee.

[applause] >> hello, gen . it is good to be back in tennessee. [applause] great to be here in an amazon. i want to think bloody of with the introduction this is something here. i just finished. one little corner of this massive facility. last year during the busiest day of the christmas rush customers around the world order more than

300 items from amazon every second. the north pole the suffering here. a bunch of good-looking walls here. them before we set a one to recognize your manager mentor back. the mayor of chattanooga. and you have one of the finest and and i know. so i can hear today to talk a little more about something else

discussing last week. that's what we need to do as a country to be secure a better bargain with no plans a national strategy to make toward that every single person was willing to work hard in this country and has a chance to succeed. you heard because menino. it costs millions of americans their jobs in their homes. but because the american people are resilient we bounced back.

we took out a broken health care system, invested in american technology to reverse our addiction to foreign oil, change the texture that is become tilted too much in favor of the wealthy at the expense of working families, saved an auto industry and pinkston gm and the uaw working together we are bringing jobs back here to america including 1800 autoworkers. 1800 workers are on the job to lead where a plan was once closed. today our businesses have created jobs this year were off to our best private sector job growth since 1999. we know sell more products made in america than ever before. [applause]

we produce more renewable energy and a roof for corporate use more natural gas than anybody else in the world. health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. our deficits are falling of the fastest rate in 60 years. so thanks to hard-working folks like you, the grid and resilience of the american people we have been able to clear away some of the rubble from the financial crisis. we have started laying in the foundation for a stronger, more durable america, the kind of economic growth that is broadbased, the foundation that will require to make this another american century. but as i said last weekend as every middle-class family will tell you, we are not there yet. even before the financial crisis hit we were going through a

decade where a few of the tub or doing better and better, but most families were working harder and harder just to it by. and reversing that trend should be washington's highest priority [applause] it is my highest priority. so far for most of this year we have seen an endless parade of distraction and political posturing and phonies candles. we keep on shifting away to the shifting our attention away from what we should be focused on which is how we strengthen the middle class and grow the economy further money. and as washington heads toward yet another budget debate the stakes could not be higher, and that is why i am visiting cities and towns like this to lay out my ideas for how we can build on

the cornerstone of what it means to be middle-class in america. a good job with good wages. a good education. a home to call your own. affordable health care that is there for you when you get sick. a secure retirement, even if you're not rich. more chances for folks are on their way into the middle class as long as they're willing to work for it. and most importantly the chance to pass on a better future for our kids. so i am doing a series of speeches, but i came to join newly today talk about the first and most important cornerstone of middle-class security, and that is a good job and a

durable, growing industry. it is hard to get the other stuff going if you don't have a good job. and the trick is everything else and will be talking about really is about jobs. preparing our children and workers with a global constitution there will face is all about jobs. housing finance systems that make it easier and safer to buy and build new jobs is about jobs in the construction industry. health care that frees you from the fear of losing everything after you work so hard and having the freedom to start your own business because you know you'll be will to get health care. that's about jobs. and obviously retirement benefits speak to the quality of our jobs. and let me say this, saying everyone here understands, jobs are a lot more than just paying the bills. jobs are about more than just statistics.

we have never just have a paycheck. a job as a source of pride, source of dignity, the way you look after your family. [applause] it is proof you're doing the right thing and meeting irresponsibility in contributing to the fabric of your community and helping to build the country that is what a job is all about. is not just about a paycheck. it is not just about paying the bills. it is also about knowing when you are doing is important and counts. we should be doing everything we can as a country to create more good jobs that pay good wages. seriously. now, here is the thing, chattanooga, the problem is not the we don't have ideas about

how we can create more jobs. we have a lot. there are plenty of independent economists and business owners and people from both parties agree on some of the ingredients that we need for creating good jobs. you have heard them debated again and again. i have proposed a lot of these ideas myself just two years ago. the american jobs sackful of ideas that every independent economists said would create more jobs. some were passed by congress, but i have to admit, most of them are not. sometimes their warranty is that historically have republican support. putting people back to work rebuilding america's infrastructure, equipping our kids and workers with the best skills, leading the world of scientific research that helps to pave the way for new jobs and

new industries, accelerating clean energy and natural gas revolutions, fixing a broken immigration system so that american workers are not undermined because some businesses are unscrupulous. [applause] independent economists say immigration reform or boost our economy by more than a choice in dollars. so we have ideas out there. and we know that they can work, and if we don't make these investments and reforms, we might as well be waving the white flight to the rest of the world because they're moving forward. they're not slowing down. china, germany, india, they are growing. we cannot just sit by and did nothing.

doing nothing does not help the middle class. so today i came here to offer a framework that might help break through some of the political logjam in washington and get congress to move on some of these proven ideas. but let me briefly analyze some of the areas that i think we need to focus on of the need to create jobs with good wages in durable industries. areas that will fuel future growth. number one, jobs in american manufacturing. you know, over the past four years for the first time since the 1990's the number of manufacturing jobs in america ..