they have worse assets and are supposed to do the tests as well which makes it completely than you are supposed to do these evaluations in the normal conditions and other crisis conditions and i see many banks that are broken it would be better to close them and the other ones. >> it's not what they be in the united states but in fact this kind of thing happens extremely infrequently but if you look at the whole world that is another matter the memories sometimes fade faster. >> i wonder in the 35 years had

something to do with the fact that the financial liberalization hadn't yet happened and that that had something to do with the stability of the -- >> it surely did. the fact that the stock market kind of went up 15 to 20% a year every year through the 50s even though economic performance was kind of lousy and getting worse had something to do with a growing sense the world what kind of reverse to decreases in the risk premiums but no doubt what you are describing is a portion of the story the extent to which one could go back to

that in the modern world. >> i have a question in terms of a lesson learned from the last episode in the recession in the u.s. some would say that a lot of policymakers and attention went to strengthening the financial center wall street and there was considerable success there and too little was done to prop up main street cleaning the mortgage voters were underwater and for various reasons that was it took sometimes propel the market to recover. so that explains the importance of the financial sector in terms of providing electricity to the

system. it might have been neglected into the reason for the delayed recovery so i was wondering if any of you or all of you have a role in that. thank you. >> i was in the administration and was involved in those policies. i don't think that anybody involved feels fully satisfied with the way that it played out and i think that the pace at which the resources were distributed was less than was anticipated or that was desired. but i think that much of the commentary does i think miss the mark. everyone understood that housing was at the center of the crisis. everyone understood that there were opportunities where you had a guy that had a house that was

worth $200,000 for a mortgage with $240,000 was about to get foreclosed in a way that was going to turn the house to be worth $100,000 if he got his mortgage reduced to $150,000 he would be happy, the bank would be happy. everyone involved understood that. so the failure to understand that was not the reason. nor was the error out of any kind of excessive loyalty to wall street. everyone would have liked to have donovan fantastic things for millions of voting america americans. as a car that is the wrong theory. so, what was the issue? and i'm not necessarily saying this dealt with correctly but here was the problem. the problem was that there were senate households like the one i described for which if you came along it would reduce the mortgage. it would be a improvement and

every one. for every one of those households, there were six who were paying their mortgage to their institution every week and there were a lot of others who didn't buy a house because they thought they couldn't afford a house and they didn't want to go into debt. the question is what do you do? what you want to do is do something for the first group and not something that turns the six other people into people who were going into default and needing to be bailed out by taxpayers or putting a major burden on an already undercapitalized financial institution so the programs were designed and quite complex ways to target the place where the assistance of the efficacious to avoid setting off an academic of defaults that would either be

expensive for taxpayers or be a major problem for the financial institutions. i think i woul the literature te expectations who designed them. not reaching people who should have been reached and none of the error of reaching people who shouldn't have been reached and the setting off a set of defau default, but that's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. if you had created a situation where all over america, people were deciding they needed to stop making payments so that they could qualify for the mortgage relief programs you could have easily substantially exacerbated the financial crisis. if you have said that the government was going to take on a liability that bore any close to resemblance to the magnitude

of the total underwater quantity of equity in the economy coming to would have been taking on a vast expenditures or there may have been better ways of doing that with hindsight into the problems evolved to be more active and it should have been that way much earlier but the theory that it was either stupidity or the analysis that caused more resources to flow to housing i guess i would firmly insist are wrong. [laughter] >> my question, do you think that europe will be able to achieve a banking unit?

>> yes but it's going to take a bit longer. quite a bit longer than the present schedule. >> i am with the recovery board. i have a question regarding the student loan debt that must be a potential cause. i had a conversation with one of the major banking associations in the department. and they are very well concerned about this just with the massive amount of debt students have and the lack of jobs, especially good paying jobs. >> the chairman of the federal reserve -- [laughter] to address that question. >> you raised two issues come at a studenupa student at issue ans

issue and i think that -- was me just start by saying that you talked about the employment population ratio. i think the unemployment rate probably understates the degree of the legal market and overstates it somewhat because there are important downward trends in participation, but that being said, i think that we would agree that there is an awful lot of slack in the labor market in a lot of young people living with their parents and the like and that is a very important imperative and that why the federal reserve in particular is taking strong actions to try to support job creation so that is a very important issue. student loans, these first it's a good thing that we have student loans. obviously it wouldn't be good if people couldn't invest in their own human capital and take and

make that investment. unfortunately, student loans are not underwritten in anyway and so we are relying pretty much on the borrower to make the judgment about whether this is a good investment or not and it's not always a good judgment. in terms of the financial crisis, i think that it is the case that student loan debt which is not a dischargeable in bankruptcy for example is a burden which is affecting, for example, the libert ability of e to buy a first home, affecting other purchasing decisions they might make, affecting their overall financial condition. so in that respect it is yet one more drag to the extent there is a love of student debt with people helping people who are not working.

i don't see it as a source of the financial services per se simply because it is rarely the assets of federal government in the top of financial institutions. i don't see it affecting the stability of the financial system anytime soon. more thought needs to be given to helping people make better choices when they borrow to make sure that they are making good investments with the money that they borrow. >> we've come to the end of the panel. is there anything that any of you want to add? good. let me thank all of the people that have made the conference a success.

panelists, i want to thank some of the organizers, not in the long list, but with apologies to others and who organized the conference. finally, forgiving the excuse to have the conference together for much we learned a lot. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

secretary of state john kerry back from the negotiating table will be on capitol hill wednesday take us inside the room. it's been reported that nuclear

talks with iran fail to reach an agreement. how does the fallout has been? >> well, there were rising expectations as the seven countries met in geneva in the last week. it seems like within reach the iranians said so at the british said so, but there was a bit of turbulence then at the end on saturday by foreign minister came to get a radio interview and said he had problems with the text draft of an agreement that was being circulated and he said he wanted more limits on an heavy reactor and that the iranians are developing and he wanted fervor disposition of the medium and rich uranium that iran has. by late saturday night it looks

like the world of power including the u.s., the europeans, china and russia had agreed generally on an approach and air on couldn't sign off on it. the iranian team would get clearance for the deal and some diplomats are saying that one obstacle was iran wanted a commitment from the six nations to enrich uranium going forward if it signed ontog this deal if it is an interim deal to begin with. it is possible at the next meeting on november 20, they will be able to get across the finish line, but for the moment

the obama administration has to deal with oppositions to the deal in congress and israelcoun among arab countries in the persian gulf as well. you >> you mentioned those outward comments by the foreigngnin minister. how much weight do you think that they have emerging from th? latest talks? diplo >> of the diplomats say that this was not. but it's clear several of thethe countries in the five plus one group had to concerns and the deal not close to being completed, but it really came

down to the nitty-gritty as thet have not done before so maybe it is only natural that there is allegations that would have issues with it. in any event, they seem to have come together at the end but it seems like a going forward, when they get to the phase of having to negotiate a final deal which may have been. there is even more disagreement among the six powers. >> the united states and iran traded accusations monday over.n who was to blame for the failure of the latest international talk limit the nuclear program even as they existed remains possible with that kind of a blame game what are the expectations for the next round of talks coming up at the end of the month? gus

>> the secretary of state and the foreign minister. they are both also interesting if they see the good chance that he'll can be done. even though there is a maneuvering and there's a, public-relations contest the iranians released the new administration in iran to deal with the economic pressure on iran but the u.s. also wants a deal because they don't want to have to go to waran with iran ai they don't want the deal of them obtaining of a nuclear weapons capability on the record of this administration. so, there is a lot of pressure for the two sides to get a deal. it just -- there are sticking points as well. >> he reports the senate would hit hard on any plans to consider further economic

sanctionspl on iran until the chamber is briefed by the obamat administration this week. it's been reported that the secretary of state will brief the senate banking committee on wednesday.g what will we hear from him and what weight is the decision to hold additional sanctions likely to have? >> i think the briefing is going to be behind closed doors. is it, we may hear from senators afterwards a bit about whathe h happened. but certainly, if congress is to impose the sanctions that could maketiat negotiations more difficult. it could encourage some of the countries that are -- that have been purchasers of iranian oil that they should stop complying with u.s. sanctions and there

could be more pressure from countries that have been holding the purchases. they may decide that there is not really a diplomatic outcome and prospect here so they oughtt to start by the ordeal again.' that is the administration warning that o the new sanctionu could blow up all of the diplomacy at this point. many people in congress are nots convinced of that and so we are going to see those choices starkly this week. >> i want to ask about one more story today in the "washington post." the headline reads the defense officials the oklahoma senator n killed in a weekend plane crash in tolls a and confirmed by the secretary of defense who released a statement about the place last evening. wanted to get your thoughts. >> i'm not really well-informedo i saw the report as much as i k.

knew about it. >> we will leave it there.eave i talking with paul richter of the "los angeles times" covering the state department. thank you so much for joining us by phone. >> she would see as gifts for her parents on christmas and birthdays she would write a poem and illustrated. the writing contests and bleeding essays and one was actually question number three who are three people in history in which you would know and the first two that she mentions are charles, the french poet and the offer -- author. in the early 1950s, jacqueline

bouvier was hired as a camera girl for the "the washington times" herald. one column about we have on display is somewhat prophetic because she interviewed vice president who would be adversaries in the 1960s presidential campaign. and as we know in her later life, the last part of her life she was a very prolific editor of books in new york city working with several different authors on the books in several different topics. >> we are going to bring

he was speaking at the republican fundraiser last week. also speaking the iowa congressman tom latham. we will show you as much as we can until the events with senator warren gets underway. [applause] >> thank you. i've got some fond memories of campaigning competing in the iowa caucuses. the only thing that i regret is taking that really big bite out of that corndog at the state

fair. i was probably going to see that one again sometime, do you thi think? as the son of a farmer i always feel comfortable coming here and i think it is your midwestern values and your sense of community, your love of country and your deep and abiding faith that remind me of the place i grew up in called paint creek. the only difference is that we rarely had any snow. we specialized in cattle in so-called and grew cotton instead of corn. i speak tonight out of a love and deep concern for our country. we have lost our way. the national debt is approximately the size of our national gdp. the best i can tell there is no serious plan to address that.

the number of americans is more than doubled as the last decade. secretary vilsack once called the food stamp program an economic stimulus. food stamps are not the solution to the economic problems. they are a symptom of the problem. [applause] people can't find work. they can't find good work. they can find the government dependencies. we are watching this new national healthcare law literally unravel before our eyes. the president said no one would lose their health plan except of course the millions of americans who will. to quote rush limbaugh next he will be saying if you like your guns, you will be able to keep them. [applause]

instead of solving problems from our leaders shut down government. it's amazing to me that the obama administration is capable of barricading a war memorial despite the government being shut down, but they can't operate a website when it gets up and running. it's not just that the political party agrees but that they are so disagreeable. so we not only -- but distrust our leaders have forgotten how to govern. and believe me i know a few things about forgiving. [applause] when millions of americans cannot trust the president about something so fundamental as their health care, health insurance, the damage is far greater than when a president parses the words and tries to

tell us what the definition of is is. if i may be so bold to quote a t-shirt made her from minnesota in a crowd full of iowans, the nsa is the only part of government that is actually listening. [applause] washington is so determined as an ideological agenda they refuse to listen to the plight of work in america. they don't care if people lose their health insurance because in their estimation, the american people can't determine what level of coverage they need. they don't care that treating carbon dioxide as they pollute and will be story jobs in the industry because you're too is he pandering to the

environmental extremes. they don't care that every child born into america today will inherit more than $50,000 the national debt because their experiment in the big government is too important. ..

>> that are outperforming blue states, to states that are cutting taxes, controlling spending, balancing budgets and are creating jobs. the change we're looking for is not a speech with a lofty rhetoric. what we're looking for can be found in the record of governors like nikki haley, susana mart fez, rick scott, terry branstad. [applause] conservative governors. conservative governors who are cutting taxes and controlling spending and investing in jobs. governor branstad signed the largest tax cut in iowa history. it's no wonder iowa has added 163,000s and $7.3 billion in economic development projects under his watch.

[applause] yeah, i get up every day and go to work, because i know if i don't, terry will be there. [laughter] or he'll send kim. [laughter] he's a serious governor making a real difference. iowa's future is bright because of the leadership of terry branstad, and he and he has assembled an incredible team. and i will suggest to you his strongest asset is with us here tonight. lieutenant governor kim reynolds is part of that branstad/reynolds administration. [applause] she deserves our thanks. she is dedicated to this state. and there are states like iowa that are succeeding, and then there are states that are sinking. there are states that are in trouble.

states like california, illinois, california -- [laughter] there are states that are on the rise, debts exploding, capital and personal income are fleeing those states. listen, if you live in california and you rent a u-haul to move your company, it costs twice as much to go from san francisco to usa, texas, than the other way around because you cannot find a truck big enough that you can afford to flee california. [laughter] [applause] that's a fact. my home state is creating more jobs than any other state in the nation. we've rated as the best business climate nine years in a row. and the reason for that is not rocket science. we cut taxes, we didn't spend

all the money, we created fair and predictable regulations, we put legal reforms into place so that you would not be sued frivolously. and then we got out of the way. you see, because of that we have an abundance of jobs and revenue. we're demonstrating that while you can't spend your way to prosperity, with the right policies you can grow yourself there. there are two visions in our country, two visions that are playing out. there's this washington blue state vision and one that's being enacted in red states. and the vision that wins out whether the big government, protectionist nanny state vision offered by democratic leaders or the limited government, the free market, freedom-loving states that's offed up by republican -- offered up by republican governors. they're going to determine the future of our nation.

america cannot sustain its current fiscal course. we can't continue to borrow trillions from bankers in beijing and brazil and tokyo. the downgrading of our credit for the first time two years ago shouldn't have surprised anyone. our leaders were fighting over a few billion in spending cuts while our debt soared by trillions in the last five years. long before our president presided over our downgrading of our credit, he was downgrading our standing in the world with. in the world. he alienated israel, he emboldened iran, he muddled through the arab spring without any foreign policy, and his latest gambit in syria was a

demonstration of weakness in a world that needs a strong america. as dennis miller put it, we gotta be the only country in the world that sends out a "save the date" attack card. [laughter] [applause] it is not in our interests to give advance warning to an enemy. as an old air force pilot, i will tell you we want the first sign of our coming to be craters in their soil. [applause] we have to reestablish america's primacy in the world, and it starts with the foreign policy that ronald reagan referred to as peace through strength.

[applause] it's not too late. it's not too late for america to lead in the world. we can do it again, but only, only if we get our house in order first. our national debt is a national security issue. the nationalization of our health care system will only further erode our economy. borders left unenforced leaf us subject -- leave us subject to future attacks. it is time for washington to focus on the few things that the constitution establishes as the federal government's role; securing the borders, defending our country, delivering -- >> we'll leave the last moment or two of this and take you live to elizabeth warren, the senator from massachusetts, speaking at the u.s. capitol in the russell senate office building. she's speaking to a group called the persons for financial reform and the roosevelt institute,

it's just getting underway live here on c-span2. >> we fought shoulder to shoulder throughout the dodd-frank effort and after that in the regulatory efforts and continue that battle today. so i want to start this by saying a very big thank you to americans for financial reform and to the roosevelt institute for inviting me to speak here today. i've been working very closely with afr and with roosevelt, and i am delighted to be here. you know, it has been five years since the financial crisis, but we all remember its darkest days. credit dried up, the stock market crashed, historic institutions like lehman brothers and merrill lynch or were wiped out. there were legitimate fears that our economy was tumbling over a cliff, be and we were heading into another great depression. we averted that grim outcome, but the damage was staggering.

a recent report by the federal reserve of dallas estimated that the financial crisis cost us upwards -- are you ready? -- cost us upwards of $14 trillion, that's trillion with a t. that's $120,000 for every american household, more than two years' worth of income for the average family. billions of dollars in retirement savings disappeared, millions of workers lost their job and their sense of financial security, entire communities were devastated. and a new census bureau study shows that -- just a couple of months ago came out showing that home ownership rates for families with young children have declined by 15%. the crash of 2008 changed lives forever.

in april 2011 after a two-year bipartisan inquiry, the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations released a 635-page report that identified the primary factors that led to the crisis. the list included high-risk mortgage lending, inaccurate credit ratings, exotic financial products and, to top it all off, the repeated failure of regulators to stop the madness. as senator tom coburn, the subcommittee's ranking member, said: blame for this mess lies everywhere from federal regular raters -- regulators who cast a blind eye, wall street bankers who let greed run wild and members of congress who failed to provide oversight. even jamie dimon, the ceo of jpmorgan chase, has emphasized that inadequate regulation was a source of the crisis. he wrote this to his

shareholders: had there been stronger standards in the mortgage markets, one huge cause of the recent crisis might have been be avoided. the crash happened quickly and dramatically, and it caught our nation -- and apparently even our regulators -- by surprise. but don't let that fool you. the causes of the crisis were years in the making, and the warning signs were everywhere. as many of you know, i've spent my career studying the growing economic pressures on middle class families, families that worked hard and played by the rules and still can't get ahead. and i've also studied the financial services industry and how it's developed over time. a generation ago the price of financial services, credit cards checking accounts, mortgages, signature loans, was pretty easy to see. both borrowers and lenders understood the basic terms of the deal.

but by the time the financial crisis hit, a different form of pricing had emerged. lenders began to use low advertising prices on the front end to entice their customers in and then made their real money with fees and charges and penalties and repricing back in the fine print. buyers became less and less able to evaluate the risks of the financial product. comparison shopping became almost impossible. and a market became less efficient. credit card companies took the lead with their contracts ballooning from a page and a half back in 1980 to more than 30 pages by the beginning of the 2000s, and teaser rate credit cards that advertise these deceptively low interest rates paved the way for teaser rate mortgages. now, when i worked to set up the consumer financial protection bureau, i pushed hard for steps

that would increase transparency in the market place. the crisis began one lousy mortgage at a time, and there's a lot we must do to make sure there are never again so many lousy mortgages. the cfpb made some important steps in the right direction, and i think we're a lot safer now than we were then. but what about the other causes of the crisis? there's no question that dodd-frank was a strong bill, the strongest in three generations. i didn't have a chance to vote for it because i wasn't in the senate yet, but if i'd had the chance, i would have voted for it twice. [laughter] i would have. but the law is not perfect. and so it's important to ask where are we now, five years after the crisis hit and three years after dodd-frank? now, i know there's been a lot of discussion today about a

variety of issues, but i want to focus on one in particular: where are we now on too big to fail? where are we on making sure that the behemoth institutions on wall street can't bring down the economy with a wild gamble? where are we on ending a system that lets investors and ceos scoop up all the profits in good times and then stick the tax pa payer -- taxpayer with the losses when things go wrong? you know, after the crisis there was a lot of discussion about how too big to fail distorted the marketplace creating lower borrowing costs for the largest institutions and a competitive disadvantage for the smaller ones. there was a lot of talk about moral hazard and the dangers of big banks getting a free, unwritten government-guaranteed insurance policy. sure, there was talk, but look what happened.

today the four biggest banks are 30% larger than they were just five years ago. and the five large banks hold more than half of all the total banking assets in the country. one study earlier this year showed that the too big to fail status is giving the ten biggest u.s. banks an annual taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion. wow. who would have thought five years after the crisis that we witnessed firsthand the dangers of an overly concentrated financial system that the too big to fail problem would only have gotten worse? now, there are many who say, sure, too big to fail is an -- isn't over yet, but congress

should wait to act further until the agencies have had a chance to issue a lot of the dodd-frank required regulations. and it's true, there are still rules left to be written, and that's because the agencies have missed more than 60% of tear statutory deadlines -- their statutory deadlines. now, i don't understand this logic. since when does congress set deadlines which regulators then miss most of them and then take that failure as a reason not to act? i thought that if the regulators failed, it was time for congress to step in. that's what oversight means, and that's certainly a principle that would have saved our country during the financial crisis. so let's put the pieces together. think of these two things. it has been three years since dodd-frank was passed, and the biggest banks are bigger than ever, the risk to the system has

grown, and the market distortions have continued. and second, while the consumer agency has met every single statutory deadline so we know it's possible to get the job done, the other regulators have missed their deadlines and not given us much reason for confidence. the result is that the too big to fail problem remains. now, i add that up, and it's clear to me, i think it's time to act. the last thing we should do is wait for another crisis, for another london whale or another libor disgrace or another row bow-signing -- robo-signing scandal before we take action. for that reason, i've partnered with senators john mccain, maria cantwell and angus king to create the 21st century

glass-steigel act. the 1933 version of glass teeing el -- glass-spheeg allayed the ground work, but throughout the 1980s and 1990s, congress and the regulators chipped away at glass-steagall's protection and a sharp increase in systemic risk. they finally finished that task with the 1999 passage of graham-leech-bliley which eliminated protections altogether. so the 21st century act would reinstate the protections, it would wall off depository institutions from riskier activities like investment banking, swaps dealing and private equity activities, it would force some of the biggest financial institutions to break apart and eliminate their

ability to rely on federally-insured goes siss -- deposits as a backstop for their high risk activities. in other words, a new glass-steagall act would attack both the too big and to fail. it would reduce the failures of the big banks by making banking boring, by protecting deposits and providing stability even in bad times. and it would reduce too big birdies mantling the behemoths so that big banks would still be big, but not too big to fail, or for that matter, too big to manage, too big to regulate, too big for trial or too big for jail. big banks would once again have an understandable balance sheet, and with that would come greater market discipline. sure, the lobbyists for wall street say that the sky will fall if they can't use deposits

and checking accounts to fund their high risk activities. but they said that in the 1930 too, and they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. the glass-steagall act would restore the stability of the financial system that began to disappear in the 9 -- 1980s and 1990s. now, this is one way to deal with too big to fail, ask i think it would -- and i think it would work. and i am very grateful to afr's continued push to make it a reality. but there are other approaches too, so what i want to know is this: how much longer should congress wait for the regulators to fix this problem? another three months? another three years? or until the big banks crash the economy again? treasury secretary jack lew recently said that if too big to fail is still a problem at the end of the year, it might be time to consider other options.

anyone counted how close we're getting to the end of the year? [laughter] now, i applaud secretary lew for laying out a timeline, and i'd like to see the other administration officials and regulators follow suit. if dodd-frank gives regulators the tool to end too big to fail, great. end too big to fail. but if the regulators won't end too big to fail, then congress must act to protect our economy and prevent future crises. we should not accept the financial system that allows biggest banks to emerge from a crisis in record-setting shape while working americans continue to struggle. and we should not accept a regulatory system that is so besieged by lobbyists for the big banks that it takes years to deliver rules, and then the rules that are delivered are often watered down and ineffective. what we need is a system that

puts an end to the boom and bust cycle, a system that recognizes we don't grow this country from the financial sector, we grow this country there the middle class. from the middle class. powerful interests will fight to hang on to every benefit and every subsidy they now enjoy. even after exploiting consumers, larding their books and making bad bets that brought down the economy is and forced taxpayer bailouts, the big wall street banks are not chastened. they have fought to delay and hamstring the implementation of financial reform, and they will continue to fight every inch of the way. that's the battlefield. that's what we're up against. but david beat goliath with the establishment of the cfpb. and just a few months ago with

the confirmation of rich cordray. david beat goliath with the passage of dodd-frank. we did that together. americans for financial reform, the roosevelt institute and so many of you in this room. i am confident that david can beat goliath on too big to fail. we just have to pick up the slingshot again. it's good to see all of you here. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> sure. let me just make sure. i never own my own schedule. we want to do questions for just a minute? is that okay? holding up two fingers which i think means two questions. >> thank you so much. so there's a microphone on the side that people can introduce themselves and ask their question briefly.

that would be wonderful. >> okay. thanks, lisa. >> hi -- [inaudible] with the other 98%, and i was hoping you could talk about the part of your bill that takes away the derivatives during bankruptcy. i was hoping you might be able to elaborate on why you put that in there. >> so the reason that is in there, as some of our bankruptcy experts this the room know, is that in effect what the current provision does in the bankruptcy laws is that it permits a certain group of creditors just to opt out, to get a first priority if one of the financial institutions collapses. and let's be clear, i want everybody to follow what this means. this means that they don't have to have my market discipline. they don't have to watch to see whether or not when they're lending to one of the giants, whether or not that giant is in good financial shape, what the balance sheet really says about the risks they've taken on and

how they're making their profits. it's another form of too big to fail. and i just want to be clear here, it's not something that exists with the small financial institutions. and that's why this so fundamentally wrong. we perpetuate too big to fail which puts the taxpayers at risk, but what it also does is put every financial institution that's not this that category -- in that category at a competitive disadvantage. nobody lends money to them. nobody advances capital to them without a very careful scrutiny of whether or not they're going to be able to pay back. but the big guys are able to walk away for free, and that's wrong. thank you, it's a good question. >> i count myself among your biggest supporters and thank you for everything you do. >> thank you. >> i believe that there is still a law that prohibits any bank holding more than 10% of total deposits in the u.s. and i believe that the last few

years three or four biggest institutions have gone -- [inaudible] and congress has been granting them exceptions. now, americans differ in their beliefs, but most of us believe that this is a country of laws. and most of us don't like exceptions to obeying the law. how easy would it be to just stop that? >> you know, it's a very good way to put it as you were saying it. you were saying i thought you had a rule, and i was thinking i don't think we do have such a rule anymore because we have been creating this rolling exception to the rule, so no one actually has to follow the rule. but you're right, and what it's a reminder of is that too big to fail is a problem that stretches across our economy. it's all the way through the financial system, but it has implications throughout the economy. the ways to attack too big to fail are many. there's not a single magic bullet to this.

there are lots of ways to go after it. i propose, along with john mccain and with our other cosponsors, one way to do that, and i think it would help. but there are other ways we need to be thinking about as well, and the question on limitations on deposits and the proportion of deposits is just one more way to get at that problem. there was a policy reason for passing that law in the first place. and and that is that congress understood initially that too much concentration in the banking industry was bad for the economy, that it ran too much risk for the taxpayers, and it was bad for competition in the banking industry. that's the kind of fundamental values we've got to get back to. we've got to get back to running this country for america's families, not for its largest financial institutions. thank you. thank you all. [applause] thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> well, coverage of this later in our video library, of course, at c-span.org. this coverage from capitol hill, and tomorrow on capitol hill the budget conference committee will meet again publicly for its second time to look at long-term fiscal issues, the 2014 budget and more. the committee, of course, formed as part of last month's agreement to end the government shutdown. they're due to report back to congress, come to an agreement by december 13th. we'll have live coverage of tomorrow's meeting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. also on c-span3 on thursday, janet yellen -- who's been nominated to be the new head of the federal reserve -- will go before the senate finance committee for her confirmation -- banking committee, rather, for her confirmation hearing. live coverage on thursday at 10

a.m. eastern on c-span2 and c-span radio. >> this weekend booktv looks back at the life and death of our 35th president on the 50th anniversary of his assassination. beginning saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern with authors martin sadler, ira stall, jeff greenfield. plus an authors' panel relives november 22, 1963. it's all part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. and don't forget booktv's book club for november wants to know what kennedy books you're reading. post your thoughts at booktv.org/bookclub. >> the war in europe turning hot, when the blitzkrieg took place in the low countries, the u.s. was totally unprepared. ask george marshall, chief of staff of the army, came to president roosevelt and said we can't do things we've done in the past. we have to act now, we have to act decisively, and you have to do it today. so roosevelt went to congress the next week and said the u.s.

must build 50,000 airplanes to protect itself. and and all the auto companies were given projects to build engines and airplane parts. ford motor company was given the b-24 bomber which was a problematic airplane. it was the newest airplane we had, it was still if development stages, and -- in development stages, and they wanted to mass produce this airplane. so ford said i'm not just going to build parts, i'll build complete airplanes. they took what had been done as individual pieces, and they took the engineering drawings and designed it to -- a massive press would knock out thousands of pieces that would go onto the assembly line and basically workers with just a little bit of training could assemble these airplanes. and in 45% of the four-engine bombers built in the united states were delivered here at

willow run, and that was one of 11 factories building the b-24 bomber. >> saving the little piece of this plant that was so important to that story is just, is beyond words. i can't describe the feeling we will all have and the big smiles once we pull this off. we did something here in detroit that was not done anywhere else in the world, and it literally saved the world from the axis powers. and we did that right here. >> michigan's yankee air museum is currently trying to save part of the willow run plant and has plans to turn the abandoned plant into its new home. find out more next weekend as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of ann arbor saturday at noon on c-span2 and sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span3. >> at the annual lord mayor's banquet in london, british prime minister david cameron thousandsed that britain would give ten million pounds to aid

with relief efforts in the philippines. his speech also outlines his vision of britain's role in the global economy including increasing trade relations with china, india and gulf countries. the lord mayor's banquet is an annual event hosted by the new lord mayor of london and held for the diplomatic and financial corpses. ♪ ♪ >> raise silence for the prime minister. [applause] >> my lord mayor, my late lord mayor, your grace, my lord chancellor, your excellencies, my lords, aldermen, sheriffs, chief commoner, ladies and gentlemen, let me start by

thanking lord mayor number 685 finish. [laughter] for a year of great service to this city and to our country. [applause] and let me congratulate lord number 686 not only on her appointment, but also for the fantastic vision that she has just set out. [applause] it is a vision of diversity and incluesivity that is every bit as vital for our country as it is for the city of london. it was a great speech, and it's good to see -- as you said -- that a woman is at last wearing the tights in this place -- [laughter] but can i say having seen, having seen my colleague's get-up this evening, it's still a shame that the lord

chancellor's not allowed to wear his trousers. [laughter] lord mayor, i have no crystal ball about what your mayoralty holds, but let me say this, our experience in national politics is this: when a woman storms the barricades and takes the top job, it does nothing but good for our country. [applause] in previous years i've set out the principles of a british foreign policy that is outward looking and firmly in our national interests. in the last year, we have stayed true to those principles. we hosted a g8 which launched negotiations on the biggest bilateral trade deal in history, a deal between the e.u. and the u.s. that could be worth ten billion pounds to britain alone. we agreed on a declaration that

should insure companies pay their taxes, governments are transparent about their income and the world endorses free trade. we've continued to promote british business abroad with more foreign direct investment in the britain in this year than in any other country on our planet. we negotiated a real terms cut in the e.u. budget, and i set out plans for a more competitive and flexible european union and promised the british people a retch dumb on the new settlement -- a referendum on the new settlement we reached. we honored our promises to the poorest in the world, vaccinating a child against diseases that can kill everyone two seconds over the last year. we continue to help around the world as we are today in the philippines where typhoon haiyan has wrought such appalling devastation. britain is contributing ten million pounds and hmser thing

will shortly be helding full speed towards the disaster zone with further support from an raf c-17 which will be a powerful help to the relief operation. and, yes, when it came to the brutal crimes of the assad regime against its people, we stood up for the right values in syria. and let's not pretend that syria would now be giving up its chemical weapons if we and our allies had looked the other way with. britain is a country that has always been prepared to stand up for its values, and today on armistice day let us join together in paying tribute to all those brave men and women across the generations who have given their lives for our safety and our freedom. [applause]

for years prime ministers have been coming to this pan yet to -- banquet to talk about the big global challenges facing britain and the west. traditionally, these have been about our security and our values. but today the biggest challenge we face is economic. it's about how we insure a strong, sustained and successful recovery that delivers for everyone in britain. and let us remember that a strong and successful economy is the foundation of our influence when it comes to the foreign and security policy issues that we traditionally talk about here. so it is this economic challenge i want to talk about tonight. now, of course, britain has recovered from recessions and financial crashes before, but this time there is a difference. in the past, there was an assumption that the west would still emerge as the strongest in the world. whether it was the 1930s or the 1970s, it was clear we were still the ones with the

biggest industrial base, still the ones with the ideas, with the scale of market, with the climate for enterprise, the money and the skills to trump them all. but as the number of university places surges in india, as china creates more patents than any other country in the world and as brazil becomes the world's first sustainable biofuels economy, people ask the question will they be the winners and we be the losers? i believe we need to say a very firm, no. the global economy is not a zero sum game. of course, if we make the wrong decisions, they may well succeed at our expense. but there is a clear way forward for us to carve out a place for britain to be a real success alongside these new economic powers. but we should be under no illusion that success is far from guaranteed. so how do we succeed?

well, let's start with what we don't do. there are some wrong-headed approaches that we absolutely need to reject. there's the view you can characterize as stop the world, i want to get off, ignore the interconnectedness of the world economy and pull up the drawbridge. that's clearly not the answer. then there's the pretense that the answer is spending and borrowing more on an ever bigger state in an attempt to somehow insulate ourselves from the global competition. and at the other extreme, there is embracing globalization so enthusiastically, so unquestioningly that we actually lose sight of our true national interest. now, we saw a fair amount of both of those last two approaches in the previous decade, and we saw what we got in return. the biggest budget deficit this our peacetime history -- in our peacetime history, and mass, uncontrolled immigration that put huge pressure on public services and changed communities

in a way that people didn't feel comfortable with. so those wrong-headed ideas -- ignoring the international, globalized economy, attempting to insulate against it or, indeed, slavishly following it -- none of these is the right answer. so what is? engage in some sort of race to the bottom? absolutely not. that completely misunderstands the dynamics of the modern global economy. it's not simply a competition for who can produce the same goods at keeper prices. it's about who can produce the new services, the new processes, the innovations that can create and sustain the jobs of the future. and that's why it is increasingly high-skilled jobs that are so vital to our success in the global race. so the right prescription is not to try and imitate developing economies, but to make this country more like great britain. put simply, to play to our

strengths, take our advantages, invest and add to them. we have the global language of business. we have the time zone where you can trade with asia in the morning, america in the afternoon. the city of london, the global home of finance. our top universities are amongst the best on the planet. and inventiveness, innovation and credibility will be key to our success. we are the country that invented everything from the lightbulb to the jet engine, from the tin can to the tank. you name it, we created it. most of the world's sports -- not that we always win at them -- [laughter] and the truth is, we're still at it whether it is sequencing the genome, isolating graphene or designing the chips that power not just nine out of ten of the smartphones in this room -- which i hope you've all got switched off -- but nine out of the ten smartphones anywhere in the world. we have the scientists and technical expertise that is the envy of the world. this is britain; competitive,

pioneering, creative, innovative. our success in the global race hinges on playing to these strengths. when taking the country that led the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and the market-based revolution of the 1980s and equipping it once again to lead the economic revolution of today. and as we do so, we should never forget this: our institutions, particularly our democracy, property rights, access to markets, the rule of law and equality for all before the law, these things are not incidental to our economic strength, they are absolutely key to it. they form the golden thread of conditions which allow countries to thrive over the long term. but to play to our strengths and to make a success of our country in the global race, we have to do some things differently. we can't simply try and rebuild the same type of economy that we had before the crash.

we can't just go back to how things used to be. we need to build something better. a vision of a new kind of economy where the benefits of growth are shared by all, north and south alike. an economy for everyone where the right skills, the right jobs and the right rewards are there for everyone with the right attitude and where all our children and grandchildren can look forward to a better future. what does all this mean in practice? i believe it means we need four things. first, an economy with a state that we can afford. second, an economy where everyone can take part. third, an economy that is equipped for the future. and fourth, an economy based on enterprise and at home and abroad. let me say just a word about each. first, an economy with a state we can afford. there are some people who seem to think that the way you reduce the cost of living in this

country is for the states to spend more and more taxpayers' money. it is as if somehow you measure the compassion of a government by the amount of other people's money it can spend. at a time when family budgets are tight, it is really worth remembering that this spending comes out of the pockets of exactly the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve. i hope the archbishop of canterbury will forgive me for saying it's not robbing peter to pay paul, but robbing peter to pay peter. if our budget deficits and debt get out of control, if interest rates and mortgage rates start to soar, the increase in the cost of living will far outweigh the impact of any increase in government spending or, indeed, reduction in taxation. this government is not prepared to let that happen. we have a plan, and we are carefully implementing that plan.

already we've cut the deficit by a third, and we are sticking to the task. but that doesn't just mean taking difficult decisions on public spending. it also means something more profound. it means building a leaner, more efficient state. we need to do more with less. not just now, but permanently. it can be done. consider these facts: compared with three years ago there are 40% fewer people working in the department of education, but there are other 3,000 more free schools and academies with more children doing tougher subjects than ever before. there are 23,000 fewer administrative roles in the national health service, but there are 5,000 more doctors with shorter waiting times. you can have a leaner, more efficient or affordable state that actually delivers better results for the taxpayer. the second thing we need is an economy where everyone, everyone

can take part. that is not what we have today. consider this: 64% of children on free school meals don't get five good gcses with english and math, and 4,000 children leave secondary school every year with no gcses at all. that is why we are radically changing the education system, overhauling the curriculum, introducing more rigorous apprenticeships and giving every child the chance to excel. not letting people make the most of their talent is not just a tragedy for the individual, it is a tragedy for our country too. in the same context, as the lord mayor just said so clearly, inequality is not just wrong, it fundamentally disadvantages our economy. at the appointment, the u.k. has the -- at the moment, the u.k. has the lowest ratio in europe for women in s.t.e.m. subjects, and in engineering, less than one in six graduates are women.

that is simply not good enough. so we should aim to double that proportion by 2030. we simply can't afford in the tough, competitive world of the 21st century for our manufacturing industries to miss out on the brightest minds amongst half of the population. but an chi for everyone means -- an economy for everyone means more than just a great education. it also means reforming our welfare system. put simply, no country can succeed in the long term if capable people are paid to stay idle and out of work. we went into the last recession, into the last recession with four million people of working age on out-of-work benefits. we know the most progressive way to tackle poverty is i through work -- is through work, and yet for generations people who could work have been failed by the system and stuck on benefits. so we're putting an end to the poverty and wealth traps that have plagued our welfare system for so long. we're capping welfare so that no

family is better off on benefits than through work, and through universal credit we're insuring for every extra hour you work and job you do, you should always be better off. i'm also very focused on supporting the voluntary sector to work alongside the state in fighting poverty and building this economy. for example, one of the best answers to payday lending is the credit union movement. as a government, we put 38 million pounds to double the membership of credit unions. er the a shining example -- they are a signing example of the big society in action. now, third, we need an economy equipped for the future. you can't have an economy for all if people this parts of the north or in some rural communities are left without the transport links or the superfast broadband that they need to take part. to we're investing in infrastructure that serves the whole country. 680 million to insure we have the best superfast broadband in europe by 2015. the biggest investment in roads

since the 1970s. the biggest rail investment since victorian times. we've cross-railed underneath us now the biggest construction project thinker in europe. and high speed ii, the first new train line running north out of london for how many years? 120. so, yes, there may be some people who want to stop these changes or at least argue for them to happen somewhere else, perhaps away from their backyard. but let me tell you this, we have a plan for the long term, and we will stick to the task. finally, everyone knows that we need a bigger and more prosperous private sector to generate wealth and to pay for the public services that we need. that means we need to support, reward and celebrate interprize. enterprise. that requires a fundamental change of culture in our country, a culture that's on the side of those who work hard, that values typically british

weapon is neural, buccaneering spirit and that rewards people with the ambition to make things, sell things and create jobs for others up and down the country. and that is what this government is on a mission to bring about. we want to make britain the best place in europe to start, to finance and to grow a business. so as the lord mayor said, we are cutting corporation tax to 20%, the lowest in the g20, we're saving business a billion by slashing red tape, and we're backing the innovative industries that will revolutionize world markets. through our new challenger business fishtive, we're identifying those sectors where barriers need to be removed to enable new intracts and disruptive business models to develop at pace over the next five years. but i don't want us just to put enterprise at the heart of our economic policy, i want to make sure it is boosted everywhere. promoted in schools, taught in colleges, celebrated in communities, recognized properly in the honors system and, yes, supported abroad.

so we're making enterprise a fundamental part of our foreign policy too. since 2011 almost a billion of few export contracts have been secured for the u.k.'s business thanks to support from u.k. export finance. and i want us to build on that. and the lord mayor and i will be leading from the front again in the coming months. this week i'm leading trade visits to india and the gulf, and i can announce this evening that in early december i will be leading another trade delegation to china. as china's new leadership sets its direction for the next ten years, as their country's star continues to rise in the world, i will take senior british min thesters as well as business -- ministers as well as business leaders from every sector large and small to forge a relationship that will benefit both our countries and bring real rewards for our peoples. opening the way for british companies to benefit from china's vast and varied markets and preparing the way for a new level of chinese investment here

in the u.k. this is a relationship it is a for the long term, that matters for britain and for china and which i look forward to continuing to strengthen in the months and years to come. and we don't just need more investment from china, we want to do more to attract investors from the gulf too. so we will introduce a new electronic visa waiver system making it easier for companies to come here and do business. this will be up and running in the new year, and we'll roll it out to kuwait later next year. and we're doing something else to drive up that inward investment. i'm delighted that alderman and former lord mayor sir michael bayer, has agreed to chair a new regeneration investment organization as part of u.k. trade and investment. this will act as a one-stop shop for our major inward investment opportunities with 100 billion pounds of possible projects on

the table. these projects won't just mean new jobs in london for the southeast, but right across the whole country. and the first deal is just days away to boost regeneration in places like liverpool, sheffield and leads. so a state that we can afford and an economy where everyone can take part, an economy that is equipped for the future and an economy based on enterprise at home and abroad, that is how we will build something better. that is how we can build an economy for everyone. and by doing this, we needn't look at the global race with fear, but with confidence. confident in the belief that britain can come through stronger. confident that with the right decisions, now our children can look forward to a better future. confident that here in the city of london the great innovator that has led the way in finance be for centuries, we can support a great britain whose innovation and creativity can lead the

world for generations to come. thank you. [applause] >> both the house and senate gaveling in in under ten minutes, 2 p.m. eastern. the house taking up six suspension bills including one that would reverse a decades-old ban and allow research on organ donations from individuals who are hiv positive. and and meanwhile, the senate comes up at 2:00 as well taking up the nomination of judge for the u.s. circuit court of appeals. we expect votes later today, including one to limit debate on

a motion to proceed to an fda bill. we'll have live coverage here on c-span2 when they come in. secretary of state john kerry is expected on capitol hill tomorrow after weekend talks on iran's nuclear program. "the wall street journal" writing the secretary said the confidence-building deal under discussion in geneva broke down because iran rebuffed an offer that diplomats on the other side were united behind. more details about the story from a reporter from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: so take us inside the room. it's been reported that nuclear talks with iran failed to reach agreement. how did the fallout happen? >> guest: well, there were rising expectations as the seven countries met in geneva at the end of last week.th it seemed like a deal was within reach, the iranians said so, the british said so, but there was a bit of turbulence then at the end. on saturday the french foreign

minister came out and gave a radio interview and said he had robs -- problems with the text, the draft of an agreement that was being circulated. he said hen a heavy water reactor that the iranians are developing. ofwanted firmer disposition medium enriched uranium that iran has. by late saturday night, it looks powers, including the u.s., the europeans, china, and russia, had agreed generally on approach. but iran could not sign off on it. the iranian team said they needed to go back to rouhani -- to tehran and get clearance for a deal. some diplomats are saying that

one obstacle was that iran wanted an exclusive commitment from the six nation that it would have the right to enrich uranium going forward if it signed onto this deal, which is only an interim deal. the group came up slightly short. it is possible that at the next meeting on november 20, they will be able to get across the finish line. the obamament, administration has to deal with opposition to the deal in among arabn israel, countries in the persian gulf as well. they have other handful. host: you mentioned comments by the french foreign minister. how much weight you think they had in no deal emerging from the talks? guest: it is unclear.

the american diplomats say that that was not the problem. several of thet 1untries within the 5 plus group did have concerns, there was discussion -- as the deal to being completed -- they came down to the nitty- gritty as they have not done before. in the it is only natural that various delegations would have issues. in any event, they seem to have come together at the end. it seems like going forward, when they get to the phase of having to negotiate the final deal, which may happen in the months ahead, there is room amongen more disagreement

the six powers. host: paul richter, your report ,"d -- in "los angeles times the u.s. and iran traded accusations monday. even as they insisted that a dealer remains possible. with this blame game taking are our the press, what expectations for the next round of talks at the end of the month? even thoughguest: secretary of state kerry and the iranian foreign minister traded accusations of what happened in geneva and caused this snag, they were insisting that they see a good chance that a deal can be done. even though there is maneuvering and public relations contest, ians, or at least the new administration in iran,

wants a deal that will ease economic pressure on iran. the u.s. wants a deal, they don't want to go to war with iran, they don't like the idea of iran obtaining nuclear weapons abilities on the record of this administration. there is a lot of pressure for the two sides to get a deal. there are still sticking points as well. host: i would return to a report in politico. on anyate will hit pause plans to consider further economic sanctions on iran until the chamber is briefed by the obama administration this week. john kerry will brief the senate inking committee on wednesday -- banking committee on wednesday. what will we hear from him, what way is this decision to halt -- weight is this decision to halt likely to have? the hearing will be

behind closed doors. we may hereafter would happen. if congress is to impose additional sanctions, there is a chance that that could make negotiations more difficult. it could encourage some of the countries that have been , thatsers of iranian oil they should stop complying with u.s. sanctions. there may be -- there could be from countries that have been holding back on their purchases of oil. they may decide that there is not really a diplomatic outcome in prospect here. they ought to start buying the oil again. anyways, that is the administration's warning that new sanctions could blow up all of the diplomacy at this point.

many people in congress are not convinced of that. >> here on c-span2 the u.s. senate gaveling in next to take up the nomination of a judge for the u.s. circuit court of appeals also debate and action later today on an fda bill. live coverage on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. our father, we wait in reverence before your throne. cleanse us from our sins, creating in us clean hearts while renewing a right spirit within us. lord, help our lawmakers today to discern your voice and do your will. give them ab