is. but i think he is the character really this the story, you know, he set out trying to find something and trying to build something that would make him feel less alone, and he learned along the way -- and i don't think any of the other guys completely did in the way noah did -- but he learned technology will be able to connect you to people, it's those human connections, and he eventually found those. >> host: and it's published by penguin. the name of the book, "hatching twitter." nick bilton of the new york tiles is the author. new york times is the author. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> both chambers of congress are back in session this week as the house gavels in at noon eastern. on the agenda, a bill that would ban federal funding for abortions and possible consideration of the farm bill

conference report. roll call votes are scheduled for after 6:30 be eastern. over in the senate, members return at 2 ian to continue -- eastern to continue work on scheduled flood insurance rate increases delay. a procedural vote is scheduled for 5:30. watch the house live on c-span and the senate here on c-span2. >> bill and hillary began their teaching careers at the university of arkansas. bill came right after graduating from yale in 1973, and hillary came a year later. hillary clinton's career began right inside this building, the leffler law school at the university of arkansas, where she was a professor. she taught classes such as criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedure and the prison project. hill prison was, you know -- hillary was, you know, wellesley educated, ivy league law school grad that had worked in d.c. as part of the nixon campaign. nixon had been impeached about two weeks before hillary taught her first class. >> first lady hillary clinton

tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> in one of his first public speeches since taking office, homeland security secretary jeh johnson said the millions of undocumented immigrants currently in the u.s. have, quote: earned the right to be citizens. and he calls for changes to current immigration policy. he gave these remarks at last week's u.s. conference of mayors in washington d.c. this portion of the event began with remarks by compton, california, mayor asia brown. this is about half an hour. [applause] >> all right. we are, as we have done throughout these winter meetings, we've brought new mayors up and allow them to tell a little bit about their story and their city. so i'm very pleased to call a fellow californian up to the podium. she's a bright young mayor to

watch. the youngest mayor ever to be elected in the city of compton. she beat out 12 other candidates in her 2013 election, and we are proud to welcome aja brown. to the podium. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. i'd like to take an opportunity to thank ceo tom cochran and the entire u.s. conference of mayors team for making this winter session an amazing experience. let's give tom and the dream team known as the u.s. conference of mayors staff a big happened. [applause] a big hand. i mean, what organization provides q&a with the president of the united states, president obama? let's give 'em another hand, right? [applause] and the president is just as cool in person as he is on tv, by the way.

[laughter] i'd like to give a big thanks to our president mayor, scott smith, vp mayor kevin johnson, vp rawlings blake and also the entire u.s. conference of mayor executive board. we thank you for your leadership. i'm honored to bring you greetings from the great city of compton. compton is a special place. we're a city of just 10 square miles and 100,000 residents. most people in the united states of america have heard of the is i of compton. for those of you that have had the opportunity to visit, you are well aware that a our community is much more than gangs, hip-hop and drugs. we have home to thousands of hard working families who want the same thing that all people want; equal access to the american dream, safe neighborhoods, great schools, clean and paised streets -- paved streets, access to fresh food, affordable health care, employment opportunities and transit that works. our city definitely has its challenges, but don't worry,

this is not the part of the presentation where i give you a dozen stats. however, i will tell you this, my administration is tasked with rebuilding the city from the ground up. over the past six months, we've been able to build coalitions and partnerships with the university of southern california, fight on for all my trojans out there. fight on. and also cal state and the -- [inaudible] institute of policy to begin strategizing on how do we create specific industry programs and employment programs that target high growth industry collectors and identify regional identity for the city of compton and also to provide technical assistance to small businesses and nonprofits. although i don't directly control the school district, i have garnered influence. our district will be implementing industry-specific academies, and i'll be connecting corporate partners in aerospace, s.t.e.m., labor trade unions to prepare our kids for college and a great career path. i've decided to tackle tough

issues first in order to build a strong foundation for growth. my major initiatives are focused on public safety, economic development, coalition building and public health. internally, we have implemented several new policies focused on city reform, aka housekeeping. also economic development policies and programs to make these things work and reduce our unemployment rate that's more than double the state and national average. to tackle crime and improve relations with law enforcement, i've started a new community policing task force that focused on gang prevention, intervention and combating child and human trafficking in the city of comptop and beyond and educating our parents on the dangers that our kids face today. the it's much different growing up in america than it was ten years ago. for the first time in compton, all law enforcement agencies, school district officials, county services, agencies -- [inaudible] together on common efforts in combining resources and getting big results.

from new policies enabling us to shut down a hub for illegal activity, implementing a new ordnance to prevent hourly motel rental asks to combat human trafficking because, let's face it, tourists don't rent hotels and motels for just one hour. i'm excited to say that in 2013 we have had one of the safest years in the city of congresston in the -- compton in the last decade. we're definitely on the move, and my mission is to be able to rebrand the city's image and also to share the fact that comptop is home to fortune 500 companies, two light rail station, the blue line which is the nation's heaviest-used light rail station, transit-oriented development, quality housing stocks and over one dozen fortune 500 companies that are thriving in the city of compton. we have our own airport, golf course, community college and strong historic equestrian community, beautiful neighborhoods and high performing elementary schools. plus we have great neighbors

located just 10 miles south of los angeles, 10 miles north of lax, and my mission is to combat compton's negative perception and illuminate the fact that, excuse me be, educational giants, civic leaders, cultural pioneers and innovators and world champions have hailed and still come straight out of congresston. thank you all and god bless. [applause] >> she's already rebranding compton. thank you so much. we now have another special opportunity. we have another cabinet secretary who's come to be with us. yesterday we were at the white house, and we were with the labor secretary and secretary of education and secretary of transportation and secretary of health and human services and hud, and now we have somebody that's making his first public

appearance in one finish i shouldn't say first public appearance, one of his first speeches since taking his new position. we are honored to have jeh johnson, the secretary of homeland security, here with us today. before i bring him up, let's just give him hand before we bring him up. [applause] we want you to feel the loft -- the love even before you get up here. what's incredible is we see this as a recognition of the critical roles mayors are playing and first responders, the vast majority of whom work for local government. we play roles insuring the safety and security in our cities and nations. secretary johnson came to homeland security from the defense department where he was most recently general counsel. in that capacity he oversaw the development of many aspects of our nation's anti-terrorism policies, spearheaded reforms at guantanamo bay and co-authored

the report that paved the way for repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the secretary also has background in service to america's largest city having served as an assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. secretary, we look forward to hearing your remarks. please come on up and get a love welcome from your mayors. [applause] >> thank you very much, mayor johnson. you are correct, that this is one of my first public speeches. i've been in office a month. it is nice to be among friends, among mayors. i know already about my job that

i will not go many places where i can feel the love, as you put it. [laughter] this is a terrific organization, because you represent america's cities large and small. and i'm here to tell you that you are vital partners to the department, with the department of homeland security and with me. as long as i'm secretary. i thought i would use the time to share with you some of my priorities, some of the priorities of the department of homeland security but also spend a few minutes talking about who i am to introduce myself to you. as you heard from the mayor, first of all, by the way, i went to more college -- [applause] morehouse college, and it's always amazing to me wherever i go i run into people who either are morehouse men or who are

married to morehouse men. morehouse college is everywhere. every time i come to a place like this, though, it does make me feel old because i ask what class are you, 2009, 1992, and i'm class of '79. the mayor pointed out i was a federal prosecutor for three years in the southern district of new york in new york city. i did that relatively early in my career. of it was a terrific job. how many of you in this room have been prosecutors at some point or other in your public service? i see a couple of hands go up. when i became an assistant united states attorney, the it was my opportunity to learn how to be a trial lawyer. and i looked forward to my first trial, and i had written this really fantastic, what i thought was a fantastic opening statement. it was a small drug case, but when it's your first trial,s it is of course, the trial of the

century. and i was looking forward to getting into the courtroom, talking to the jury for the first time, getting out there and finally trying my first case. and i had developed this really colorful opening statement. and my supervises tamped me down. and they said when you are representing the government, when you're the prosecutor, we always give same standard opening statement. which i thought was very interesting. first thing you do when you give an opening statement is you say to the -- you leave the lectern, you go over to the defendant at the defense table, and you point at the defendant, and you say that man there sold drugs on the corner of ninth avenue and 28th street in may 1989, and i'm going to show you how he did it. and then you walk back to the lek they were, then you introduce yourself. my name is jeh johnson, and i represent the government. and for the next couple of minutes, i'm going the tell you

what the evidence in this trial will show. and supposedly every single assertion of fact that you give in an opening statement has to begin with the words "the evidence will show," "the evidence will show." and so then you get to the end of your opening statement -- this was beat into me. you get to the end of your opening statement, and you say, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, i want you to do three things. i want you to listen to the evidence in this trial, i want you to listen to the law as judge so and so instructs you, and i want you to use your common sense. and if you use your common sense, i am confident that you will find the defendant guilty as charged. i did that 12 times in three years. it was of beat into me. i never varied. i left the u.s. attorney's office, i went into private law practice, and part of my private practice was to be a criminal defense lawyer. laugh and so -- [laughter] and so that was my opportunity to finally be unshackled, to be colorful and follow all my

instincts to be a trial lawyer. is i said to the client -- this was a pro bono case, and it was a drug case. the defendant, the client was on trial for selling drugs in upper manhattan. he spoke spanish be, didn't speak a word of english. and through a translator i said to him, now, the prosecutor when he gets up there, he's going to point at you. just want you to be prepared for that because i remember when i did that to the defendant, he broke down crying. he just started crying all through my opening statement, he wouldn't stop. so i said to my client, the prosecutor's going to point at you, and a trial is a really emotional experience. sometimes you can't control yourself. so if you feel like you need to let your emotions go, go with it. so right on cue the prosecutor went over, pointed at the defendant. right on cue the defendant started to cry, and the prosecutor did the normal, standard opening statement, the

evidence will show, the evidence will show, so forth and so on. then i got up there, and i walked over to the defendant, and i put my hands on his shoulders, and i said, ladies and gentlemen, this poor man doesn't even understand a single word aisle saying. and -- i'm saying. and this was right around the time of the o. j. trial. and i'm not the dream team, i'm just here trying to defend be this man. i went off, i gave this really terrific opening statement. i could tell i was connecting with the jury. i was no longer looking at my notes, i was talking to the jury, and i did a bad thing, i went on autopilot. i was so carried away, i was just connecting with that jury, and i didn't know how to end. [laughter] so, and i said, and ladies and gentlemen, i want you to do three things -- [laughter] i want you to listen to the evidence, i want you to listen to the law as judge so and so instructed you, and i want you to use your common sense. and if you do all three things, i am confident that you will

find the defendant guilty as charged. [laughter] the court reporter who was sitting about as far away from me as mayor johnson said, i think you meant not guilty? yes, not guilty. and sure enough, the trial transcript the next day said not guilty as charged. [laughter] i served briefly as general counsel at the department of the air force 1998, '99, 2000, til the end of the clinton administration? i was present in manhattan on september 11th, 2001, which happens to be my birthday. i was an eyewitness to the collapse of the towers. i was an eyewitness to the impact of the secondary craft. like millions of others that day, i was shocked, i was devastated. i wanted to do something. i determined then that if i had

the opportunity, i would return to public service, i would return to national security. president obama asked me to return to washington as general counsel of the department of defense, which i did. i was confirmed, sworn in february 2009. .. to visit with the family of the victims of 9/11, and what was amazing to me, i encountered many of my neighbors from

montclair, new jersey, people that i knew. they needed closure and the bin laden raid provided closure for them, and in certain respects it provided closure for me. i left that job at the end of 2012, went back to private law practice thinking i was done, and i had the opportunity when that was asked to come back to public service as secretary of homeland security, a job i was not anticipating being asked to do. but i believe in the homeland security mission. now, some of you industry might be thinking, well, what does he know about local government? what does he know about the challenges of being a mayor of a large city or a small city? i am proud to say that i'm a product of cities and towns of this country. i was born in new york city.

lived in manhattan for 18 years, the mayor of compton mentioned the importance of light rail, public transportation. i am a huge, huge fan of public transportation. carry one of these around in my wallet for new york city. i have written on every single subway line in new york city except the franklin avenue shuttle. every single subway line. i'm huge fan of subways. i grew up in the town of poughkeepsie new york which contained within the city of the keep senior. my dad was an architect in poughkeepsie new york. he designed the mall that replaced main street in poughkeepsie or. he was part of revitalization of downtown poughkeepsie in 1970. he was part of the planning board, historic mission.

might probably home as a mentioned a moment ago is montclair, new jersey. they say all politics is local. i know for my own experience that insofar as the american public is concerned, most of government is local. i recall having a get-together at her home in new jersey for candidate for congress so that my neighbors could come here, the issues that the candidate was running on, elected to congress. the next night a neighbor of mine had the mayor of montclair over at her house. i had to scratch and scrape to get a handful of people. the mayor, house was packed because everybody knows the importance that mayors play in their everyday life. more significant than that, the message that i would like to present to you today is that the homeland security mission of the

u.s. government is evolving. and this is something i believe, is evolving to the point where are partnerships with states and local governments, with mayors, with the district attorney's, with police commissioners, with sheriffs, is becoming more and more important. in the coming weeks i will be laying out a vision for homeland security that builds on the important work of my predecessors and the relationships with state and local governments that they have forged. a top priority of mine, this is not going to sustain those relationships but to further strengthen our partnerships with the men and women are in this room who are mayors. five core missions of the department of homeland security are guarding against terrorism, securing our borders, forcing our nation's immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace and

critical infrastructure, and partnerships with the private sector and supporting emergency preparedness and response efforts at every level. as part of that the department of homeland security must have as a top priority, does have and will continue to have strengthening state and local capabilities to enhance our collective inability to keep the homeland, our community, your cities and the american people safe. i just returned from south texas earlier this week, and the arizona-mexico border, during my visit i had occasion to not onlynot only had time to spend time with border agents, but i encountered for mayors and when city manager from sierra vista arizona and douglas, arizona.

that is critical to my work that i develop those relationships. one of the most important ways that we work with state and local governments is through stronger information sharing. additionally, through grants. we better enable you to be prepared for some of the things that the department of homeland security must move forward on. recent events like the shooting at the washington navy yard and the boston marathon bombing remind us that we continue to confront a dangerous world where information sharing, collaboration, trust and grant have never been more important. we have significantly improved our ability at information sharing with you, and we will continue to move in that direction. i am committed to making this happen. a cornerstone of that effort is

support for state and major urban area fusion centers, which i'm sure you are familiar with. we have deployed 96 office of intelligence and analysis personnel fusion centers throughout the country. we support all of his work as i mentioned, additionally with grants. i was pleased to learn that the u.s. conference of mayors has as one of its priorities cybersecurity dealing with cyber threats. that is one of my priorities, one of the missions of the department of homeland security. cybersecurity. we are glad to know that this is a priority of yours as well. these are threats to individuals, families, communities across our country. and we must work together to confront the cybersecurity threats. finally, i know that the u.s. conference of mayors has been a strong supporter and vocal

proponent of the need for comprehensive, commonsense immigration reform. i'd like to say a few words about that. [applause] commonsense immigration reform is supported by the u.s. conference of mayors, businesses, and supposed to be believed by a majority of the american people. border security is inseparable from homeland security, and border security must and should be part of comprehensive immigration reform, protecting our borders, securing our ports, promoting the lawful trade and travel through our ports to cities and other communities. over the past four years, we have made historic investment at borders in terms of manpower, comprehensive immigration reform would add even more to that effort. comprehensive immigration reform would also promote a more

effective and efficient system for enforcing our immigration laws, and should include an earned path to citizenship for the approximate 11.5 million undocumented immigrants present in this country. something like 86% of whom have been here almost 10 years. and earned path to citizenship for those currently present in this country is a matter of time in my view, homeland security, to encourage people to come out from the shadows, to be accountable, to participate in the american experience, the american society. it is also, frankly in my judgment, a matter of who we are as americans to offer the

opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who earned the right to be citizens. who are present in this country, many of whom who came here as children, to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become american citizens. just before i came here, i swore in out in northern virginia at a naturalization ceremony 438 new americans, including a member of the armed forces. it was probably the best thing that i do in my job. there's a lot of love in that room as well, not for the secretary of the home educated but for the families of those who love and support of done what it takes to become americans. that is part of who we are, and americans, as part of who we are

in our heritage, and i believe comprehensive immigration reform should include the opportunity for those present in this country to earn it and who are entitled to it, to become citizens. so we must, in my view, as a matter of homeland secure become as a matter of who we are as americans, address comprehensive commonsense comprehensive immigration reform and address at this year. in conclusion i would like to point out that the department of homeland security values its relationship with you. as i tried to say here, as our mission it falls here in washington, we are becoming more and more dependent upon strong working relationships with the mayors in this room. i look forward to working with many of you as i am secretary, meeting with a number of you, visiting with a number of you in your cities and towns come and i

salute you for all the work that you do. thank you very much. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> today, the federal communications commission's newest member michael o'reilly will give his first public speech as commissioner. possible areas of discussion with the recent federal appeals court ruling striking down net neutrality and fcc plans for next year's broadcast spectrum auction. he will be speaking at the hudson institute in washington, d.c. you can watch live coverage beginning at noon eastern on c-span3.

>> as we stabilize the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again. make as many jobs as possible and help americans who have become unemployed. that's why we extended our increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million americans, make health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through cobra. and past 25 different tax cuts. we cut taxes. we cut taxes 4905% of working families. we cut taxes for small businesses are. [applause] we cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. we cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. [applause] we cut taxes for 8 million americans paying for college spent watch president obama delivered this year's address. our preview probe them starts live tuesday night at eight eastern with the president at nine. followed by the response from

republican conference chair at demaurice rogers, and your reaction by phone, facebook and twitter. the state of the union tuesday night live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> bill and hillary begin their teaching right of aggression from yale the 19th century. hillary clinton's cribbage and right inside this building, the leflar law said at the university of arkansas where she taught classes such as criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedures and prison project. hillary was educated, ivy league law school grad that it works in d.c. as part of the nixon campaign because at this time nixon have been impeached about two weeks before hillary potter first class. >> first lady hillary clinton tonight at nine eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org.

>> we are live at the user chamber of commerce this money for remarks from securities and exchange commissioner, the sec is one of the main agencies wriggling the financial markets. is republican appointee to the commission and to be addressing top aides like the volcker rule on trading practices and regulations and deal with the so-called too big to fill financial companies. this is live coverage here on c-span2. should get underway in just a moment. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again, this morning this monday morning we are live waiting for remarks from securities and exchange commissioner michael piwowar. you be talking about financial regulations today. he is a republican appointee to the securities and exchange commission. while we wait, 25 states around

the country of expanded medicaid. last week steve fisher spoke about his states expansion of the program. kentucky is the only red state with its own health care exchange and expansion of medicaid. he was speaking at an event hosted by families u.s.a. here in washington. >> thank you. thank you all very much. ron, thanks for the kind introduction. referring to me as an evange3 introduction. referring to me as an evangelist has some credibility to it, because my dad was a baptist preacher. and so right toward the end of my talk today, if you don't want to answer the altar call, you better leave early. [laughter] i also brought my audience with me because i think we've got a

table of kentuckians right down here in front. [applause] i appreciate the opportunity to come here to talk to you about a subject that we are not all only interested in, but very for but about and our feelings of what ought to be done in this country. you know, people who don't know kentucky might consider the commonwealth an odd choice to be leading the nation in implementing federal health care reform. after all, my state has historically suffered from a national stereotype of being communist, just another one of those southern states that are a little bit behind the times. furthermore, as ron pointed out, our two u.s. senators, mitch

mcconnell and rand paul, are vocal and vehement about their opposition to the affordable care act, the medicaid expansion, to government spending, and about anything related to president obama. they feel comfortable doing that because our electorate in kentucky has been somewhat cooled to president obama through the two election, coming out against the by about a two to one majority in 2012. so classic red state persona, right? wrong. as you know, kentucky has been the only southern state to both expand medicaid and develop its own state-based exchange. [applause] and today, today, every time the

topic of reform comes up, both mountains and the president of the united states himself say, look at what kentucky is doing. in fact, i have been invited to tell our story on programs like "meet the press," c-span, cnn, the bbc, npr, cds evening news, hardball, the "national journal" here in d.c. and in "the wall street journal" and in "the new york times." [applause] and i'm asked, i've asked again and again, governor, how are you doing this? and also, governor, why are you doing this lacks well, -- why are you doing this? first, let me talk about the house because that's an easy conversation. i determined that i had the legal authority under kentucky law to do it.

that's the way some governors are due, you know. but historically the general assembly in our state have delegated and has delegated to the executive branch the authority to determine medicaid eligibility. so instead of having to run so with the legislature, i simply had our cabinet for health and family services come in by regulations. so we expanded medicaid. and then i determined i had the authority to establish our own exchange, and flight issued an executive order and we just did it. and as you can imagine, yes, we had a few tea partiers who admitted he challenged me in court. well, we won. or i should say actually the people of the commonwealth of kentucky one. they won because the ability to

access health care is no longer being held hostage by political considerations. [applause] you know, on a national level, kentucky senators may be screaming about president obama and also the costs of society taking care of those in need, but there is a huge disconnect between the rank partisanship of national politics and governors whose job it is to help beleaguered families to strengthen our workforces and to attract companies and to build a balanced budget. look, i don't have time for all of the political craziness that goes on in this town. [applause] i don't have time for that. i've got a job to do and that's to take care of 4.3 million kentuckians and their needs. and you know, other governors

get that, too, because it's no coincidence that many governors, and not only democrats, but also even some republicans like arizona's jan brewer, or ohio's john casey, michigan's rick snyder, choose to use medicaid to help more of their people. because like me, they saw the affordable care act, not as a referendum on president obama, but a tool for historic transformation. now, let me talk about the why, why, has kentucky under my leadership move forward so aggressively on health care reforms. you know, when i made the decision last may to expand medicaid, i opened my present office with these words, today we change the course of kentucky's history. i wasn't really being dramatic. i was being truthful.

kentucky is a state whose collective health has long been horrendous. we rank among the worst, if not the worst, in almost every major health category from smoking to cancer deaths, preventable hospitalizations, preventable -- owere premature death, cardiac heart disease, diabetes. you name the condition, we don't look very good in it. and those horrible rankings didn't just come about last week or last year. we've ranked like that ever since they started keeping rankings of these things in the united states. now, don't get me wrong. we have made progress over the years in kentucky in health care, but those incremental improvements are not enough. i knew that to make fundamental change in a transmitter change in our health status, i needed a

big solution. and along came the affordable care act and gave that big solution to me. and now because of the aca, for the first time in our history, kentucky is making affordable health coverage available to every single kentucky and in the commonwealth of kentucky. [applause] and it's not just come it's not just any old insurance. it is darn good coverage, comprehensive coverage, and it is desperately needed. when we began the process, some 640,000 people in kentucky were uninsured. that's almost one in six kentuckians. and folks, these are some group of aliens am a distant planet. these are our friends and our neighbors. these are people we go to church with on sunday. we shop in the grocery store

with during the week. we sit in the bleachers on friday night and watch our kids play baseball or football or soccer. we hunt with them, fish within. they are farmers on the tractor, they are substitute teachers. they are seasonal construction workers. they are nurses aides, new graduate at high-tech startups, they are grocery clerks. i tell some of the other kentucky leaders all the time, you would be surprised at how many of kentucky's uninsured that you know. and for the uninsured, the lack of health coverage puts their health and financial secured at risk. these folks get up every morning and go to work just hoping and praying that they don't get sick. they have to choose sometimes between food and medicine. they skip visits to the doctor, hoping the condition, and praying the condition, turns out to be nothing. they live in fear, in anxiety,

knowing that bankruptcy is only one bad diagnosis away. and furthermore, their children, their children go long periods without checkups, but focus on immunization come on preventive care, on vision test, on hearing test. folks, i don't accept this. it's unacceptable. so, the short answer to why is kentucky being so aggressive in implementing the aca? because it's the morally right thing to do. [applause] that's why. but as governor, i've got another obligation, and that is to look after the financial health of my state. for kentucky as a whole, the consequences of having so many uninsured families are huge and they are negative.

jacked up health care costs, horrible collective health, decreased worker productivity, depressed school attendance, a poor image and a lower quality of life for our people. but kentucky's finances just like the finances of every state in the nation right now, are extremely tight. and i needed to know what financial impact that expanding medicaid would have on kentucky and on my budget. cannot afford it? -- can i afford a? so i went out to hire two independent experts. i brought on board the urban studies institute at university of louisville to do and economic impact study, and i passed the national renown actuarial firm pricewaterhousecoopers to do an analysis of costs and benefits. their findings about six months

came back to me and provided an absolutely overwhelming case for making these steps. those findings included in forming me that medicaid expanding medicaid would inject $15.6 billion into our economy over the next eight years. it would create almost 17,000 new jobs. it would turn costly new federal mandates into an $802 million positive general fund budget impact, and they would protect our hospitals from cuts in indigent care funding and shield our businesses from up to $48 million in annual penalties. in short, they looked me in the eye and they said, abner, you can't afford not to do this. and i would hope that every governor out here that has not yet taken this step will put aside the political

considerations and do the same kind of analysis. because i'll guarantee you, they will come to the same conclusion. now,. [applause] you all have all heard about -- >> members of our board, it's an important topic and an important speaker and i want to initially turn over to chris donahue, president ceo of federated. federated is a $359 asset manager in pittsburgh, and anybody who has met chris and his some know the exact classic american story, whichact classic american story, which is a good idea that started, probably stepping on a lease one of your lines, chris, but i think the family was looking at things ranging from dairy queen to financial services, and for chili for our country chose financial services. one of the things that i think

we have embedded with our mission statement is the will of providing financial services to feel the american economy has never been more important and we hope subsequent efforts, subsequent them is making decisions like that will choose to build greater businesses around financial services. i will only say three quick things and anybody who knows chris knows that he has his priorities straight. his family and his community and giving back always comes first. second, that he fundamentally believes in doing right by customer is doing right by the business. and thirhe business. and third, that eating back and investing in the community and being a great civic leader is as important as being a corporate leader. and for those three reasons were very pleased to introduce chris donahue of federated. [applause]

>> thank you, david, and good morning to all. it's a great pleasure for me to introduce our commissioner representative today. you know, he did teach at iowa state university, which means that he knows a lot about real whether and real winter. and i'm not just talking about what's outside but i'm talking about the climate in this town. he also stands on principles. he's learned his economics as a ph.d. he actually worked at the sec and risk analysis. he worked at the senate in the ebb and flow of legislation committee worked in the private sector where you actually learned about something called the marketplace. yes, indeed did work in the white house of both the bush and the obama administration. i understand he is not currently working on his memoirs. he is an academic powerhouse who actually knows real stuff, and this real stuff i think can play well the subject of jurisdiction, the differences that are important to matter.

for example, is a wise to take football, baseball and basketball, and manage them all the same just because you want to call it prudential ball? maybe not. and if we had done what he wanted in his time at the senate we would have a crisp definition of systemically important, not what nobel laureates now call a regulatory grab bag. he is a founding father and a real educator on economic analysis. and what does that mean? it means doing the right thing, rightly, for the right reason. it means being aware of unintended consequences. it means asking and answering the right questions. i remember a time when my five year old son asked me one time, dad, what is help? boy, i launched right into a good boy, bad welcome especially

of the your father. i was hitting it out of the park and a look at him and his face was all contorted. i said don't you understand? he said no, i don't get it. what are you looking for? he said, what does it mean when you say what in the hell is going on around here? you have to be aware of unintended consequence of which have to do the cost-benefit analysis. and this means rigorous work. it doesn't mean just doing what the philosopher means appropriate. so we have here this morning a champion of investor protection, a student of efficiency, and thankfully, a protector of the capital markets. doctor and commissioner michael piwowar. [applause] >> wow, thanks, chris, fo for te kind introduction. maybe i shouldn't be opening act for today with all the. david hirschmann, i would say

particular thanks to the document the work to do at the chamber center for capital markets competitiveness come to promote america's global leadership and capital formation of the pleasure of working with a number of great and talented people here at the gym and want to mention just a few before the outset of my remarks. timeclock men come it's been great to join you in your efforts to ensure that the financial records or agencies not only follow the law but make sure they take into account the best available information about a regulatory action and economic consequences. jess sharp was in the trenches with me in the white house during the height of the global financial crisis. please continue to advocate for not only bring regulatory and public transparency to the over-the-counter derivatives market but also making sure that we preserve main streets ability to hedge their unique business risk. and alison joe, i've enjoyed working with you on money market fund reforms that are consistent with the sec's goal of preserving the product for investors in the short-term funding markets. i also want to thank everyone for being so understanding about

rescheduling my speech which was original supposed to be done in october but had to be postponed because of the government shut down. so thank you for being so understanding for the. i'm happy to finally be here to talk about some of the issues that we're facing at the commission at the outset of my remarks what i needed to get the standard disclaimer that the views i expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the commission or my fellow commissioners. in fact, i'm very sure that most of my views do not reflect the views of many of the commissioners. [laughter] what i could just take the opportunity today to articulate how i believe an sec commissioner approach each and every issue that comes before the commission or its simple but as you know the sec is confronted with a wide range of matters including rulemaking, except for requests coming to give guidance and, of course, enforcement actions. regardless of the area when making decisions, a commission should be guided silted by the

sec's corporation, to protect investors, maintained their orderly and efficient markets and promote capital formation. my overarching philosophy as an sec commission is actually very simple. it boils down to a question that i ask my self every morning on my way to work. what can i do today to help advance and defend the sec's core mission? i choose the words advance and defend carefully. they are words that could be used to describe both sports strategies and military strategies, which are appropriate analogies for an sec commissioner. some days i feel like i'm in a friendly, efficient that involves well-defined and well enforced rules other days i seem to be in hand-to-hand combat with outside forces. for my remarks today i will first explain what i mean when i say advance the sec's core mission by highlighting some of the items i believe should be priorities for the commission over the next several months. and i will focus on how we can

and should defend the nation. by way of example and as i will discuss further, money market fund reforms presents an opportunity to both advance and defend the sec's mission. i've not made any, reached any conclusions on the substance of money market reform but if you want to preview how i'm approaching the issue. finally, time for me unhappy to answer any questions you may have. obviously the question is quite busy with all of our dodd-frank acts and jobs act rulemaking. nonetheless, there are additional areas in which we can and should undertake efforts to advance our core mission. let me highlight just five today. first, a comprehensive review of equity market structure. i recently gave a speech in which i called for a conference of equity market structure review program that draws on lessons from the 1963 report of a special study security markets of the sec, and the 2012 uk foresight program report, the

future of computer trading in financial markets and international perspective. without going into great detail here, there are two key features of my vision of what i think we should do in terms of a comprehensive market structure review. first, in order to allow us to cover a wide range of topics we should at the outset consider it to be a multi-year review. second, so that each issue can be considered and addressed in depth, the commission should leverage the resources of outside parties by leading a collaborative effort with market structure experts from both the private sector and the academic world. second, six size hud program. it's clear that a one size fits all approach to market structure is not working for small cap companies. one idea for trying to improve the trading of small-cap companies featured is great a pilot program for alternative minimum size. i support such a pilot and would

like to see a limited as soon as possible. even if it takes ask an increasing to take sides do not produce the benefits that proponents suggest a welcome and i myself am actually a skeptic that it will, a pilot program nonetheless will provide useful information about the dynamics of liquidity in our equity market that we can apply elsewhere. third, incremental fixed income market structure changes3 third, incremental fixed income market structure changes. during my previous tour of the commission i was involved with price transparency initiative in the corporate bond and municipal bond markets. in one research study my colleagues and i were able to show that providing straight prices decreased transaction cost. despite what some of the dealers say. which translated to investors savings of more than a billion dollars a year. subsequent research shows more can be done to enhance the fixed income market for the benefits of investors and issuers, including opportunities to pick

some low-hanging fruit. for example, while commissions on agency transactions must be disclosed, the same is not true for markups and markdowns on riskless prince will transactions even though our they are economically equivalent. therefore, i've asked the staff at the commission's office of municipal securities to work with me to develop a few proposals to improve of the fixed income markets operate. fourth, over reliance on proxy advisory firm's recommendations. i see many summers between influence of proxy advisory firms we did and how credit rating agencies were relied upon precrisis. including an over reliance by investors on their recommendations. investment advisers are increasing looking to the recommendations of proxy advisory firms for the purpose of satisfying their fiduciary duty in connection with compliance securities. this shifts the fiduciary duty from the advisers to the proxy advisory firms. which due to their relationship

with issuers of securities may have their own distinct conflicts of interest. the commission hosts a very productive proxy advisory services roundtable last month that highlighted these issues and make clear that we cannot continue to ignore the need for reform. i'll note that the chain was an important and effective participant in that round table. the commission must not lose the momentum that was generated from the roundtable that should quickly move forthwith initiative to curb the unhealthy overreliance on proxy advisory firm recommendations. fifth, compliance with section two of executive order 13579 and retrospective analyses of existing rules. over two years ago president obama signed an executive order that among other things directed independent agencies such as the sec to develop an intimate a plan to conduct ongoing retrospective analyses of existing rules. the stated goal is to quote

determine whether any such regulation should be modified, streamlined, expanded or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives, unquote. the commission has not yet undertaken a series efforts to conduct a retrospective analysis of our existing rules in accordance with the directive. this must change. now as if the sec does not have an afford to do to advance our core mission, as i said the outset we are faced with the need to defend it. currently i see to outside forces that are threatening our ability to effectively protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets and promote capital formation. the first threat is the special interests from all parts of the political spectrum that are trying to co-opt the sec's disclosure regime to achieve their own objectives. the commission should carefully consider whether any additional disclosures benefit investors or

whether they enabled the agenda of special interests to the detriment of investors. what they simply are current disclosure regime i worry our investors already suffering from what former sec commissioner called information overload. he points out that ironically if and investors are overloaded more disclosure could actually result in less transparency and worst decision in which case capital is allocated less efficiently and market discipline is compromised. last year he called for a top to bottom review of the commissions disclosure regime. i wholeheartedly agree. such a review can help with identify special interest disclosures that have crept into our regime and are counterproductive to creating informed investors. the second threat to our core mission is banking regulators. trying to impose their bank regulatory construct on sec regulated investment firms and investment products.

the commission, not the banking or prudential regulators, is responsible for regulating the securities markets. my concern is that the banking regulators through the financial stability oversight council or fsoc, reaching into the sec's realms as market regulators. accordingly, one of my first acts as a commissioner was to request that i be afforded an observational role at fsoc meetings. to be clear i understand that the dodd-frank act designates the sec's chairman as the commissions only voting member of the fsoc. however, the statute also designates a commission as a member agencies of the council. unfortunately, my request to attend fsoc meetings as a nonparticipating guest were denied. i do not think they were unreasonable requests i did not ask for any special favors. i simply asked that the fsoc

treat the sec the same way it treats the federal reserve. if you look at the minutes from past fsoc meetings which are publicly available on the fsoc's website, you will see the three people from the federal reserve regularly attend fsoc meetings. the chairman of the fed, the feds voting member, and his two guests, the federal reserve governor, daniel tarullo, and the president of the federal reserve bank of new york, william duffy. i would like the fsoc to extend the same courtesies to the sec and other member agencies. one of the responses i received in my request was that if the sec started bring multiple people to council meetings, then every agency would want to do the same. my answer to that concern is that the fsoc should get a bigger table. [laughter] alternatively, you could stop allowing the fed to bring three people to council meetings when other member agencies are

afforded only one seat. this issue is not just an abstract one for me. the fsoc within which the banking and prudential regulators exert substantial influence represent an existential threat to the sec and the other member agencies. last september at the department of treasury's office of financial research, or ofr, published a study and the use the term study, loosely, prepared for the fsoc on the asset management industry. the study sets the groundwork for the regulation of asset managers by the fsoc. among the council members, only the sec solicited public feedback regarding the study. i applaud chair white for doing so. in response, the commission has received more than 30 comment letters including one from the chamber. i vehemently believe before the fsoc decide whether to further study our actions warranted, the collective voices of the public and the sec should be heard by

the members of the council. this is all the more important because the vast majority of asset management firms of course our sec regulated entities. another issue on which the sec has ceded ground to the fsoc and banking regulators is money market reform. money market fund reforms. one of the most shocking decisions in the 80 year history of the sec was the wholesale application of the commissions responsibility to the fsoc on money market funds. this choice of the widely criticized by former chairman, commissioners and sec senior staff as threatening the independence of not only sec by the other independent financial services regulatory agencies as well, and i am in complete agreement. the only somewhat coherent systemic risk argument about money market funds i've heard articulated is that they run on money market funds could lead to bank failings because they cannot roll over short-term

debt. the moral of that story, if it's true, it's not that money market funds have quote structural reform abilities and as a banking relators have said, the moral is that banks are too reliant on short-term funding. the banking regulators have the ability to address such a bank regulatory shortcoming directed. nothing in the dodd-frank act weakens or repeals that authority. instead of the fsoc's spending time to encroach on sec's jurisdiction in securities regulation, where our staff has the superior expertise, the council should focus on fulfilling its own mission of identifying threats to the financial stability of the united states. i have identified three entities that i think the fsoc should consider reviewing as non-bank systemically informed financial institutions, or non-bank sifis. the three our federal government, the federal reserve,

and the basel committee on banking supervision. serious academic research previous actions by the fsoc and commonsense support designating all three of these or potentially thinking about dancing in all three of these as non-bank sifis. deborah lucas, a prominent mit economist, and former assistant director of the congressional budget office makes a compelling case the government is a significant source of systemic risk and, therefore, falls under the mandate of the fsoc and the ofr to monitor and study it. and respected in what you financial economist posits that governments effectively operate as shadow banks in the financial sector, that the role as shadow banks have been at the center of the financial crisis and that they continue to pose a threat to financial stability. even the fsoc itself recognizes that the federal government has a significant impact on the economy and financial markets.

at a recent meeting the council discussed the effects of a government shutdown and a debt ceiling impasse on on the economy and financial market, including short-term funding markets. with respect to the federal reserve, its balance sheet stands at over $4 trillion in assets. and continues to grow at a pace of only $75 billion per month. the bank of england's executive director of financial stability code wrote a paper titled the dog and the frisbee in which he makes the academic case for simplicity and banking regulation. among other things a paper explores why complex regulations such as the basel risk weighted capital standards are not only costly and cumbersome, but suboptimal for preventing and controlling financial crises. now, i thought i would end with some words on how i'm thinking about whether additional money market fund reforms are needed,

and if so, how i will be evaluating each alternative. as an economist one of the first question i ask in the context of any will making is, what is the baseline? in other words, what is the starting point from which i will if i would the cost and benefit of any proposed regulatory change. in the case of money market funds, tempting to start with a baseline of december 2008 when the reserve primary fund broke about. however, the commission adopted a number of new money market fund regulations in 2010. the stated objective of those rules were to increase the result is that money market funds, the economic stresses and reduce the risk of runs on the funds. therefore, the proper baseline from which to evaluate any additional money market fund will proposal is the current regulatory framework which includes the 2010 reforms. from a cost-benefit perspective, the next relevant questions are what are the marginal benefits or incremental benefits of additional regulation, and what are the marginal costs of those additional regulations?

in order to answer those questions we need to understand how effective the 2010 regulations were. the commission's division of economic and risk analysis has done an excellent job providing the answer to those questions in their 2012 staff report and in economic analysis section in the commission's 2013 proposing relief for additional money market funds reforms. after carefully reviewing both of these documents and engaging in amherst discussions with the commission staff and market participants, i have concluded the 2010 money market fund regulations were, in economist speak, necessary but not sufficient. they provide a much-needed investment reduction from in the areas of disclosure of liquidity credit quality and operations. however, the reforms were not sufficient to address remaining investment protection concerns in at least two areas. namely, more should be done to mitigate first mover advantage enjoyed by investors who run during times of heavy retention.

are also remains a need to provide investors with wartime information about funds holding them including the value of those holdings. as i said at the outset i've not reached any conclusions on which alternatives in the commissions outstanding will proposal best address these investor protections concerns, while noting the sec's of judges is to preserve the benefit of money market fund for investors and the short-term money market or i'll be working with the commission staff over the coming weeks and months to evaluate the marginal benefits of the various alternatives of floating net asset tiger, peace, additional disclosure, et cetera, and the associated costs. thank you all for your attention and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have applaud not. >> -- you may have to. [applause] >> if you have a question for the commission, please regime. we simply ask that you

introduced yourself. keep it to a question and will try to get to as many as possible. and while we have the first question, let me ask one if i could, commissioner. in the context of the sec, the sec has made significant progress in embedding economic analysis early on in rule makings. for us it's never a case of more versus less regulation. it's right versus wrong. it's how do you make sure that you understand the consequences so that you actually can match the cure with the identified disease. but there's no checks and balances, no similar process within the fsoc. would that be a first? that's something the fsoc and secretary of the treasury to do unilaterally tomorrow morning, wouldn't require congressional action. >> no, that's absolutely right. so in your first point, the sec has made tremendous strides in improving the economic analysis. during my first tour of the

commission, the economic analysis was sort of done what is called a backhanded rulemaking but it was effectively a justification for a decision that was already made. basically let's count up the number of people in terms of compliance and then multiply the number of hours times whatever the rate table to list and that was sort of the end of it. you use the word embedded which i think is a great word, because our current chief economist craig lewis has been very, very effective in giving out economists involved earlier in the process and more formally in the process.

is paragraphly troubling -- particularly troubling to me. i don't know what the right answer is, but your point is exactly right, the agencies could unilaterally actually try to impose that rigor be on the council. in the context of, you know, asset management firms, you know, i see that the sec could potentially be a leading voice on that. i don't see the banking regulators, you know, wanting to take that on. but we could potentially, that could be a particularly useful place for us to try to exert our view of the world in terms of doing rigorous economic analysis, taking into account, you know, consequences. >> questions.

right here and then right here. just wait for a microphone to come. >> commissioner, ken solomon from thompson coburn. a quick question. when -- are you able to say or do you know when we might see the staff report on short selling under section 417 of dodd-frank? >> it -- so there's actually two reports, right, under 417. one of them is close to being done and should be out within, you know, i would guess weeks or months. it has to go through a normal process. the other one i know the staff is actually considering comments from the public on that one. they received a lot of comment on that one. and i can't remember, one's a1, one's a2, i can't remember the exact numbers on those. but the one that's potential for

marking the trades on that one, that one should be out, you know, in, you know, if it's months, i would be shocked. i would say weeks more than months on that one. the other one's going to take a little longer. >> right here. >> frank hathaway, nasdaq. thank you for your remarks this morning, commissioner. as a fellow economist, i fully support economic analysis and rulemaking, and we like to provide economic analysis in our rulemaking on behalf of nasdaq and our other regulated markets. my question for you is when we supply that economic analysis, sometimes in great detail, occasionally the response from the staff might be a single sentence saying economic analysis was inadequate with no further explanation. would you support a more fulsome economic response to sro rulemaking or other rulemaking from the staff when addressing a decision regarding an sro rule

filing? >> yes. [laughter] no, i think it's particularly important. that's a concern i've not heard before, but i will definitely look into it. we can, and we can talk offline about particular issues involved with that. i mean, one -- having said that, i hadn't heard that in the context of rulemaking. in the context, you know, seeing frank here from nasdaq reminded me the sec, we started this new web site called the midas system, it's an acronym with data analysis. it provides a lot of useful data and summary statistics on the markets that's out there. and one of the things that not only is it providing information to market participants, but there's also a potential place there for public feedback. and from the comments i've gotten for folks is when people do provide feedback or ask questions of the staff, the staff is very responsive in getting back to folks in terms of either investigating something or giving an answer that they can look at the online

data for. i had not heard that concern, but i would definitely support that. >> mary moore -- [inaudible] with grant or thorton. commissioner, thank you for outlining five areas that you feel the sec could make advancement on. could you share which of those five areas there might be more agreement or opportunity the move forward with your fellow commissioners amongst those five, what you might highlight or think we could see progress on? >> sure. in terms of the comprehensive market structure review, the other commissioners have -- commissioner gallagher, commissioner aguilar and commissioner stein have all called for various forms of market structure reviews. i think my vision would be a broader one, a longer-term one and take into account a lot more issues. i think that there's potentially some coalescing around at least looking at sort of nms issues. it's been, you know, almost ten

years since reg-nms has been out there. there's been a lot of changes to the marketed, a lot of what i call ad hoc reviews in response to the flash crash and other trading issues. i think that there's, there would be some support for some sort of review of market structure. the question is how big and in what manner that is. on the tick-size pilot program, i'm a particular proponent of that. you know, as i said, i'm a skeptic that it actually is going to have all the benefits that the proponents think it's going to have, but i still think it's a good idea. i think we need to try things to help small cap companies. it's a pilot program that we could limit the downside risk on, we could limit the timing of it. there's also legislation that would require the sec to do it. my fear is that the legislation would end up in a place where it might be a little too print i have -- prescriptive, and i worry about market participants getting their business models writing into the legislation.

what i want to do is have the commission staff design what they think is the best study to answer the question they want asked and whether or not it has particular attributes in the study, so be it, to get us the answer that we could do. the new data that a we get that's underlying this new midas system will allow us to come up with different measures of market quality that we've never been able to do in the past, so that's what i meant when i said, you know, we could learn more about the liquidity dynamics that were there. proxy firm, as i -- proxy advisory firm recommendation, i don't know. my fear is that we're going to sort of lose momentum on that, you know? we had the round table, and we sort of checked the box, but what was clear from the round table was that, you know, there was not unanimity, but there was really broad support for doing something in the area. whether that something is done at the staff level to address the no-action letters that are out there, i think that has a better chance than engaging in rulemaking, but who knows? if we get, you know, coalescence

around changes in the particular rulemaking, that might be as well, too, but we could see something move of in that space. fixed income, changes in that market. i think that some of the other commissioners have said publicly there's some things we can do in that market. that's an area that's near and dear to my heart, as i mentioned when i was at the commission before, i worked a lot on the transparency initiatives. if you look at the spreads in that market, they're a lot wider. i think in terms of bang for our buck, in terms of commission resources, we could do a lot in terms of helping investors in the fixed income market. we talk a lot about equity market structure, ask we're down to, you know, penny spreads, sub-penny spreads, raiding in picot. in the market you're talking much wider spreads, sometimes dollars. in that area i mentioned i've asked the staff, they're the ones that know. we actually have, we've built up the office of municipal

securities. it used to, literally, be two people for a long time. they've got a staff looking into these issues saying what are some two, three, four -- on that one what i want to do is find maybe two, three, four ideas that all the commissioners could coalesce around and do some incremental changes in there. i don't think we need to do comprehensive reform there. and then in terms of retrospective analyses of existing rules, that's just one that i think we need to be doing on an ongoing basis. and, you know, and it's not just, hey, let's just look back at the rules, all the rules that are on the books, but in terms of when we start considering things like additional regulation, maybe additional disclosures, what are some other forms that we can get off the books when we're doing that, right? in the context of the consolidated audit trail, right? i think there's a real opportunity there that when that actually moves forward and that's actually, you know, the sros are working really hard on that right now, when the consolidated audit trail actually moves forward, there's a real opportunity there to evaluate and find out there's a number of different reporting

systems that we could actually sunset, and that would actually lessen the burden not only on the regulated inti andties, d entities, but on the staff as well too. so sort of on those five, i think that's on that. now, of course, the chair sets the agenda, so we'll have to see. but be i will talk to, you know, in my weekly meeting with her, i'll bring up all five of these, as i always do. [laughter] >> one thing that struck us from the advisory round table is that there are some areas where there's some clear consensus which would be a good place to to start, where the investor advocates and the -- all the users of the system agree. and it really starts with transparency, you know? the proxy advisory firms, iss and glass-lewis have become kind of black box standard setters in corporate governance, and just bringing some transparency as to which of their customers is advocating for particular governance changes so that people know who's asking and where there's more of a

public -- that might be a good first step that even can agree on. >> yeah, i agree. and for me it's, you know, as i mentioned, it's overreliance. we've got to get to, you know, why is there this overreliance. and we can address that, i think a lot of these other issues may fall away as well. the overreliance on the credit rating finish it wasn't the credit rating firms themselves, it was the unhealthy overreliance on those. and dodd-frank's dun a number of good things on that regard, instructing the agencies to remove credit ratings, and now it puts the burden back on investors to actually do their own due diligence and have a less unhealthy reliance on the ratings that are out there. i sort of see similar things in the proxy advisory firm space as well too, so -- >> your remarks you mentioned you talked about the challenges of coordinating among dozens of regulators in the united states. the challenge of coordinating

internationally is even greater, and you see ideas that were roundly criticized here like mandatory firm rotation gaining traction perhaps this europe and other issues like that. you know, i know that the intent among regulators is to coordinate better. but that's so hard that what you really see happening is kind of everybody building fortress regulatory structures just in case the coordination doesn't work out. >> yeah. i think that's absolutely right. and, you know, the sec, we participate in a number of international dialogues and working with a number of different groups that are out there. and one of the challenges for us in that environment is that, you know, we're one of the few sort of pure market regulators in the world. now, the fsa has broken back up, and they have the fca in the u.k., they're sort of back in our space. but a lot of times even at the fsb events, we're talking to markets regulators, but they're also part of a bigger regulatory

structure that's also a prudential regulator, and one of their hammers is bank-like capital requirements. if they see a nail like a money market fund then, you know, bam, we'll put bank-like capital requirements on them. an insurance company, bank-like capital requirements on them. that's another dimension of this, where we need to make sure we're defending our jurisdiction as market regulators. it's just a fundamentally different view of the world. markets are messy. we're used to that, we're okay with that. markets generally work, and they're generally good for the economy. >> chris? >> commissioner, you mentioned about money market funds and the idea that perhaps there could be more time limits on valuation on the holdings in the funds. what do you have in mind there, and are there things there that the industry could be working on right now? thank you. >> sure. so one of the things, i know, you know, the shadow nab, folks

are sort of -- my understanding is a lot of the industry is moving towards daily posting of the shadow net asset value and want to get more understanding of what the industry practice is there, what would be sort of, you know, the cost and benefits of doing the those particular things. i should mention in terms of, you know, i haven't made any decisions on any of the things, but i do want to mention in terms of the floating net asset value alternative, one of the things that i believe is that before the sec, before we consider whether or not it would be a good idea to float net asset values on east some or -- either some or all money market funds, we need to get an answer from treasury about the tax implications from this. that's a threshold issue for me. it would be, it would be irresponsible, i think, for the commission to move forward on floating the net asset value without getting a good answer in

terms of what are the tax implications. and i know they've done a little bit on the wash sale side, but we need better answers on the capital gains side. you know, when i was on the hill engaged in discussions with treasury, even to answer -- ask the question is this something that treasury can do with existing authority, or would it require additional legislation on, say, the capital gains side, i haven't really gotten a good answer on that. so one of the things that i will be pressing for is to get a good answer on that. and one of the questions i have is, you know, if money market funds, you know, are so systemic as the fso to c claims and we -- fsoc claims and we immediate to float the net asset value, then why hasn't the chairman of the fsoc who's also the treasury secretary who oversees the irs made it a priority to get an answer on those tax questions. >> other questions? let me ask one final question about going back to the theme of

your speech which was the need for more effective coordination among regulators. particularly if you look at the recent example, the volcker rule where you now have five regulators trying to jointly implement a rule with perhaps five very different approaches to supervision and enforcement, and you've already seen in the first couple of issues that came out because of of the lack of reproposal that there is no system to coordinate among regulators. and everybody knows that you, you know, it's hard enough when you've got two parents in the household to get alignment of enforcement. [laughter] and in this case we've put five folks in charge of looking at very complex issues. and they may have very legitimate but differing views about what the right answer is. >> no, i think that's right. i guess it takes a village to raise the volcker rule, maybe that's what we should be saying on this one. [laughter] no, that's absolutely right. i mean, there was a lot of

intense coordination leading up to the finalization of the rules. and to me, once, you know, once a rule is finalized, you know, that's not the end of the conversation, that's a continuation of, you know, in maybe a different direction of the conversation. and, you know, i dissented in the final rule, on the final volcker rule even though i think it moved in generally a great direction, and the sec staff both on the proprietary trading side and the covered funds sidement i think the staff did a tremendous job of moving the rule from a proposal into the final rule towards more of what congressional intent was and the intent of the original volcker concept by chairman volcker. but my concern was that it moved it so substantially there was so many moving parts to this that we need to get answers on, and we just knew that -- we didn't know what they were going to be. there's so many questions there were going to be, and it just so happened days after we passed

it, literally two issues came right up. now we have the clo issue. and what that showed was that, you know, the conversation is still continuing, and folks don't have a clear, you know, market participants who want to comply with the rule don't have a clear path forward in terms of, all right, who do i talk to in terms of getting the answers? what's the mechanism, what's the framework? and, you know, we need to get the regulators together and say, look, we need to develop a framework in how we're going to be actually dealing with these things rather than sort of, you know, dealing with them in a one-off issue. you look at what happened with the treps issue, we do a statement, a letter and a companion rule which doesn't make any sense of me, why don't we just do it in the volcker rule itself? it's a little bit of a a keystone cops approach. let all these issues sort of come out over the next, you know, 30, 60, 90 days and then deal with them and also take that time to come up with a

framework in terms of how are we going to deal with interpretive guidance, faqs, how are we going to deal with the fact that, you know, you have come license, and how do the regulatory agencies, you know, the rule says one thing, but how do the examiners actually, you know, monitor compliance for these particular rules? these are huge challenges that we have going forward. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking sec commissioner mike piwowar. >> thank you all. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us today. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> congress returns today after their weeklong district work recess, an abbreviated week for house lawmakers this week as republicans will be leaving washington wednesday for their annual party retreat. the house has a round of votes scheduled for 6:30 ian on several land bills. also a bill that would ban federal funding for abortions. you can see the house live on c-span. and the u.s. senate is back today at 2 p.m. eastern to continue work on flood insurance legislation. it would delay the scheduled premium rate increases for four years. the procedural vote is set today

for 5:30 eastern. you can watch the senate when they return live here on c-span2. and some news today that u.s. congressman trey radel of florida will resign today, this coming after the congressman who represents naples and fort myers pleaded guilty last november to cocaine possession and was sentenced to a year of probation. in addition to his retirement, 30 current members of the u.s. house, 19 republicans and 11 democrats, have announced they will not seek re-election in 2014 or are running for other posts including the u.s. senate and governor this fall. in the senate eight lawmakers are not running for re-election, five be democrats and three republicans. >> bill came right after graduating from yale in 1973, and hillary came a year later. hillary clinton's career began right inside this building, the leffler law school at the university of arkansas, where she was a professor, and she taught criminal law, criminal

procedures, trial procedure and the prison project. hillary was, you know, welzly educated -- wellesley educated, ivy league law school grad that had worked in d.c. on the nixon campaign. >> first lady hillary clinton tonight at 9 eastern live on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> as we stabilize the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again. save as many jobs as possible and help americans who'd become unemployed. that's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million americans, made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through cobra and passed 25 different tax cuts. i now, let me repeat, we cut taxes.

we cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. [applause] we cut taxes for small businesses. [applause] we cut taxes for first-time home buyers. we cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. [applause] we cut taxes for eight million americans paying for college. [applause] >> watch president obama deliver this year's address. our preview program starts live tuesday night at 8 eastern with the president at 9 followed by the response from republican conference chair kathy mcmorris mcmorris rogers and your reaction by phone, facebook and twitter. the state of the union tuesday night live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> twenty-five states now have expanded medicaid within their borders. last week state and national experts took part about the discussion of the program's expansion focusing on two states in particular, texas and washington. families usa hosted this event. it's about an hour, 15 minutes.

>> i want to start, introduce mary ann, medicaid director of the state of washington health care authority. and the health care authority is home to both the state's medicaid program and their public employees' benefit be program. and prior to appointment to that position in 2012, mary ann served as assistant secretary for aging and disability services in the administration, and administration in the department of social and health services. and and before that as the director of the health care services division of the medicaid program. so mary ann comes to us today with a lot of experience, both the medicaid ram and also, clearly, working with the medicaid expansion a great deal. and among her many professional accomplishments, i think it's nice to know she's a registered nurse. so that also provides a direct care experience that i think is

very useful in dealing with the issues that she has to on a day-to-day basis. we have jenny goldman with us, the executive director and founder of the texas organizing project. the texas organizing project was founded in 2009 to bring together communities to address critical problems among low income communities of color in texas. since its founding, texas organizing has grown into an organization with a base of over 38,000 members and supporters. they have had many legislative successes and are the leading voter turnout organization in the state. one of the issues jenny works on is moving texas to take up the medicaid expansion. and our final panelist is alan weil, executive director of the national academy for state health policy which most of you know as nashp, an independent academy of state health policymakers, and it provides a forum for work across branches

and agencies of state goth on critical health care -- government on critical health care issues and that includes, obviously, work on medicaid expansion. alan writes and speaks extensively on health care issues, he's on the editorial board of health affairs and is a member of the institute of medicine's board of health care services among many other positions. and his role gives him an opportunity to work with states across the spectrum so he can speak from hearing from a lot of different medicaid directors and states that are in very different places in the medicaid expansion. so i want to thank our guests for joining us and start off by asking each of them some broad questions to get a seasons of where different state -- a sense of where different states are. so first, mary ann, a couple of questions about washington state. can you give me, first, a quick overview of where it is right now with its medicaid expansion and what you would say were the biggest challenges as well as successes in the last year and what you see as the top

priorities for this upcoming year. >> sure. so to start with we were very fortunate in washington mostly was right from the passage of the affordable care act, very early on, we had bipartisan support from our legislature in terms of both the expansion and having a state-based exchange. and i can tell you that made the whole expansion process and discussions and how it would evolve much easier, i think, because of that. they saw, the legislature saw that, and our governor's office saw this as an opportunity for some significant savings to the state for some of the state-only health rams and also, certainly -- programs, and also, certainly, an economic boom for additional jobs. i think we've been very pleased with our success. we met our target, we were hoping to have 120,000 brand new of the newly-eligible group january 1st, we had 121,000. so made it. and also as of today we're over

150,000, and i would say that's probably growing. we're seeing it grow literally every day. we're still seeing the newly eligible coming on. they've got the majority of them enrolled with one of our five managed care programs, and care is being delivered. so it's a very exciting time. i would have to say that this didn't happen without challenges. there's certainly been some system glitches, there are applications that are airing out. we had early on our health benefits exchange, the health plan finder which is the system that we're using, again, brand new system, very compressed time to get that system up and running. not a lot of opportunity to test it before we had to go live. so there have been glitches. folks are having difficulty getting through. so a real full court press on the part of our staff and the team in medicaid and with our exchange to make sure folks that have applied are getting their applications through. we also had made a decision to go ahead for all of our

individuals that were currently on medicaid that would now become eligible, having them go through the health plan finder for -- this year for their recertification. so over this next year we have about 800,000 people that need to recertify through that system, and so, you know, every month recertifying with some of the system glitches, people not able to get in, phone systems overwhelmed, some of those problems have made it difficult for folks to get recertified. so, again, working closely with individuals that are having difficulty getting in, trying to fix those glitches, i have to say, has been a little problematic. we also had a big issue with the state recovery. so individuals that, between the ages of 55 and 64, there is a medicaid requirement that their expenditures during that time the state could come back and recover those costs. the federal government has a pairly their -- fairly narrow

policy that we have to follow on long-term care expenses, but states can expand that to other services. washington had made the choice to expand it several years ago. of course, not anticipating the kind of expansion. and so very quickly we had to make some changes this our state administrative code, kind of at the last minute so to assure folks on january 1st of 2014 that if they were in that age group and had enrolled in medicaid, we wouldn't 10, 20, 30 years ago -- 30 years hence once they passed away that we would be going after their estate. so having to work through that issue. so i would, you know, i would say though even with these glitches, problems, you know, overall things worked relatively smoothly. i'm sure from our staff's perspective on the back end they're trying to help clean up some of these problems, they may not see it that way. but over 450,000 individuals have made it through health plan finder on the medicaid side. so folks either coming into

medicaid as newly eligible, recertifying or folks that would have just normally come into the program. so folks are enrolling, and they're getting care. i think for some of our challenges and things that we want to address and are addressing is really, first and foremost, that customer experience. we want to make sure the customer has a good experience, comes in, can understand the program, has the materials and information that they need. certainly, monitoring enrollment, looking across the state, tracking by county where folks are enrolling, making sure we meet our enrollment targets, continuing outreach to populations that we see aren't being served. looking at access, making sure that the provider network is adequate to serve the new enrollment and working closely with our state insurance commissioner on network adequacy, how that looks so that our exchange plans, medicaid plans are in better alignment

around the providers that they offer. and then for, also for our medicaid managed care program, the way our system works today individuals coming into the program who will be in managed care which is, frankly, the bulk of our enrollment in the state of washington, they today get a defined managed care plan. now, they can make a choice, but it comes after the assignment. we want our medicaid population to have the same shopping experience that folks coming into the exchange have. and selecting a qualified health plan. so we are working towards creating that shopping experience for them which would start in january '15. that's kind of an overview of where we are. >> thank you very much. and i think the enrollment numbers are great. that's terrific. so now i want to turn to jenny, and you're confronting a very different set of challenges -- [laughter] [inaudible conversations] you're organizing to push the expansion forward. >> yes.

>> and it's tough sometimes, i'm sure. can you tell me a little bit about the coalition that's working on the expansion in texas and what a couple of the challenges and successes last year and your top priorities in this upcoming year. >> sure. good morning. first of all, i really want to thank you for having us here from texas for this great conference. i see our state senator there san antonio is here and some other folks from texas were here yesterday, so this is, this is a big issue for us as a state that has the most to gain from medicaid expansion but, unfortunately, is refusing to accept the funds. and so our coalition is really broad. i mean, there's groups like texas organizing project that's very grassroots, on the ground. immediately when rick perry first announced in 2012 that he was going to reject the medicaid expansion money, we really sprung into action, bringing uninsured families to the capitol, having press conferences in front of public clinics and is really showing

that people weren't just going to sit back and and allow this decision to go forward without a fight. and then we had some very close allies and traditional partners that we work with, center for public policy priorities is -- without them we wouldn't really have a policy analysis framework to work with in texas, and we have planned parent hoot, sciu -- parenthood, and some of our traditional partners. service providers. and then because it's such a crisis, you know, the highest rate of uninsured in america, what happens when you have a crisis is unusual partners also come to the table. so the chamber of commerce and texas organizing project don't traditionally agree on many issues, but on this issue we're sitting at a table and talking about the economic impacts that not accepting the medicaid funds is having on the state. the number of jobs that are being lost and how that's hurting our economy. we have the texas medical association, the texas hospital association. so the spectrum is very broad of the organizations that are coming together to continue to beat that drum that we need

medicaid expansion and that we're all in this together. so i think in terms of our challenges, i think there's two challenges, and their names are ted cruz and rick perry. [laughter] it's just that simple for us. and i want to apologize that our biggest challenge has become america's biggest challenge in shutting down -- [laughter] the government. but, you know, so we have senator ted cruz who's really led the charge on what we would call just lies and misinformation campaign. in fact, again, i'm sorry it's spilling across the country about how the aca is going to actually hurt texas and hurt families when what we know is that, you know, when you have six million people who are uninsured, 1.5 million of whom can't qualify for the exchanges, that it couldn't be further from the truth. and so is, i mean, it just is what it is. that's one of our biggest challenges. and then our governor is actually the bigger challenge for us because he actually has the ability to accept the $100

billion of medicaid expansion money and is the biggest roadblock in just absolutely saying no. so at the legislature we showed that there was bipartisan support for a number of different proposals that would create a texas solution that was palatable to expand medicaid in texas, and there was republican and democrats who were ready to push forth some bills and amendments on the budget that would give some leeway and some flexibility to texas to accept the medicaid money under different, you know, under a texas kind of terms. and reduction perry slammed the door on that -- rick perry slammed the door on that opportunity, made it very clear that he would reject the budget if it had that in there, that he would veto any bill that came to him. and so republican legislators who were willing to go there with us, frankly, just had no reason to walk that plank, and, you know, put their own re-election in danger when rick perry made it very clear that he would stop that.

so those were our two biggest challenges, they continue to be our two biggest challenges. but then in terms of successes, i think we really have, you know, we measure success differently in our state. [laughter] but here's our successes, i would say. [laughter] you know, so rick perry made this calculation that he could reject this medicaid expansion money and that the people most impacted probably wouldn't know about it, and if they did find out about it, weren't going to vote or take any action, right? so we count it as a success that we communicated with over 400,000 texans in 2013 about medicaid expansion and about the raca. [applause] aca. [applause] and tracked all of their information in the voter files so we know who these folks are, and 44,000 of them either took an action or pledged to vote in our 2014 elections coming up. so we really, you know, kind of challenged his calculation and really proved his calculation wrong, that people do know he's rejecting this medicaid money,

and they are already taking action and going to be taking more action this year. and some of the actions we took were very direct. i mean, we organized a group of working, uninsured families who were members of the texas organizing project, home health care workers, janitors, walmart workers, people who work every day. because challenging his narrative is very important. i mean, what he was saying was, well, these folks just got a job. they would have health care. and the reality in texas is folks have a job. they have two, three, four jobs. but they're low-wage jobs which is what our economy is based on, and they don't have benefits. and so we organized a group of folks who were willing to directly confront governor erie directly on a number of -- perry directly, so they interrupted his state of the state speech, they followed him here to d.c. when he was speaking at a breakfast and went to the breakfast and confronted him and made him stop speaking. so we've -- we interrupt the press conference that he had with ted cruz about how they were really going to stop the

aca, and he had to answer questions. and then really what we count as a success is for the first time he was forced to meet in his office with working uninsured texans and explain his position to them in front of the press, and that was because in a ballroom very much like this, he was speaking to the chamber of commerce which austin, and six of -- in austin, and six of our members were in the room and interrupted his speech so many times that he finally said please meet me in my office and just leave. so, again, challenging his narrative in the press and saying this is actually the truth about what's happening in texas and here are the faces and the families who are impacted and they're not going to take this sitting down, and they are going to tell their stories and challenge the governor. so that's how we're measuring success right now. [applause] and we've had another, another kind of texas version of success, i mean, on the navigator rules. i hope people are following this. the texas department of insurance which are appointees of governor perry were making

proposals on changing rules on navigators where in addition to the training time they're already required, they would have to add 20 -- 40 additional training hours, they would have toffees and register with the state and pay additional fees to be navigators in texas. so, obviously, in an attempt to discourage organizations from becoming navigators and helping people enroll in the exchanges. and so we just found out yesterday or the day before that we've actually been able to push back on these navigator rules. there will be no fees, additional fees that people have to pay in texas to be navigators. there will only be 20 rather than 40 additional training hours, and groups like ours we really just want to do outreach and education, at first they were proposing that we would also have to register with the state just to do general outreach, and now they've made it clear because our folks went all the way to the capitol five days before christmas and

testified and put 79 people on record slowing down this process. so that's another one of our successes, i would say. >> great, thank you. that's terrific. and thank you for your hard work. we all appreciate it. alan, i want to ask you about the states that are kind of in the middle. it's clear that several states that haven't expanded yet as well as a couple that have want to make the medicaid expansion their own and do something that's a little wit different. someone who -- a little bit different. someone who works with states across the spectrum, can you talk about what we're seeing from states that want to exand using the private option or another kind of a waiver program that requires approval from the federal government? >> yeah. there is a vast middle of states that, exactly as you say, are not just idealogically opposed to doing this, or but are concerned and trying to figure out a way that will work for them. just go back to the beginning when the supreme court decision came down. the primary question states were asking were can we do a partial

expansion, go up less than 133%, can we change our mind if we make the decision one way, can we make another. we got the answers to those questions fairly quickly. you can't do a partial, and you can change your mind. and that sort of led to the first tier of decisions at the state level about whether they were in or out. there's, obviously, both a substantive and a political component to where the states are in these discussions. of so let's start with the substance now that we've moved past those first few questions. you've already talked at this meeting about the private option, and that -- it changed the terms of those discussions about expansion. at a substantive level, of course, arkansas was looking to do the expansion, and they wanted it through private health plans. now, for the vast majority of you in this room in your states, the vast majority of your medicaid enrollees were already

in private health plans. but that wasn't the case in arkansas. and so the notion of this being a big change that somehow the expansion was going to be through private plans actually sub substantively is not the case or wouldn't be the case for most states, but it was a big deal in arkansas. that was the focus there around private plans. subsequently, we've seen other states coming in with waiver requests and approvals -- iowa, michigan, pennsylvania's in the news a lot -- with additional changes that they want charging premiums, charging cost-sharing, co-payments. and then, of course, in pennsylvania a lot of attention around a work requirement which gets into a whole different domain. and we can talk -- we probably will talk a little later about where this might go. we also see a lot of states that are moving forward wanting to have some sort of a trigger where the state will automatically withdraw from the

expansion if the federal government changes the terms and backs away from its 100% financing scaling back down to 90. there's a lot of mistrust out there about whether or not the enhanced match will last. so substantively what we're seeing is small and then growing efforts at the state level to to figure out how to craft a medicaid expansion that fits a little bit more closely what the state had in mind. and i don't want to go too deep into it, but i do want to remind people that in many instances this isn't just opposition or dislike of the medicaid program or people who would be covered by the expansion, but a sincere effort to try to swat the medicaid -- slot the medicaid expansion into the existing terrain of private coverage for low wage workers which in some states is almost nil but in other states has more of a presence as well as what the rules would be for people in the

insurance exchange where premiums and cost sharing are very much a part of the picture. so there's a substantive balance here. as for the politics, there are many, again, who fall between the extremes represented here, those who were immediately willing to embrace the expansion just as a part of the law and those who opposed it from the outset. and i think what i observe is a lot of political leaders looking for a way that they can still be against obamacare because they went on record as being against it ask they can't change that view -- and they can't change that view, but starting to see some of the dynamics playing out about the economic consequences, the human consequences of not doing the expansion. and the most common political frame is we want a solution that works for state x and fill in the blank. and i think that's a very exciting development. i think it's a very positive development. a colleague, vern smith, a