always quick when they talk about the mother of democracy and all that i'm quick to remind them it is still less than 100 years in which women can vote in this commission and we've not been the perfect democracy. and i'm struck also by the changes that took place in west germany and in japan after the second world war. which was a collective effort by the west and largely by the united states of years

and as i said earlier, of billions of dollars and a very large standing force but a colossal effort but as mister mercer said, over several electoral cycles. there was a way to that that was required so general jonathan may be onto something there and would like to improve on that >> johnson! essentially is that these things take time. you are absolutely right i think general and your quote where he says actually it's the wrong political soil and we've tried to your offer ties and politicized tribal societies which i think is probably unduly pessimistic that is on the frame of the duration. >> i would argue with that 100 years ago that this was a difficult question.

obviously, by the partners is something that is different and one of the necessary evils of this is that we are giving resources and support to people who are unaccountable to this parliament, this house but more broadly how we are going to deal with the future consequences of this in setting the standards a breakdown of the national system in the long term and the fact that we are engaging with theseindividuals . >> are you referring to an imminent question? >> it's more with the systems changed and we are picking people who, we worked with people in a way andrus providing resources outside the international framework we had done previously and i'm going to be effective in the long term. how we started thinking about what they may be an what we are going to do with them?

>> as a general rule we don't use non-spectators as a general rule, even the model in iraq supporting a sovereign government is one that normally applies in that we would say that there are exceptions where we've touched upon things today but a quick answer to your question is you need to think very hard about it and think very hard about who you are providing support to, the nature of those individuals, the consequences longer-term of doing that. sometimes a very fine and very difficult but that's essentially the process that we apply to any kind of support to a force whether it's indigenous. >> were using the same criteria with regards to syrian forces. >> well, fundamentally we are. where in the middle of armed

conflict and how we expect any support that we give to be ... >> your giving support interior to nonstate actors, i think that's what we are trying to get out so we are trying to be very careful. >> we're not getting sued material support, we're been being careful with that and when we do we are very careful to that the groups that we trade and in the training we do respect the law of armed conflict as you said. >> the second question, i had a slightly more chiseled question on that. which will be enough and go anywhere. would you envisage a peacekeeping force at some point, have we started thinking about and planning for a british contribution given that all our commitments given thus far have been to that country if it was going to work or

whether based on all this on the ground would impact it. >> that's the key criteria. it would be for you new government to make clear effectively what security systems it requires. the new government in libya for example is very clear. they don't want troops on the ground. they see that as undermining their authority from the beginning and obviously we can offer training and assistance and material assistance but we are not deploying troops there so it would really depend what the demand was from the syrian government but we have a strong record of peacekeeping . as you know, more recently we are sending peacekeepers to somalia and sudan in addition to peacekeepers that we carry out in places like cyprus and so on. >> thank you very much. it remains for me to say i think this has been an

excellent session. and there's been particularly impressive testimony so thank you both of you, thank you secretary of state, peggy general mark and the hearing is included. order, order. >> with congress out this week, we are featuring book tv in prime time beginning at eight. tonight, 2016 pulitzer prize finalist and winners including authors is annie jacobson, tj stiles, connie c coates and joby warrick. what book tv in prime time tonight at 8 pm eastern here on c-span two and this week, c-span's washington journal is live from the border in laredo texas where we've been examining a number of issues including illegal immigration, citizenship and deportation laws.

here's a conversation we had with the chief us border patrol agent they are. >> we see people from all over the world in a laredo and primarily here in laredo in the middle of the 17,000+ apprehensions we've had so far this year are mexican nationals coming from mexico, who are trying to make the connection to the united states but we also see a number of people, about 30 percent of those apprehensions are people from south america we see folks from guatemala and honduras, el salvador. ecuador. we see folks from china and some other areas of the world so that really, it's not defined one particular global area but the folks we see generally are from mexico. >> how are they making the trip? >> most of those votes are from smuggling organizations or criminal organizations to

really finance their trips to the united states. they campaign them anywhere from $50,000 depending on how far they are coming, what type of techniques they are using whether it be forging documents or not and how long that trip is going to take so depending on where they are coming from they say a very significant flight and when we expect to go to the united states or if they're going to be smuggled and transported into the interior of the united states you are going to pay a little more if you are just going to be dropped off at the border. >> doing the smuggling? >> most folks doing the smuggling are criminals. folks that are dedicating their lives to smuggling aliens and/or narcotics and what folks oftentimes do not understand is that the people think they are just trying to do humanitarian effort and trying to transport them or help them be migrant getting to theunited states, it's actually part of the criminal

and enterprise . our only job is really to do the quota or detect what that immigrant is willing to pay to get to the united states and then they find themselves being exploited at every level of that transaction. at the recruitment level, whether it's at the actual transportation level, we see young ladies that are being raped, we see folks that are being robbed, people that are being kidnapped and exploited for more money once they put their lives in the hands of these smugglers. once there being transported, because they are criminals, only want to do is get away so we see folks being exposed to high-speed pursuit once they are found by the police, by the border patrol, we see accidents, troops being left in the desert because they can't walk anymore. they fall ill and the smugglers don't want to get caught so they abandoned them in the desert and in the

first six months in laredo alone we've seen over 33 deaths so far. >> there's a number of different sparkling schemes and methods of concealment in commercial vehicles. we see folks that are trying to clone their vehicles to make it look like they belong to an industry that it really isn't an industry vehicle. they try to mask the fact that they are smuggling narcotics and people into the united states most of the traffic you see in the background, some of these trucks are being exploited as well in order to introduce narcotics and people into the united states. it's become somewhat dangerous and problematic for us so we are passing the 100 degree mark in laredo soon and in the summer months when you get a load of 25 or 30 people that are being hidden in the back of these tractor-trailers, with no air-conditioning and no way to get out of those trailers, it becomes extremely dangerous for us and it's very important for us to be

able to identify that operation before we have to track them down. what happens is normally the commodities come across the international boundary and they are inspected by customs and border protection officers and field operations and introduced into the united states legally and once they do that they go to warehouses where commodity may be broken down into four of five different truck so they came in on truck and they go to this particular warehouse and go to distribution points throughout the country. that's just the way our economy works and now we are able to get the product to be introduced into the country from mexico to different areas of the world and different areas of the country to the united states. there are plenty of opportunities to make these entries into the united states so that commodity or that truck is soon to be used in a struggling event there's

plenty of opportunities for people and/or narcotics to be introduced into that commercial environments are checkpoints afford us the opportunity to screen that traffic once again before it's leading the actual border area and before it rolls into major highways and byways of the united states. >> how are you going about screening here? what would a truck or a noncommercial truck go through? >> any of these trucks or passenger vehicles actually are being screened by border control agents, we talked to the drivers. we may look at where is it that they are actually, the commodity they are transporting and where they are transporting them, and to but we also have an opportunity to expose them to our canine vehicles and our canine units and our cameras are designed not just to spot narcotics that also hidden people may be transported in the vehicles. if there's any suspicion that arises with that border patrol agent then that can be secondary to an inspection area.

these are our vacuum machines and back gatherers to be able to look at that truck commodity and get into that trailer and frame that truck to see if there's any anomalies within that mode. plus it's easier , 700,045 people and that's just from october 3 to march 31 and so it is preventative. talk about the fact that most of these folks go anywhere from $600-$15,000 for the smuggling event, that adds up and gives you a context of how much money there is to be made by these transactions area. >> tomorrow, washington journal is live from laredo texas with a focus on trade. san antonio express reporter linda's off the will discuss trade across laredo's border. congressman henry cuellar of texas talks about how trade

benefitslaredo and the country and boss ã, state director for the texas fair trade coalition and a nasa critic looks at the trade deals impact on jobs from southern texas to mexico. washington journal live from laredo texas, thursday starting at 7 am eastern on c-span. >> citizens have got to feel that their vote matters, that their voice matters and whether they can not spare a single cent to help the person running for office or whether they can write a big check, their concerns, their struggles will be listened to and followed up on sunday night on q and a, wisconsin senator tammy baldwin talked about her career in public service and wisconsin political history. >> donald follett senior helped shepherd the change whereby, whereby senators were not appointed by the

legislatures but demanded elections so i guess, i don't know if it was the first but the idea it wasn't going to be the party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were and smoke-filled back rooms but rather the people who were going to get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. >> sunday night at eastern on c-span sku and eight. >> next, a discussion on student debt in the united states and who is most affected by the problem. the speakers are education department advisor rohan chopra who is the first lawn on the minute the consumer financial protection bureau and new york times columnist susan d'arcy, codirector of the education policy initiative at the gerald ford school of public policy at the university of michigan. >> good afternoon everybody

and welcome. i'm susan collins, the dean here at the gerald r ford school of public policy and i'm delighted to see all of you with us here today. before i begin, i'd like to thank the education policy initiative and my colleagues brian jacob and susan's and rc for planning our event today which you like me have been looking forward to. i'd also like to acknowledge the center or the study of higher and post secondary education whose director michael less ego is here today as well. and the charles h and susan guess not for their generous support of today's program. we are grateful for all of those engagements.today, we will address a very important question. is there a student debt crisis? many of us are well aware of

the ever-expanding student loan market and the latest estimates are that nearly 40 million americans are laden with perhaps $1.3 trillion of student debt. and one in four of the borrowers is either in delinquency or in default. last year's graduating class had an average of $35,000 in student debt. those are striking numbers. the obama administration recently announced two substantive policy changes and presidential candidates have focused on a variety of alternativesof ways to lower the debt burden. today's speakers are two of the leading voices on student debt , rohit chopra and susan dynarski. rohit chopra was recently named special advisor to the us department of education.

he previously served as assistant director of the consumer financial protection bureau where he let that agencies work on behalf of students and young consumers. the secretary of treasury named him as the agencies first loan ombudsman, a new role that was established by the. wall street reform and consumer protection act. chopra as frequent testified before congress on alleviating student debt burdens and private student loan reform. susan dynarski is a member of the school faculty and a colleague. he's a professor of education public policy and economics here at the university of michigan and also codirector of the school of education policy initiative. susan is one of the country's top advocates for accessible higher education. he has testified before congress on education and tax policy and is widely consulted on student aid reform including at the federal reserve, the white house, the department of education and treasury and with the council of economic advisers.

she writes for the new york times and if you're on twitter, i encourage you to follow at susan dynarski for a informative and witty commentaries. first the word about today's format. each of our panelists beginning with susan will kick things off with brief opening remarks. i will then have the pleasure of moderating a conversation with our two experts. i will start with questions of my own before opening things up to the audience. we write questions on the notecards that you should have received as you came into the room and we will have volunteers circulating to collect them from you during the program and if you are watching online, these send us your questions via twitter using the hashtag epi student debt. let's get started. susan, the floor is yours. >> i'm going to start with data but i want to start out by talking about if there is indeed a crisis in student debt, where is it?so we are at a university and a school

of public policy so we should be addressing this question with data as opposed to say, introspective and thinking about our own experiences or those of our friends or colleagues . and also instead of maybe just reading the latest dramatic piece in the news about the stressed borrower but by analyzing the data. data has been a problem in this context which means that in parts, anecdotes have filled the void and so if there is not good data on a problem then the arising and anecdoteare going to fill the void . the department of education which is responsible for the federal loans in this country have not been terribly forthcoming in compiling and releasing to the public information on who borrows, who default , their experience is changing a bit and as of this past fall we have excellent data on debt default, for people who

borrowed basically since the late 90s or so up to the present so what i am going to say here is based on the analysis of those data. so what does data say? first of all they say that you should erase from your mind if you are thinking about the face of the student debt crisis is, you should erase from your mind the image of a yale graduate or an nyu graduate or a columbia graduate or even a un graduate. anyone graduates with aba is relatively unlikely to default so folks who graduate have quite low default rates. the default rate also drops the school selectivity so the more selective the school is, the lower the rate of default for schools like um and harvard and columbia, about five percent is what the default rate is so that's what it was before the

recession, that's what it was during the recession rated folks who graduate from elite schools are pretty well buffered from economic distress. not everybody but we are talking about averages and tendencies. so who should you? you also should not think of photo are going to graduate school so people who graduate, i know you don't like that but the question is whether it's the face of the crisis in our country area and nobody likes debt, everybody hears an economist speaking and would rather have stuff free then pay for it. that's an economic principle. you got your certificate now in economics so that students borrow the most but they are the most likely to default because they make good money compared to other folks so

graduates have a very, people who borrow for graduate school are unlikely to default. graduates of select schools like um might borrow around $30,000 total is the typical debt for people graduating but they tend to make good money so they can support a debt of $30,000 and paid off so if that's you it's not and one thing to note , that i just listed the profiles of the people who are focused on the media so when the media focuses on student debt crisis, the people they profile are folks at columbia and nyu, people with graduate degrees so this week in slates, a graduate of connecticut college who also has a graduate degree from penn talked about their experience with $200,000 in debt so that's a vanishingly unlikely amount of debt. it's very few people have that amount of debt and people who graduate with graduate degrees tend not to default. there was also a lovely

article in the new york times that enraged me into writing several upshot posts from a guy who graduated with not one, not two but three degrees from columbia university and subsequently defaulted on all of them and was urging others to follow his example. setting him up as sort of a leader of the student loan revolt. these are not the victims of the student loan crisis so who is? the base of student loan distress is the dropout from a nonselective college so a person who spent a year or two at a for-profit college, proprietary school. click university of phoenix or a community college or a nonselective four year college. this is based on the data if you look at was defaulting. that's who it is. there are first-generation

college students. they grew up poor, the entered college late in their 20s or 30s to improve their job market skills. money were running away from the job market of the recession and went to one of these schools to tool up so they could get a better job. they borrowed relatively little because they spent little time in school. they dropped out after a year or six months so maybe $5000-$10,000 a year. that's total. in total they borrowed five to $10,000. they entered with low earnings, $18,000 a year. they exited with low earnings, $20,000 a year so they entered poor, they left poor and the typical loan in default is less than $10,000. more around $5000 is the typical loan in default. 44 percent of the dollars are coming for-profit institutions, people who borrowed for-profit colleges. nearly a third of students who enter college during the recession and borrowed to attend college or a for-profit college defaulted in five years. for the people attending a selective ba institution,

it's five percent. the problems are at the community colleges and at the for-profit institutions. so this is why have firmly in mind when i think about victims of a student debt crisis, lower income, first generation students attending community college or a for-profit college. tunes of corinthian college who are defrauded into borrowing for what was ultimately a nonexistent education. a person laid off from their job who tries to pick up skills at the local community college and borrowed to do so and is exiting with very low earnings and in my opinion, if there is a crisis of any sort it's a crisis of low earnings in our country that we have, we lack a safety net. we have a very large number of people who are earning very low earnings and who cannot handle even $5000 in debt as a result. >> first, thanks for having

me and thanks to all of you for being here. as the mentioned, i've recently joined the department of education and am just a few days into the job so a caveat that on my opinion. the way i often get a question, why do we have student loans and actually i always answer, it's important to remember we have student loans for a good reason and that is to ensure that people who might not be able to afford to go to college can make that investment into themselves which can pay off very big when done right. but things have changed so much in the past 10 years that it's hopeful to think through that. many people who are concerned about student debts, many of you probably in this room

might come from the education world. i probably come from the other stepchild of this world which is thinking about it from a consumer financial market perspective and those of us from our lens were really colored and shaped by the foreclosure crisis that we saw in the past several years and for those of you who are from michigan, you probably know very well that problems in the mortgage market absolutely devastated parts of michigan and this was not unlike other parts of the country. today, we have a mortgage market that is very different but i think less discussed was some evidence that really changed the student loan market also and i think it's worth mentioning some of them so on again , the financial crisis. there is no question that the financial crisis had to real big effects. one effect is that it really eroded family wealth, actually trillions of dollars of household wealth

evaporated in the form of home equity, in the form of retirement savings so many families don't more stressed about being able to contribute to their dependent child education and at the same time, the financial crisis hit state budgets very hard. and there was some substantial cuts to public higher education and i want to echo something to say, when you think about who goes to college you really want to remember that the biggest group is those who attend public colleges. so the mix of families feeling more financially stressed and higher tuition which by the way, is not just something that's recent. i understand that 40 years ago undergraduate tuition at the university of michigan

was $800. now, inflation adjusted that's probably about four or five times higher but the tuition for undergraduates is well more than four or five times higher than $800 so i think it really pronounced, the crisis pronounced that affect and i think we've seen substantial increases in reliance on student loans. secretary of education has noted that student loans became kind of the norm at a certain point so what else happened i think is important context and i think we forget there was a lot of talk about the rescue of the financial system due to gambling on wall street but there was also a huge change in our federal student loan system which was a lot that

essentially led to the government purchasing a huge amount of federal student loans, most federal student loans before 2010 were originated by financial institutions stamped with a government guarantee and now those loans, much of them are owned by the government and in 2010 the president got along pass to essentially end this bank subsidy program and now when you borrow student loans it's all directly through the department of education. so all this put together of more borrowers, more students relying on student pell grants, on student loans combined with the government taking these unprecedented actions really has in some ways created a lot of opportunity that the policymakers and the research community are thinking about all the different tools that can really be used to make improvements to the system. and i think that we are at a place that we need to keep

helping people go to college but we need to remember that the macro environment as well as some poor performing programs are leading to people, many people being in very high levels of distress and i can't tell you enough that what i would push you to remember is when somebody is delinquent on their student loans, it is often just one side of a broader array of shocks that are happening. they are fighting to keep paying rent, struggling to make payments on their car loan and thinking through that as a whole consumer about the trauma that they are managing is something we always have to keep in the top of our mind. that being said, there's a lot of policies that are being pursued to not only address the borrowers who are struggling but also to inoculate the broader

structural issue that probably is being hard to port and a few of them iwill mention , there's now new repayment plans, pay as you learn. there's a broad expansion of affordable loan modifications and prepayment plans that allow borrowers to pay a reasonable amount of income to manage those kinds of distress. my understanding is that there's about 5000 people enrolling in that day on average and we have to figure out how we can keep them in there to manage through that. there are also new ways for borrowers to get out of default on their federal loan. new rules that have been put in place allow borrowers to get back on their feet through loan rehabilitation and we need to make sure that borrowers are not hiding and they know their options for them. of course there has been a lot of interest and activity on enhancements to student

loan servicing. search student loan servicers or the companies that help collect payments and manage your loans. there's a lot of work to do to make that process work better. there's been the president enacted a student aid bill of rights that calls into number of number of potential improvements and that might be an important way and there's good work being done to help borrowers to navigate through that process. going forward, we have to think about how to inoculate future generations to be able to afford college and not be deterred loans and the high sticker prices and just a few of them ending some of those bank subsidies for the old federal loanprogram created money to invest in a belgrade program . there are a lot of people

that take the role of accreditors and state agencies. i, sue mentioned the collapse of corinthian colleges has raised a lot of questions about the role of how we do oversight and many of you might have heard of the administration gainful employment initiative. essentially it's a regulatory framework to prevent schools from graduating or even not graduating students with unaffordable levels of debt. and there's broader conversations all over society inside and outside washington about making community college free or more affordable and i think i would encourage all of you as you think about this issue that there's not one initiative that is going to be a cure all. it is a series of tools to fight a discrete set of

problems. the best college affordability won't fix issues for people struggling today and the reverse is true as well so lots of hard problems but big solutions are needed. >> thank you very much. like a friend there is a complex and nuanced set of issues. they are of vital importance and i say that both from my perspective as the dean of the policy school and also my perspective as the parents of two college students. so there are many issues on the table.i as i mentioned ask a couple of questions first to start things off but i encourage you to use the notecards for us to open things up to the audience participation. perhaps the place to start is to get more of a sense of how

worried should we be about this crisis anyway? you talked about the mortgage loan crisis at the beginning of your remarks and certainly some have suggested that what's happening with student loans is a bubble. that could be as concerning as the mortgage crisis was as we all well know. howard, how worried should we be about what's happening in student loans and with student debt? >> again, coming from the view of someone who's more of a financial services practitioner, i have a very maybe stringent definition in my mind of what a debt crisis is. a debt crisis like we saw in the mortgage market or as we see in parts of continental europe or puerto rico is a very different animal. it is one where there is an

immediate precipice upon where there will be some systemic change that will cause mass devastation very quickly. and the term bubble you know, also condos an economic term that something will pop and will be very quick and dramatic. i do not think what we are seeing in student loans is one that's going to create graphic, systemic risk because there's really not close interconnectedness with big financial institutions that could reverberate through the economy. that being said, those are technical terms but there are many people in our country that it is a personal crisis for them that they cannot manage, that i will say i totally respect what sue has shared with the data but i wonder, are some of the borrowers who don't borrow very much but are in default,

are they actually in debt on a lot of other instruments? did they finance their education in other ways that may not show up in the student loan data? so how i would answer that is , maybe it's not a doomsday that we bought with the collapse of some of the large financial institutions with the subprime mortgages but on the level, i think we have to ask ourselves how can somebody who defaults on a student loan really recover and become someone who can participate in the economy and not be discouraged and frankly not to feel like a failure. we've got to do a lot, i don't want to debate over the word or what the status is but i think we all agree there's so much we can improve for individual borrowers and we need to know more about what the potential impacts are on the rest of the economy but there may not

be something immediate but there's more to learn there. >> i think i agree with everything rohit just said. a bubble emerges when an asset for example can get flipped over and over again and its price gets inflated so think tulips in holland, tulip prices. that continually get swept as the price inflates because people have expectations about, you can't flip human capital. you can't sell your human capital right? so you can't get the same crazy inflationary effect. what we do have is a lot of suffering so i wanted to make concrete durations about what it means when we get seven, 8 million people in the fall, what does that actually mean for individual lives? somebody who's in default has been in norma's block on their record, what does that mean? many landlords now do credit checks before somebody can read so they are shut out of

parts of the housing market. if they want to buy a car to get to work because they're living in a neighborhood that's not where the jobs are , they are shut out of getting a reasonably priced loan for their car and they go and get an 18 wheeler truck and the interest rate loan to further press on their finances. many employers now check credit records so they are going to miss out on job opportunities and of course add to that the psychological stress of somebody calling your cell phone or home phone or calling your relatives to harass you about your debt so there's a lot of suffering and that's bad so i think that is what the crisis is. we have people who went to school to improve themselves that are encouraged especially during the recession, they provided a lot of subsidies, told people the right thing to do, the job market is weak.

invest in school and as a result they are suffering and it is a man-made crisis and that's what i think of as the student debt crisis. >> in terms of the magnitude, the mortgage crisis at the peak, the lending was, the magnitude of the debt was close to two thirds of the us gdp. this magnitude is not at that level, is that correct? >> there's approximately and i'm not exactly right but about 14, in the low teens of trillions of outstanding mortgage debt and what i also share is that in the subprime mortgagelending context , there was a set of risky features as part of those loans that led to a potential cataclysmic event and a lot of, finance counterpart transactions, derivatives and other sorts of instruments hide to that. there was in fact a subprime

private loan market that really blossomed just when the subprime mortgage lending . generally speaking now, most of the lending that is occurring is in the federal loan market where fortunately people have access to these income driven repayment programs so i think that understanding how the mortgage market unravels is important but there's also important differences and i think one of the important lessons is looking at servicing. how in my old role at the cfpb we really regulated both mortgage servicers and student loan servicers and i was quite struck particularly with the private loan servicers at the deficiencies . surfacing is a tough business but when it goes wrong or a borrower it can really be

quite devastating and it can lead to suffering though i really encourage that there's a lot of interest in doing more to improve that piece of the puzzle. >> so it sounds like both of you actually agree that this is not in the realm of the mortgage crisis in that sense . however, perhaps in addition to concerns about the impact on individuals, there are broader economic impacts in terms of economic growth. certainly some of the things you are suggesting, each of you pointed to at least the possibility that there might be more consequences we should be concerned about and i wonder if you would each comment on that before we ship years to a different dimension. >> so on that front, there's one fact that i didn't expressly put out there which is that the people who have the largest loans are the least likely to default on their loans so it's a

straight line relationship where the smallest loans are the ones most likely to default so we hear this narrative tends to be loan that is going up, it's 1 trillion, 1.3 trillion, defaults are going up. it must be that one leads to the other so it must be people are borrowing more and because their borrowing more they're more likely to default and that's to the fact that the debts that are most likely to default are about $5000. these are not the numbers we think of when we see okay, people now can't get married or by homes because of this debt. it's not, the people who have the most debt are currently the winners in our society, people who graduate with a ba or masters degrees. they are the only people whose earnings have been growing steadily for the past decades, earnings of other folks have been dropping or flat. so there is a set of people,

these low skilled, low income folks with fairly so that are suffering but as you alluded to, they have other debts as well so we have a set, a very large group of people who have terrible employment prospects. we don't have a sufficient safety net. there are problem. their problems are the important ones. the student debt may have been the needle that broke the camels back. it's not the burden that is causing the main problem. >> though i think professor dynarski's analysis is right on who's actually hitting the default but i think there are reasonable people who have asked questions the extent to which people are graduating with higher levels of debt even if they are not defaulting, many of those graduates may actually be located in metro areas where

cost-of-living rents have gone up quite a bit so i think as to whether, are they paying higher student loan payments, higher in rents, maybe actually not experiencing a huge amount of wage growth and does that interactionwhich we don't know too much about , does that have an impact on their ability to hit some of the other milestones, some of the survey data of public opinion suggests that having a lot of student debt might change the people think about saving for a down payment, buying a home. we don't really know the specifics of it and i think as you have mentioned so many times, having better data about student debtors i think will help us really understand the problems but i agree. i think mostly about the people who have defaulted. kind of like i think about the people not too far from

here where there was really high levels of foreclosures. people need to recognize that yes, crisis and economic term, maybe it's not there but what's happening to people in their foreclosure, when they lost their homes and what happens to people when they default is you know, is a personal tragedy and dealing with that is something we have to battle to follow up a little bit on that, every dollar somebody is putting into a student loan is something they can't put into something else so they can't use it to save or they can't use it so in that sense it all has to add up in some way and the new york said among others had been sort of developing, putting out a narrative that sort of pushed the idea i thought that loans were reducing homeownership rates for example.

and from this newer data that we've got, it really looks like what's been going on is that more and more poor people are taking out loans. therefore you see among most people who have loans, the homeownership rate is going down. this is a compositional effect that people who never could afford homes are now appearing in the ranks of student loan borrowers. the people who always used to borrow, who go to the elite schools, their borrowing rates have not changed. it's a shift in the composition of the borrowers that now is a lot of poor people as opposed to a impact of the student loans on people's home owning so again, it's the data nerd in me but this data has given us a clearer picture about what's going on and i'm going to drop a question.we got a good snapshot now of what happened in late 1990 to the present, how are we going to make sure we keep seeing this information and that the

store is not going to close again. how are we not going to be in this crisis in five years if we don't have the data. >> one of the things that many of my colleagues and i are thinking about is how actually can we be more transparent and routinized the release of data and information and i think which we do with mortgages very well. frankly, the college scorecard which you referred to each includes, actually encourage anybody who's interested in education student loan policy to look at the college scorecard because it actually gives you a much more detailed view not only about debt but also about earnings and that's really the two sides of the equation that can help us think about what's the next level of analysis beyond not only do i go to college but where do i go and where will that pay off. i think you are right though that there is an increasing need to make data available

and that scorecard was a big piece of that and i think we're going to do more.>> so i am always happy to contribute to a plug for the importance of data but in addition as you were both alluding to, the importance of helping people understand what the data is telling them so that they can influence their own decisions in those ways: number of your comments have really highlighted the interactions among dimensions of people's lives and the interactions among the different groups who are participating in the loan market is part of that complexity so in addition to student borrowers and to various lenders, we also have the colleges and universities . some have said and i believe there it is actually research that finds that as availability of student aid,

student loans went up that colleges simply raised their prices and so that may be a kind of challenging dimension and i would like to hear from each of you your views about whether that simply is how things unfolded. the support for the student aid went up but the universities and colleges simply raise their prices so that doesn't help us address the challenge. >> so i'm not ultra-familiar with the literature on it but my understanding is that there is some disagreement and a mixed review whether the impact of additional aid and loans on the price of college. i will say though that it's important to remember that the published tuition and fees that are out there is

not actually on a substantial portion of lower income people pay and i think that with more aid, the net price for several years now has actually stabilized among many sectors of higher education so i don't know the answer to it but it's obviously one that you'd want to know that effect but i want to make sure it's clear that what's the answer? was really the answer? we have to tailor the program though they meet the policy goals and the policy goals is for people to go to college and advance ahead but i think it's goes into the question of the importance of research and analysis is just increasing every single day because frankly,sometimes when you release more information, new questions arise . >> my read of the evidence on this, the best evidence at this point is for-profit colleges indeed raise their

prices when grant aid and happy loans go up so the sticker price, they don't give their own aid to people. their sticker price is their net price. they're not giving scholarship to peopleand their prices do go up when aid gets more generous .at the 80 percent of students attend public institutions . at those institutions, what drives price question mark how much money the states are giving to them so if you look at how much public institutions are spending per student it's been pretty flat but what's changed is most of the money is coming from the state and more is coming from the students so it looks like costs are going up but who pays for it is now the students rather than the state taxpayers. there is some evidence that schools that provide their own scholarships when the pell grant goes up will scale back on their scholarships and ship them to other people

who are eligible for those scholarships but the main action appears to be in the for profit. >> thank you. let me shift gears a little bit and i think each of you in your remarks talked about some of the either proposals or policy options that have been implemented to try and address some aspects of the studentloan crisis and in particular , you've mentioned the income driven repayment plans and those of course allow was to pay in installments and often over longer time periods. there have been proposals and i think susan you have been on to propose this of the managed repayment plan through payroll withholding and i'd like to ask each of you how much of the problem to those kinds of policies really sticks question mark. >> i personally think that in a world where borrowers can pay as a percentage of their

income, it's not a cure all to college affordability and student debt but it's an important weapon that a borrower can use to fight delinquency and default. and avoided by getting an affordable payment and i actually think that's a pretty good weapon and i want to make sure that you know, for anybody who you think is struggling, they should know about that and it's important that they are able to easily enroll and reenroll each and every year. there have been, the president has directed the agencies to look into multi-year certifying certification of income driven repayment plans but i would say for the purpose of tackling delinquency it is pretty powerful and you know, i urge people to figure out, are they learning about it and get ideas about how to

improve their services, telling of them about it and if they're not, we need to hear about that so we can fix that. >> i would say the very fact that we have 7 million people in default and that links continue to grow indicates that the system of income contingents loan repayment programs we have now is not working. none of those people should be defaulting. if they are very low income, $18,000 a year for example, but if they were in pay as you were, they basically wouldn't be paying at all so a lot of this comes back to where the rubber hits the road. how do we implement these programs? the servicing sounds like such a boring topic. loan servicing, boring but the fact is how do you actually interact with the borrowers? how do you contact them? how do you work with them to get them into a program that works for them? they initially came up with

the mortgages so there's a big push from the feds for the mortgage companies to restructure loans. restructure the mortgages so that people would have more reasonable payment plans and where it was the implementation, getting the services to do it that's happening now as well.i think the big problem is that higher education owns this enormous portfolio of loans. it's essentially one of the biggest banks in the country but it's a service organization, it's not a financial organization. it's good at giving money to students and getting people to college and that's what it should be doing. they should not be in the business of servicing $1 trillion portfolio of loans. who in the government collects money from taxpayers. >> mark treasury does. it knows how to do that.

i don't think ev knows how to do that and i don't know that i would want to see ed turn into a is a physician whose focus is collecting and also i would add that borrowers, the process to walk through that, many borrowers need that individualized counseling that i think sometimes is just hard to deliver. many companiesmany companies may not be set up to do that, per se. i don't know what the right answer is. >> they are not paid to do it. i have a contract with the department of education and the department of education is not paying them enough

for the time it takes to walk somebody through enrollment. >> many of the services were working for other financial institutions figuring out how that is related to your point about payroll deduction, maybe there are ways to streamline the repayment issues. and he had done some work on automating that. as a concept that we have to really think about. but i want to make sure is very clear is when a borrower is having a tough time on their student loans, they're may actually be bigger issues that they are dealing with financially speaking that might have

more immediate consequences, for example getting the car repossessed or making rent. we always have to remember that once people are in trouble is like a treadmill. sometimes it gets faster and faster and faster. getting repayment plans clear so that people know about it and can easily enrollment is just critical. >> even if we had the dream of universal income -based payroll system that would not deal with fraud, institutions out they're that are selling a product, charting people tuition, getting them getting them to take over but not actually educating them that is not going to get fixed by this.

the regulation of the for-profit college is not getting it fixed by the being an income -based program. all it fixes as the backend. had we make sure people are getting indication that they are paying for? that is aa separate issue that cannot be dealt with by income -based repayment. >> figuring out how to monitor that so they are not engaged in wrongful conduct just today the ftc and the department of education took action, enforcement action relating to devry. of course there are issues. you're right. the repayment plans will solve it. the other thing that i think is important to remember, there is a sense that everyone was too loans is having a tough time, and i think that's just not true, and for many people who graduate, make good money, sign up for auto debit on their loans, they have a good experience with repaying, but there are --

>> it makes me very happy to pay my love every month. >> the sense that if you like to know what to do whereas i think when people are really struggling, that is really where it gets tough. >> okay. we are now ready to go to the audience. the 1st question is actually from twitter. wewe have had a nice segue to it, talking a lot about the repayment approaches and mention that that is not going to fix everything. everything. so this question is, is it possible to produce guidelines such as barone no more than x dollars if you are getting a degree in a particular field or if you'reyou getting an associates degree? what are your views about that? [laughter] >> we essentially do have

some of that in that we have annual limits for undergraduates. so we have some caps on it. we don't have caps on other loans such as the parent plus loans. he much parents can borrow the entire contribution that they are supposed to be -- that the formula says they are supposed to be making which has been causing problems, ditto with red plus loans. should we do that and what government do it? i think it will be great if student said that information, degree in education arei degree in social work or degree in fine arts that would guide them how much they would borrow. on average is worth it to bar to go to medical school.

that's kind of what the college scorecard is intended to do. is the government ever going to have -- you're getting a degree in animation. we just don't have that degree of regulation in our country. i can see an informal advising system trying to promulgate that kind of information. we couldwe could have major by major school by school loan limits. >> a lot of people answer this through rules of thumb. i think the challenge by doing that when it comes to degree type, bachelor's associates, there are significant variations in earnings within those degree

types. so i think when it comes, this is just my own quick thinking when it comes to vocational training certificates a pretty clear understanding of what the type of job you might are afterward, the salary you might earn based on that occupation. it may be simpler to come up with what is that right amount to borrow so that is comfortable to afford. i think actually when it comes to a number of undergraduates from particularly for years bachelor's degrees we all have to acknowledge that so many people don't really know what kind of profession are going to pursue several years later. huge complications in other developing rules of thumb or regulating on. >> okay. second question, and this is a question related to data what is the data tell us?

what we know about differences by race? the impacts related to the hbcus. >> i don't have that off the top of my head. my understanding is that some of the survey data suggests that minorities, african-americans borrow at higher rates and more. the percentage of people borrowing and the average level of borrowing is higher that being said there is not a similar framework lectures for mortgages where we have much more granular information on how much people of borrowing and low-level data by race, ethnicity, and some other.

now, as i understand, that is not -- >> it is not. there is a long history of racial lead lining and because of that there are requirements that race included in mortgage applications. the data i was describing to you come from the administrative data that the department of education has on student loans including the fafsa which you all no and love. so those data, nor for that matter the irs data, nothing in there about race. what you can say is you can try to peace it together. if you look at who attends for-profit institutions community college disproportionately going to be hispanic, african-american, those

populations also have much lower wealth levels, for a given level of income if you compare an african-american family, the african-american family will have lower wealth. something that builds over multiple generations. so you need to have not only apparent by your parents parent and your parents parent to have had good incomes for many years for you to end up with wealth and also not of had it seized and appropriated and institutionalized ways that it has been in the us. >> we know that there is disparities according to government data, college graduates were minorities are earning per hour after college versus their white counterparts. a lot of mixture there. that raises some very serious questions about how we look at this in a nuanced way if we believe that

education is a vehicle for social mobility? >> clearly there is more work to be done understand those gaps. with the failure of corinthians what is the role of the government shutdown institutions versus letting the market take care of poor performing schools. >> i think when i was at the cfp be i was heavily involved in a lawsuit against corinthian which alleged a number of types of misconduct related to their private loans. and obviously they have shut down, and i think it is raised some questions about how does oversight in higher education work? and this is actually the history of oversight in higher education referred to as the triad where the federal government of creditors and state all

playable in doing so,so, and i think there have been some legitimate questions asked about corinthian being accredited to the very end and what is the appropriate role, part of what i'm working on his thinking about what is the appropriate role of the state and protecting consumers? now i think you are asking me a different question about the market closing, you know, there are schools that do fail because of their own whatever it may be a financial mismanagement, not being able to provide good programs, but i do worry that there are some programs that particularly where there might not be the level of transparency and honesty like, but some of

the medieval. allow of students really renew the full truth about what the program was going to deliver. >> it is also, if you have an image in your mind of the for-profit college industry is being this competitive private market, you're wrong. because they get 90 percent of their income from student aid programs. loans and grants from the government, and then there's something called the 90 general which means institutions can't get more than 90 percent of her income from the student aid program. the for-profits tend to be right at that margin and then they can get more money from the people getting veterans benefits. that doesn't count in the 90 general. it's one of the few ways we

regulate the for-profit. the idea that market forces will compete them out of existence i don't think is accurate. the 90 general we use as a waya way to make sure no institution is completely living off of student aid. it is a fairly weak regulatory tool. >> one of the things that i have been closely following for years, we can't deny the fact that there are a number of people post september 11 have returned from service and have a generous, and appropriately deserve g.i. bill the student aid programs that money is from the g.i. bill, especially

military related programs don't count, and the obama administration is supported closing a loophole because it is, i think, leading to targeting of those individuals, and, and i just think the last thing we want to do is have someone use the benefit program that is not going to help them get ahead. after world war ii the g.i. bill was a key instrument of transitioning those from service center productive civilian life. many people believemany people believe it was part of the engine of growing the economy, getting people in jobs that pay. we have to fix that. >> okay. it is virtually impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy. doesn't that make the situation worse than the

mortgage crisis? what are your thoughts? >> the main area i worked on as it relates to bankruptcy, the 2005 change was treated private student loans like federal student loans, and it is worth noting that federal student loans do have income driven repayment which is kind of like a chapter 13 style repayment plan some of the private loans don't have that, and the study publisheda study published by the department of education, the cfp be a few years ago shows that the change in the bankruptcy code did not leave to lower prices, nor did it lead to expanded access to loans. so because of that it probably did not meet its intended goals, and it is something that needs to

really be looked at again as to whether it was appropriate change. i think bankruptcy is very well-known that it is not dischargeable, but i am not sure if in any way my talk about before, ii don't think it is in any way a panacea for what is going on. many young people, even if they could file would not because of some of the other effects it might have on their credit. when it comes to the federal student loans i would like to see that people really are able to get into the programs that help them avoid delinquency in the fall. >> you can't get into an income driven program with your mortgage. if you lose your job and earnings drop as a result your mortgage company is not going to say, okay, because you're earning much no payment.

but you can do that with student loans by getting into one of income driven programs. the reason right now is say you got a bad year in terms of earnings command way -- may well be another five or ten years you got a good year. as a society wea society we want to make sure people who are doing fine are contributing so that they can be helping other people get access to college. we have a pool of money that comes from people who when and it works out, let them contribute their money in the form of taxes and loan payments which gets recycled. so i wouldi would not want to see people doing these strategic bankruptcies. how many times as donald trump been in bankruptcy? it is just a mechanism for

the next deal. make sure people are paying their fair share. >> this question from the audience kind of follows up on the comments you are just making about how you want to encourage people to move forward in the higher education in ways that really improves opportunities for the future how do you preventyou prevent students are over borrowing without discouraging students from enrolling in college in ways that improve their economic future? that is a delicate balancing act. what are your thoughts about ways to get it right? >> additional access points, first-generation students, low income students, and

keeping those in the way that we sort of protective students against very high risk in making the bed on college is by making those cheap. we keep public colleges cheap so that people don't have to borrow, go into debt, and if it doesn't work out there not left with a big hangover. and essentially free access. for education is an important way to make sure that low income first-generation folks can experiment with college. it is not going to fix

everything. there will still be people who go to private institutions and to go to for-profit institutions are going to borrow. how do we deal with repayments and make a well functioning loan system, but having a vibrant, cheap, well functioning community college is one way that we keep that promise. >> to be clear, the consequence of not completing or going to committee college and it not working out. is not as great as if we borrow a lot. but get that credential and if they don't pursue further study they are still able to get that wage increase.

>> one dynamically saw, people are pouring back in to school. they want to get a community colleges. they are being underfunded under oversubscribed. people can't get into classes they want to take, the nursing program that they want to, and the for-profits took advantage. we have strong evidence that when community colleges are underfunded for-profits grow. in part that in itself is amendment problem. it can be undone. the next time we have a recession or some other event that pushes more people in the school if we have not expand the capacity it will happen all over again. >> the us university system is often compared to systems in our counterparts in other industrial countries. frankly, the us is wealthier country and some of those which have not faced the types of repayment challenges, crises the us is grappling with.

so what are the lessons are there lessons that we should be drawing from those experiences in terms of how to finance post secondary education? >> i have not studied the international comparisons, but my ill-informed view is that i think maybe most of those, the differences in borrowing and financing is simply because college as a percentage of family income is dramatically lower. from my understanding there is also many industrialized countries, particularly incognito europe, universities that are essentially federally funded in ways that keep tuition very, very affordable. i do know in some anglo countries that shift is changed quite a bit. i don't know the exact answer, but it is possible a simple answer might be

explained. >> there is another piece as well, we, the us postsecondary system is the land of 2nd and 3rd chances. if you did not do well in high school you can still go to committee college. maybe eventually you can go to university. in germany, france there is restricted access to the university. based on higher performing in middle school you will go to a high school that prepares you are doesn't. the share of people going on is much lower. i was meeting along with other people from the higher ed group comeau we went to england and are talking to counterparts there. the graduation rates from the universities are astoundingly high because they restrict the share of people who can go. so it is a less risky proposition for the government to invest in them

but it also means that were not taking a risk on the same number of people. that is the other structural difference. we give people the opportunity to take a risk but them replace all the rest on them, and if it goes badly what we are hearing is because very badly, and if we want to let people experiment we need to provide more in the way of insurance against things going badly. one way is to make it free, another is to if you don't end up with a strong salary you just don't pay. >> the next question is, how much of a problem here is just the interest rates that are charged on student loans are too high? elizabeth warren has proposed making student loans at much lower percentage interest rates. what do you think? >> i understand that from

before 2,012 or something the rates were fixed had i believe generally 6.8 percent was a very common interest rate. new federal student loans are tied to market conditions. so rates today for loans are much lower. now, the interest rates are set by congress. if congress wants to lower the rate are increase the rate, you know, that is there prerogative. for many people interest accrual is a substantial part of what they repay. for those who are struggling badly and in default, and many ways they are not even close to just paying the interest portion but ever getting you the principal portion. so i don't know, it's one of

the many issues about loan repayment, and other relates to the default issue come on the, i'm not sure is directly related, but many people have made the argument and interest rates during the obama administration went down. many people thought that was a fair outcome. >> i would say lowering interest rates cuts costs for borrowers. that is undeniable. as a deal with default? okay. over the next ten years years and reduce your payments by 20 bucks a month. that is not the most targeted way to help someone who is struggling with repayment.

make a difference of 20 to 25 bucks a month and repayment. so it's not -- it will benefit everybody including the people who have hundred thousand dollars in their mbas and earning good money. so it's not targeted in the sense that it doesn't get money people write when they are struggling artist to get the money to those people who need it the most. a lot of it ends up going to people who are doing just fine. that is my main concern about using that as a tool to reduce the stress in default. >> again,again, it reduces the total amount you pay over the life of the loan which people want. >> it makes people happier to pay less for things. controversial economic principle. >> unfortunately, this will be our last question. it is a different type of option to really address

this broader challenge. if we are worried about access to college and see student loans as an obstacle when i just make college free? taxes will increase, but when we be better off as a society? >> that is partially why there is an effort to essentially make community college available and free or near free to be that gateway given that if we believe as a society getting that credential is critical for that person's future, and i think that is part of it. there is no question that the increase in college tuition has been something that feels like a real impediment and they feel like there putting a lot of

line. going to college is the way to ensure many people in the labor force. personal the people because they felt like they were able to go to school. you always hear people 40 years ago is only $800. how you chart out your career, not only does give you more earnings that may be more ability and what you choose to pursue. our commoditizing higher education.

>> i just want to say. >> i do feel that. it's not like buying a factory that produces a certain amount of widgets. it's about who we are as people and citizens. if i pull out one of the things you set the beginning we shouldn't make college free because of the distribution i live. >> for people who can't really -- who are lower income, the cost should not necessarily be an impediment.

was making college free, the expense of limiting the ability for people to go what is the trade-off? an actual policymaking those are things you have to weigh comeau where you losing by doing that, and that is why i had to pivot back to this, but the data-driven approach to meet all sorts of those it's about implementing. >> historically it was free. free. community colleges grew and expanded in the 60s and 70s. tuition was nominal.

we departed that history. return to where we were. low income nonwhite first-generation students as the 1st entry point. people who most need education. >> i'm sorry get through all of the questions. kelly and participating by offering such a wide very range of questions. i would like to thank our panelists find informative and wide-ranging set of perspectives.

thank you for your comments and remarks. >> thank you. >> tonight at aeight supreme court chief justice john roberts at a recent judicial conference, finding contestants on the court. the number of other issues. here is a preview. >> particularly before the supreme court becoming too easily and more and grown in your judgment? >> i gavei gave a talk before the supreme court historical society and just the subject.

at that time the talked about that very trend. you'll back to 1980. putting aside the government , ii think there were two or three people who argue more than one case. now it's pretty much routine. the lawyers we see quite often in a single case no one has done ten arguments comeau was done 30 it is a change. the bar is more specialized. supreme court advocacy was not recognized as a specialty until fairly recently. in many ways it's quite a good thing. arguing before the supreme court is specialized. it is not like arguing before the court of appeals. it is good at people there who know that and have done before you understand what understand what we are looking forward we ask a hundred questions and

half-hour as has happened and understand that although the case involves a bankruptcy statute is probably not in the supreme court because of bankruptcy issues. as part of how we view statutory interpretation. it's good that they are repeat players just as in any other court. they know they will be up there again later, and so they will be a little more circumspect about how they analyzed the record next line the cases to you. having said all that i know i do in my colleagues miss the opportunity for something of a mr. smith goes to washington moment where you have the sole practitioner with the battered briefcase coming up and you get a good sense of what his practices like in his understanding of what the court was like. they often do a good job.

you do have to spend months focused on the supreme court case and it's hard for a sole practitioner to do that. and for that extent it is disappointing.disappointing. you lose a little bit of the color and texture of an argument, although we benefit a great deal from having experts before us. >> watch that event tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. and here with congress out this week we are featuring book tv in prime time beginning at 8:00 o'clock. tonight 2016 pulitzer prize finalists and winners including authors any jacobson, tj stiles, tomas coats, and joby warrick.

>> c-span washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. on thursday we are live in laredo texas on the us-mexico border to talk about trade issues affecting the region in the country. san antonio express trade reporter discusses the flow and volume also we are joined to talk about how trade benefits laredo in the country. then state director for texas fair trade coalition and the nafta critic looks at how the trade deal moves jobs from southern texas to mexico and now that hurts mexicans as well. be sure to watch c-span washington journal live from laredo texas beginning at 7:00 p.m. thursday. >> the internet and television expo was held earlier this month in boston. next remarks from former fcc

chair, huffington post i am huffington, cnn's john king, univision jorge ramos, and comcast president and ceo brian roberts. fcc's proposed set-top box will, changing landscape of television, the 2016 presidential race, and upcoming coverage plans. >> good morning, everyone. i in texas 2016. on behalf of in cta we are happy to greet you, start off this morning session and key up what i think will be a great show. >> absolutely delighted to be here. it is exciting to be at the 2nd ever i in texas. this year we will take a look at disruption and how

really to embrace it if you will for creativity and innovation. it should be exciting. >> when you look at webster tells us that disruption is to break apart or to throw into disorder. but our business is so much more. it is change, opportunity, growth, and the state of our world today. >> @i in texas this week comeau we will take a look at the many elements of disruption that are really fueling our businesses these days. they're going to celebrate and embrace those changes and look for ways to actually harness them to better serve consumers and the help our collective businesses grow. >> that's right. in fact, the spirit of this proposition you could say we have disrupted. it is no longer just the cable show. we will get to hear from groundbreaking companies

such as periscope, mashable, handle, and, and a number of companies making there 1st ever appearance on our stage at&t and verizon, and we will make history with a ted sessions presented by i in texas on the theme of what else but disruption. and our friends brought some general session speakers to provide insight into the future of our businesses. meanwhile, boston's best entrepreneurs will pitch their ideas in the lobster tank demonstration. if i may so use my boston accent. >> that was good. don't worry about that. they will inform you of the experience you are about to have. we will enjoy stimulating encounters on the imagine park stage and see showcases

featuring interactive experiences, things like virtual reality, the hottest and display technology, and the revolution that we built called to the everywhere. we have this teaming marketplace exhibit floor featuring hundreds of companies showing off there latest wares and services. and don't forget the star-studded event such as the cable center hall of fame dinner, the signature lunch which follows the sessions and our annual name of breakfast. >> absolutely. it would not be i in texas without some stars, showstoppers. we will get to meet many of them this week including actor producer levar burton, author and entrepreneur arianna huffington, and some people who bring the world right into our living room.

you know, ken and i have had a blast putting it together for you we are deeply advised for helping us realize our vision. >> you know, we started down this path we agreed to cochair, we wanted i am texas this year to be fast-paced to be fun, casual, relaxed. there is a hanky. >> with the opportunity for all of us to compare notes we are all creating. it is going to be an exciting week. we look forward to chatting with many of you are in the next three days. >> on the later.

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president and ceo. >> welcome. the great city of boston. the 1st time we ever had an open stage in the shofar like this. it's very emblematic of the walls are coming out our industry. the companies that are gathered here are in a transformative period the present significant challenges as well as enormous opportunities as a

market restructuring one central driver of these changes is the intensifying demand of technology and the escalating need for innovation. our industry is shifting into high gear as a high-tech industry with more products and services. these actions are also a response to the rising heat of competition sparking from all sources as well as new. we fully expect this remodeling to bring new energy and vibrancy to the internet and television marketplace. you know, mergers are always bittersweet. the curtain is coming down on some of the most storied companies in our history. and as a consequence, we will have to bid farewell to exceptional leaders who pioneered this industry and let itletter to the high

pinnacle on which it sits today. leaders like rob marcus and jerry can't and the beloved myron and on family. though we should not forget that it takes a strong crew to sell antiship, and so we must also give a salute to the thousands of men and women who have served these companies faithfully over the years. we also, however, get to welcome new players in the community. charter is emerging as a reinvigorated company to become the new industry-standard there. across the pond to bring inside and energy to the us cable market. we look excitedly forward to the fresh ideas and innovation that these changes will bring. you know,know, it seems that the whole world is discoverable we have known for decades, the delivering exciting, high quality video content to american consumers is a fantastic

business to be in. there are formidable new creatures roaming our traditional feeding grounds. these companies have enormous resources and are exceptionally creative. they are fierce competitors that have cut their teeth on disrupting traditional businesses. those who wish to compete we will have to elevate their heels and adjust if they hope to return forcefully. now, i believe in duality. every challenge is also an opportunity. if we are bold and nimble enough they will not only survive comeau we will thrive. in a revolutionary change that has engulfed the content business, fantastic new shows are exploding continuously and our living rooms. last year over 409 scripted series were produced. there are more and more players searching a great stories and producing

original content. today it is ironic that a company known more for selling books is taking home emmy awards for television. viewing patterns are also driving change. consumers now see every screen is a television. ben's watching has become wildly addictive. and more and more we see video content being encapsulated in the software apps that turn every device imaginable into a tv screen. can work perfectly well without a set-top box. these are changes that we fully embrace. now, as inow, as i said earlier, this industry is a driving force in technology as well. cables internet providers are on the cusp of rolling out speeds across the us, and as we do they will remain dedicated to reaching all, not just some of our services and dedicated to

getting every american online. in addition, we are also seeing smarter devices for viewing content like the x 1 platform, and our companies are increasing the value of a broadband prescription by deploying wi-fi hotspots for consumers to access the internet they are on the go. and working with the content community if ever programs or landing on any device through the tv everywhere initiative. this period is remarkable for one other reason. we find ourselves the target of a relentless regulatory assault. the fcc governing mantra has been competition, competition,competition, competition, competition. for where we said that incantation has come to mean one thing, regulation, regulation, regulation.

the policy was we are weathering are not honest regulatory corrections. they have been thundering tectonic shifts that have crumbled decades of settled law and politics. what has been so distressing is that much of this regulatory ordinance has been launched without provocation. we increasingly are saddled with heavy rules without any compelling evidence of harm to consumers or to competitors. other times we find our property being confiscated and passed off to new competitors that gives them a leg up despite healthy and robust markets. this is the case with the current proposal to unbundle valuable content and handed to companies who don't have to pay for it, respect the intellectual property rights of it or abide by the regulatory protections of consumers. instead of unlocking this proposal has unlocked the fierce opposition from all corners, from distributors,

content providers, civil rights groups, labor unions, and over 150 members of congress. we can only hope the commission will hear their voices. as we learned recently, the latest proposal will completely throw out decades of policies on business services, even when we has a new competitive interest seem to be marked for rate regulation. what i believe is most troubling is an emerging government view that the communication market is bifurcated and should be regulated differently. internet companies are nurtured and allowed to roam free, but network providers are disparagingly labeled gatekeepers and should be shackled. the implication to this worldview goes far beyond how it affects one industry. we are resilient, and we will find a way to whether these changes. rather, i believe it is a

jaundiced view that will prove detrimental to america's ambitions in the information age. that works must continue to innovate, experiment, and thrive in order to fuel the internet growth that we all want to see. i think it is a mistake to view network providers as an impediment to that growth rather than a value reading of it. we see amarketplace big enough for all competitors, more to be gained by coming together and pulling apart, looking for partners not adversaries, see the benefit of the global network combining the power of content and technology to deliver exceptional experiences come us all the greatest problems of our planet, provide meaningful work for people in the bring

greater peace and prosperity to a dangerous world. i in texas is about the opportunities that arise from disruption. there is much to see and much talk about in the world of internet and television. and this show is the central square for that exploration to take place. ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, to host our 1st conversation today please welcome the

executive editor. >> we wanted to have someone interesting in this crazy election-year to talk about a wide variety of things from elections to video tape huber to not getting enough sleep, and so there is only one person who fits all those criteria, someone i've known for very long time, arianna huffington. ♪ >> okay. we brought our chairs for you. they're going to start talking a little bit about your book. it's called the sleep revolution, and for years we have debated this issue. i don't sleep at all, and

she thinks it's important. i important. i would like you to make the case of what your making in this book. >> it's not what i think. it is a universal scientific consensus that the vast majority of us, she has a genetic mutation. 1 percent of the population has a genetic mutation and can do great on for five hours, but thehours, but the rest of us need 79 hours to perform at our best. i look at athletes now. kobe bryant, lebron james, they'll talk about using sleep is a performance enhancement tool. that is a big shift. there was a time that we thought smoking was glamorous. there was a time we thought it was a sign of being so busy and important and

especially men who where it like a badge of honor. and now we realize it actually makes us less productive. >> in the context of text because one of the things that you talk about is more and more we screen, watching tv, watching video all the time, using them for a variety of things, when you -- one of the things you talk about is that it has affected people sleep patterns. >> absolutely. we are all addicted to our phones. i would say that everybody here probably takes better care of your smart phone than they do of themselves. everybody here knows approximately how much battery remains on the phone , and in my case if it gets below 13 percent i get anxious and look around for recharging tried lest anything happen to my phone. >> let me just say, the phone is my best

relationship of ever had in my life. >> and that's perfect. all i am suggesting is the pick a time before you turn off the lights and turn off your phone, ipad, laptop and gently escort them out of your bedroom. you can't sleep with it. i love my phone, but it's like kryptonite. once you remove it in the bedroom you begin to create a kind of transition to sleep which is what is missing from people's lives. people were complaining, they wake up in the middle of the night and can go back to sleep because they have not had that transition. you have children. we had children are babies you don't just drop them in bed. we need to create something that puts a bug demarcation line between our day with our projects, and completion, worries, and other night when we can recharge and save the day,

really ready to do with anything. >> you have been part of the internet revolution that has gotten people more addicted, doing video stuff, all kinds, everything. how do you get -- is it hard to say create that and until people turn it off? >> people have plenty of other things to be addicted to. the problem is that the world is going to be more and more inundated with technology. it's all about greater levels of automation. so it's up to us to set the boundaries, and we want to do that with our children. completely addicted to their devices they can have human relationships. >> actually, my son had his 1st girlfriend. he met her on snap chat.

but that is the trend going forward. one of the parts you talk about his decision-making when you're not sleeping. >> i was at the microsoft ceo summit last week talking to one of the ceos who say i need eight hours sleep to be the best ceo i can be. and he said that if i actually get eight hours of sleep and that making fewer decisions. if the decisions room 5 percent better than they would have been if i was depleted and sleep deprived, that's better for amazon. that is what executives need understand. they are not paid for the stamina. they are paid for their judgment. all around us we are surrounded by data. business leaders, media leaders, political leaders, they have high iqs, but look at the decisions they are making.

and another thing is that we have convinced people the importance of exercise and nutrition, but the 3rd pillar's sleep.pillar is sleep. you have all these exhausted executives often collapsing on the treadmill, like the ceo of united who ended up with a massive heart attack. so. >> and i start the book that way. i collapsed from sleep deprivation and burnout. .. how do you look at publishing right now and see people who make video and other internet products?

>> it's becoming clearer and clearer that we need differentiated content, content that really catches people. how far everything we are doing into three pillars. politics with our own clear attitude. then what's working? they say we need to change that. we need to recognize there are solutions but they often have not escaped yet. how can we put the spotlight on them. we talk about copy cat crime and we can also have copycat solution. we also need to add value to people's lives with less stress stress and more fulfillmen