right here in the front row. thank you very much. >> hi. steve charonovitz at uw law school. thanks for coming back to counsel. you said we need a balanced plan for fiscal sustainability, as well as room to invest. so i wanted to ask you, as the treasury secretary, how do you tell the difference between government spending that is investment and spending that is not investment? >> good question. excellent question. and people would disagree an that. economists disagree. when we say it, and this is really the only place where we're proposing meaningful changes in what we spend. we say -- we want to limit it to areas where we think there is a pretty high economic return where the private sector is underinvesting in that. you won't see it happen -- the examples i like to cite are public infrastructure,

overwhelming and compelling case for doing that. obviously, private markets are investing to the level you need in that context. straight forward, self-evident. education. in all its dimensions. very high returns to education. and we've seen a significant erosion in the basic relative quality of education relative to the rest of the world. unacceptable to us as a country. and there's a pretty good case for investments in basic scientific research as we have done for decades and decades. and maybe going beyond that to support development in areas where, like clean energy, where, again, you're likely to see the market underinvest and probably what makes sense longer-term. that is a relatively limited list of things. now, of course, a huge part of what matters is what you do for the incentives for private investment. so the president proposed a broad framework for corporate tax reform we think would improve the incentives here. not just things like permanent advantage for research and development in the united states. but to clean up all of the muck

in the corporate tax, use that for lower rates for a more competitive level. those are things we think. you're right. spending but if you put -- if you look outside of medicare, medicaid and social security, what's happening to -- we propose happen to the economy, we expect to see a significant restraint across the rest of government to preserve room for those three or four areas of what we think are investments with pretty good economic returns. >> here in the front row. thanks. >> i'm mitts see worth with the naval postgraduate school. i had the opportunity to hear adare turner talk a few months ago and i don't know what his title is, but my understanding is five days before he took over the job, everything collapseded here, and he had a combined responsibility of oversight for

all the british financial systems, plus the climate. rather complex job. he said that when he got there, he couldn't begin to understand how the system worked. and he pulled together a team, it took them six months to identify how our system in the u.s. worked, and who were all of the players, and who talked to one another, and who didn't talk to one another. and he sort of said, if you don't understand that, how do you know what to fix? so my question is, if we understand it, why isn't it made public? why can't we -- i mean -- >> you're talking about the complexity of the oversight structure? >> well, no. he was talking about the complexity of how the system -- what went on in all of the banks. i mean, he was looking -- in the whole financial system. and how all of that worked. and my view is that process really matters. and you ought to be educating us on these unbelievable processes, so we can see when you make a decision, it actually makes sense. >> let me pick up on that and just say, there is so little

education, really, about how our financial system works, and how the oversight works, so that when something like a $2 billion number with jpmorgan chase happens everyone goes, oh, my got, the sky is falling and maybe it is. but the average person doesn't know how to deal with it. >> i think it's true about a lot of things in the -- not just in the recent crisis, but in our system today. because these numbers are unfathomable to most people. even in the discussions about the fiscal trajectory, you know, we talk about ten-year numbers and need to go find 3 or $4 trillion in savings. people have no idea of the dimension of that. i agree about this. we have a complicated financial structure than is typical in many countries. and what makes our system unique and different, in our system, banks are provided about half the credit the economy needs. and the rest of the credit comes from the broader capital markets, outside of banks directly from investors in that context. that's very different from europe.

most of europe banks are three quarters of credit in that context. and that creates a whole -- that has a bunch of advantages to us in many ways. you could say some parts of the system are weak and others can compensate. but it does make it more complicated system to manage. we also have left in place a very complicated oversight structure. so we have banks regulated -- >> how do you tell the public, so we -- can follow it? because if it's long sentences, we can't. >> i'd love to spend more time talking about it. it is a complicated thing. you're right, it's a complicated system and you're right that people do not have a lot of confidence that it works. because they just live through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. completely understandable. and the reforms themselves, although at their core, they are simple in terms of capital, limiting risk-taking and leverage, in their design, they are complicated for a lot of reasons. and that makes it much harder to help people understand and believe that this system we're putting in place today is going

to be better at protecting them than it was in the past. but -- and i think you're right. we have a substantial hill to climb in trying to make that case and explain that, because it's complicated. and we can do a better job. >> and the rule-writing -- >> the rule-writing is taking longer in part because we have too many people writing the rules, frankly. >> yes, sir. going back. thank you. >> allen wendt. mr. secretary, what is the u.s. interest as regards the euro? does it matter to the u.s. whether or not europe proceeds -- continues with monetary integration, or whether one or more countries drops out of the euro? >> i think it does matter, because we have a long interest, as you know, in supporting this european project. they've chosen this path. we didn't choose it for them. and we have an interest in a working and helping make it work. but we can't choose for them how to do that. but yes, i think we do have an

interest in seeing them do what they need to do to make this monetary union more viable. >> and what role do we play? some have suggested that we're not playing a strong enough role. >> well, you know, there's a phrase we use, it's a little unfair to say this way. we can't want this more than them. and we can't make these choices for them. it's 17 countries. incredibly difficult politics. the economics and financial stuff is very tough. and so they're going to have to figure out what works for them. and what we are doing is what i think we can do. the maximum we can do. we're trying to be as helpful as possible, as persuasive as possible. they come to us all of the time to ask us for ideas on what might work. they look at the lessons from our experience and we're willing to give that advice and help in that context. and where we have the capacity to help them financially, we're doing that. the federal reserve is doing what we can do uniquely, which is giving them access to dollar

swap lines, which are very, very important to what they're facing now, which we've done -- we've done quickly, and on a very substantial scale. and, of course, we're supporting what the imf is doing in that context. and there are people who say we should be louder in telling them what to do, and that would be more helpful. i don't think so. and there are people who say we should go write them a check so they don't have to write a larger check to help underpin the monetary union. i don't see how that's defensible. they're a very rich continent. this is within their capacity to manage. and if we, the world, try to limit the burden and then to fix it, then the credibility of their commitment to the endeavor will look weaker, and that won't help. >> why does it matter to the u.s.? >> it matters to the u.s., because we need a strong europe, better for us that they're strong and growing over time. we do not benefit from a long

period of european weakness and preoccupation, which is what we're seeing. so it has huge implications to us, not just because of the direct effects we're seeing now in growth and confidence. >> yes. right here in the front row. >> ode aberdeen, catholic trust. mr. geithner, last october, the council in new york, i asked you this question. does the europeans have the financial power to solve this issue. my question to you today, are you satisfied with the german position on this crisis? have the germans made up their mind? >> i think -- i know there's a lot of focus on germany, but i think it's unfair to look to germany as the sole source of the problem now. what germany is saying is to make monetary union work, we're prepared to put a substantial commitment of resources behind this broader endeavor. but for that to work, there needs to be in support of reforms and changes in the institution so they'll be locked in. can't erode over time. and that is a very reasonable

position. you can differ with -- with lots of elements of the strategy and how it's evolving and how quickly it's evolving. but on that basic premise -- i don't have to quote martin wolf again, but he wrote this too, that's perfectly reasonable and acceptable. and you need both for this to work. just a simple fact. you need reforms that will endure with constitutional changes that look like you can't go back. and you need a substantial commitment of financial resources to give them the time for work, and you need both those two things. and that means it's not just about germany. it requires other countries to be willing to move towards them. >> a question in the back. the gentleman. yes. we have a microphone back there, please. >> thank you. ian actual tully, dow jones. thank you for doing this. the g-20 is going to review europe's progress next week.

i assume that the g-20 is not going to do much, other than that on europe. i'm wondering, do we have time for an 11th-hour action by europe once again next -- later in the month? spain's yields are beyond sustainable. et cetera, et cetera. do we have that time? >> i think you're right, and many people observed this, that if you wait to move in these things, and you let the market get ahead of you, then you increase the costs of the solution, and you make it harder to get there. if you get too much momentum, it's very costly. so there is no argument for -- once you decide, there is no argument for doing it slowly. you should get there as quickly as you can. now, they're having a summit at the end of this month, and what they're trying to do is negotiate a new set of reforms so that they can lay them out to the world at that summit.

and you're asking the question, will the world wait for that. and, you know, they have a strong incentive, not just because they're coming to the g-20 early next week, but because of the greek election, and because, you know, the world is waiting for them. they have a big incentive to add as much clarity to those plans as early as they can. and they can help with confidence to have the major players in europe state what their intentions are, be even if it's going to take time to negotiate the details. that itself can be reassuring. so i think what you're going to see coming going into the g-20 and after, even ahead of their summit, you're going to see the world look still to germany and other major players, and for them to lay out a little more clarity, what these broad objectives mean on banking union, on a firewall for the reforming countries and on the growth stuff. i think more clarity there would be better sooner. >> right here. yeah.

>> sorry. ted truman, peterson institute for international economics. following up on the last question, mr. secretary, you named three -- listed three things. banking union, growth -- i can't remember what the third one is. fire walls. support mechanism. and implicitly you said that's what has to come out of the summit. >> out of their summit. >> out of their summit, right? >> i was taking their words, their plans, their elements. >> are you confident that you'll get all three, if i may put it that way? >> what they're saying -- >> let me finish the question, mr. secretary. >> when we were together, you interrupted me all the time. >> this time i'm going to give you the last word. are you confident, and what -- you know, and what -- i think this reflects the general questions out of europe here this afternoon, what is the risk that if they -- they're falling short, and what -- and what -- i think this goes to the

consequences, including for the broader financial system, including our own. thank you. >> well, i think the stakes are very high for them and for the rest of us, and you know, they have an interest -- again, we can't -- their interest is more powerful than anyone's in trying to avoid that risk. so how confident am i? you know, i try to emphasize the positive. they have laid out pretty clearly where they want to go in these dimensions. they're -- they put some pretty capable people in charge of trying to design the details of that framework. and based on what they say to us directly, they're serious about it. and they intend to move. and i think they recognize the importance of moving now. you know, this is not like it's been -- i think i said at this beginning, this is the fourth major escalation, not just in the crisis, but in their response. and this is different from the way it's felt before in the sense that they're not minimizing the risks, and

they're not telling us that they feel they have a whole bunch of time to wait. so hopefully that's encouraging. >> with that, i'm told by our colleagues here at the council that we have no more time. and that ted truman has had -- almost the last word. >> as he deserves. he deserves the last word. >> we want to thank secretary geithner and your team for making this possible. and i should point out, with all of these cameras here, it's very obvious that just to make sure everyone knows, this was entirely on the record. thank you.

tonight, jpmorgan chase's president and ceo, jamie dimon, testifies in front of the senate banking committee on his bank's recent announcement that jpmorgan had had $2 billion in trading losses. the fbi and other federal regulating agencies are also investigating what happened and why. mr. dime monday also serve as on the new york federal reserve bank's board of directors. see him tonight at 8:30 eastern on c-span. alsoly on annetta and general

martin dempsey testify before senate appropriations subcommittee on the defense department's 2013 budget request. the house appropriations committee has already passed that bill, and it provides $3 billion more than president obama's request. the measure has yet to make it to the house floor. you can see this hearing at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987. >> mr. speaker, as you know, eight years ago this month, the soviet union invaded afghanistan. to no one's surprise, the occupation of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no vicktors. a group of human rights lawyers from the united states, britain, sweden and mal at that documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against the afghan people. >> 25 years later, the current house minority leader and former speaker was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch the tributes or any part

of her career in the house online at the c-span video library. tomorrow, british prime minister david cameron testifies before a panel examining the relationship between the press and politicians. all this week, the levison inquiry has heard testimony from senior politicians, including former prime ministers john major and gordon brown. it concludes tomorrow with comments from prime minister cameron. see it live starting at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. the story behind the star spangled banner. the invasion and burning of washington, d.c. this weekend on american history tv, mark the buy scentennial of the start of the war from ft. mchenry through the rock et cetera red glare, historian authors and your calls on this little-known war live saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern. also this weekend, more from our

series on key political figures who ran for president and lost, but changed political history. "the contenders," sunday at 7:30 p.m. this week with three-time democratic for president, william jennings bryan. yesterday, the senate health and labor committee held a hearing on the employment nondiscrimination act. a bill that would create a federal ban on discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in the workplace. the measure does include exemptions for religious institutions and certain small businesses. this is an hour, thirty-five minutes. [ banging gavel ] the senate committee on health, education, labor and pensions will come to order. i want to welcome everyone today. our committee today will hear testimony on a very important

civil rights legislation, the employment, nondiscrimination act, also known as enda. the issue here cannot be simpler or more straightforward. it is long past time to eliminate bigotry in the workplace and to ensure equal opportunity for all americans. it's time to make clear that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender americans are first-class citizens. they are full and welcome members of our american family. and they deserve the same civil rights protections as all other americans. the fact is, over the last 45 years, we have made great strides in america towards eliminating discrimination in the workplace. our country is a far better place because of laws against discrimination in the workplace, based on race, sex, national origin, religion, age and disability, among others. it is time at long last for us to also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

such discrimination is wrong and should not be tolerated. as we will hear today, many states and businesses are already leading the way by demonstrating that full equality is not only the right thing to do, but it benefits all. however, the harsh reality is that employers in most states can still fire, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. and shockingly, they can do so within the law. too many hard-working americans, whether employed by private companies or by public entities, are being judged not by their talent and their ability and qualifications, but by their sexual orientation or genter identity. too many of our fellow citizens are being judged not by what they can contribute to a company, but by who they are, for whom they choose to love. unfortunately, we can cite countless cases of bigotry based on sexual orientation or gender

identity. decent, hard-working americans are being hurt by discrimination every day. qualified workers should not be turned away or have to fear losing their livelihood for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications, their skills or their performance. such practices are unamerican, and they should not be permitted in our workplaces. i want to publicly thank senator's merkley, kirk and many others for introducing a fully inclusive employment nondiscrimination act. this bill is not complex. it makes clear that private businesses, public employers, labor unions, cannot make employment decisions, hiring, firing, promotion or compensation because of a person's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. it contains exemptions for small businesses and religious organizations, and current rules applicable to the armed forces are not affected. the bill expressly prohibits s

disparate impact claims. this legislation follows in the footsteps of our existing civil rights laws. just as debates leading to passage of those earlier civil rights bills, we are hearing claims today that enda will lead to a flood of lawsuits or be an undue burden on religious organizations or businesses. i think these claims are baseless. indeed, we are pleased to have broad, bipartisan support for this bill, as well as the endorsement of civil rights organizations, countless businesses and religious leaders. we are talking about a fundamental american value, equal treatment for all. the principle that no citizen in our country should be discriminated against. i am proud that in the last congress, this committee held a hearing on this important bill. we are doing so again today. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues to advance this long overdue legislation. normally -- and i will leave the record open for a statement by senator enzi.

but i want to recognize senator murphy, who is the -- a lead sponsor of this bill. he has requested an opportunity for an opening statement, and since he is the lead sponsor, i will thus recognize him for that. senator merkley. >> thank you, chairman harken. i really appreciate your holding a hearing on this issue, which is so critical for lgbt americans. a big thanks also goes to my chief co sponsor, senator kirk, who unfortunately cannot be here with us today. i think we're all together in wishing him a speedy recovery. and in his absence, i want to take a moment to note the tremendous leadership he has shown on these issues, both in the house of representatives and now as a member of the u.s. senate. i also want to recognize the indispensable role the late senator ted kennedy played on this issue. it was an honor when he asked me to step in to continue to lead

this fight. i've been pleased to do so over the last four years, and i hope that soon in the future we'll be talking about this battle in a historical concept, having brought equality and opportunity to all americans. at its core, employment discrimination is a matter of fundamental fairness. being able to make a living and do so without fear of discrimination goes right to the heart of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. unfortunately, the majority of our states have no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. at the same time, a very large percentage of lgbt americans are discriminated against in the workplace, as you will hear from one of our witnesses today. it is a time to extend fundamental fairness to all americans, and that is exactly what this bill does. quite simply, enda extends the exact same federal protections that already exist for race,

religion, age and disability. it's a fair thing to do. it's the right thing to do. and it's good for business, as well. many employers have already endorsed this change. you will hear from one long-time leader in the business community today, general mills, about its support for these nondiscrimination policies. i look forward to that testimony. in addition to the businesses represented here today, one of the largest employers in my home state of oregon, nike has been a vocal proponent of this bill. i'd like to enter a few of their comments into the record. in their words, quote, enda is good for business, good for our employees, and our communities. they continue the inclusive nondiscrimination qualities enable us to retract and retain the best and brightest people around the world. why wouldn't we want to do everything we can to help our businesses compete, especially when it also results in fair treatment, in equality and in opportunity for our workers? it is a win-win.

this is not, nor should it be, a democratic or republican issue. i'm thrilled to be joined by senator kirk on this bill, in addition to senator collins and senator snow, as sponsors. co sponsors. in oregon, in 2007, i led the effort to put these protections into state law. and there are a lot of things that our red counties and blue counties don't always agree on this. but this is one issue where from border to border, i hear the same thing. it's a matter of fundamental fairness. it's who we are as americans. and i can tell you that in over 140 town halls i've held since becoming a senator, i have never had a business member or a member of the religious community come to a town hall and say we did the wrong thing in extending fairness and equality of opportunity and employment to all oregonians. i think the same response will be true when we get this done for the united states of america as a whole.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator merkley. also, senator collins, who is not a member of the committee, asked if she could put a statement in support of the bill. she is a lead sponsor, along with senator merkley and senator kirk. would i -- i would ask her statement be inserted at this point in the record. i now will go to our panel. we have a distinguished panel today. i will run through the introductions, and then we'll just go from left to right. first is dr. lee badgette, a research director at the willials institute for sexual orientation, law and public policy at ucla. also the director of the center for public policy and administration at the university of massachusetts-amhertz, where she is a professor of economics. next, mr. kyler broadis, an attorney and associate professor of lincoln university in missouri. he is the founder of transpeople of color coalition.

next mr. sam baggenstos. i think i got that right now. professor at the university of michigan law school. he has served as a law clerk to justice ruth bader ginsburg, was on the faculty at harvard law school. most recently served as attorney general for civil rights in the justice department. the number two official in the civil rights division of the justice department. next i was going to yield to my colleague from minnesota for purposes of introduction. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to have the opportunity to welcome ken charles. mr. charles is the vice president of global diversity. and inclusion for general mills, which he is -- where he has been employed since 2000. i'm proud to say that general mills has its roots in minnesota that go back 150 years. currently employs 35,000 minnesotans. those workers, along with