radio broadcasts where she went after corruption and she was talking about the desperate poverty and nature of things in that part of the world and she said what she found is these woman could not imagine success for a woman. they didn't know anyone successful and simply by going in and exposing them to women who hadn't risen in the smallest possible way into a different kind of life was for them an absolute revelation that until you could imagine the success of it you couldn't even think of aspiring to it. i thought it was a -- it stuck in my mind, i was thinking if that isn't -- we keep hearing about role models, it's become a cliche because if you can not imagine yourself in that role the pakistani filmmaker -- who is absolutely brilliant and won

an's car for her short documentary "the girl in the river" about honor killings. she said in pakistan when she was growing up there weren't those role models. she was so hungry and it was only seeing christiane amanpour reporting on television that made her imagine for herself the life of a journalist and she's become a brilliant journalist. but it was christiane amanpour that made her think of herself and as journalist. >> again, that is why the power of example again and again becomes -- because it gives -- it links you to something beyond yourself and even your border across borders. but speaking of across borders, women have risen to high rank in other parts of the world and

night this country. but there's also been a lot of turbulence with that. the case of dilma rousseff which we were all excited when she came in replacing lula as president. one would not have assumed it would go that way. i think of benazir bhutto whom you knew from oxford what happened to her was not because she was a woman but the issues she dealt with as a prime minister two times with not dissimilar as other prime ministers but she was held to a higher standard, given more of a deeper grilling on it. but does that mean in terms of political leadership side of women's empowerment that women have to be kind of extra care

ful is there a burden of being holier than the pope if you're a woman? >> i think women fall harder and there's much more attention to their form when they fall without question and much less tolerance of it. and fewer networks helping to bear them up and recreate themselves. that's what i've seen when these women lose their positions the men seem to go round and round and being hired all over the place and reemerge but the women van i vanish. and women grow shells. we've heard it about hillary, she's so cautious, she's so hidden. theresa may in england has had some of the same press, that she's very, very cautious very, very contained, very, very buttoned up. and i think it's a little generational, too, i think theresa may, like hillary, has

had to be so bud on t-- buttone down, she wasn't part of the club and she would never have gotten this job if it hadn't been for the tsunami of male-manufactured disasters. >> if it hadn't been for boris johnson. >> all these etonian sort of feckless -- i mean coming out -- you had cameron resigning, we had osborne -- it was incredible. boris johnson and she's the only one left standing. what's amusing -- except that it isn't -- is women get the job when it's no longer worth having. that's the point. very true. >> think about it, when do women get the huge jobs?

when does mary barra get to be the head of general motors? i look at the network news anchors. there would have never been a woman running the network news when it was at its prime but network news is like now who watches it? so then it was okay to have katie couric and diane sawyer and so on. then in the end it went back to what they preferred. so there is a thing where women tend to be the last resort which is like everything has failed, let's -- she's there, while don't we stick her in? >> then it depends on what happens next so it's very interesting. in the case of dilma rousseff, she hasn't been a very talented leader but i suppose one smart that there's plenty of men who are mediocre, too, but they weren't as crucified as dilma rousseff. the corruption she's been accused of was not for her personal gain whereas the other corruption cases in brazil has

been for personal gain and hers wasn't. so she had been overly hammered and i don't think that -- i think she didn't have that network of loyalty around her. there wasn't any -- rather the loyalists are skin deal, there isn't that deep network that male leaders have created over the years. it's harder for women, no doubt. >> it's a very important point you bring up that you can be one of the boys but you cannot ever be part of the boy's club. >> right. >> i remember when indira gandhi a very long time ago people were very disparaging and then things went bad and hen she came into office and they said, well, she's actually the only man in the cabinet, because the rest of them were so much weaker. >> well, that was true of mrs. thatcher, too. >> and it was about the same ti time. so before i open it up to the audience, one thought.

so from this kind of almost decade-long experience of broadening the field and drawing in greater audiences and trying to think differently in the social media and the outreach which is so incredible compared to in my time, certainly. can one say there's a formula that works in terms of women's empower me empowerment. >> it has to be constantly worked at and you have to keep creating safe spaces and forums for women so they can reinforce one another's confidence. the op-ed world is so dominated by men. there are great women but you don't see it. >> why is that? >> when i was editor of the daily beast i tried to dig up -- >> i remember that. >> -- new women's voice bus they had to be pulled out. it was almost as if they had

been so used to somehow not getting a say at the table that they were no longer at the table having a say. it takes encouragement and work which is why what you're talking about with johns hopkins and many places are very important because they keep growing these voices and in those environments that the women can speak up, speak out and gain their confidence to go forward. but it was very interesting reading about in obama's cabinet women felt they weren't getting the same kind of airtime. there's a physicality. those voices are stronger sometimes and can shout you down. so there's a physical aspect which is why so many african women are so great because they have these big voices and they can -- >> and they have a presence. >> they have a presence and a confidence which is absolutely fabulous to see.

>> i remember the prime minister of barbados said i actually don't worry about my girls going to school because they're the ones who are going and getting the best grades, getting scholarships to go to university is the boys say surf's up and leave the school and disappear. so that's the segue. thank you for those remarks and let's open it up to the audience and students, this is your chance to engage on this. non-students, too, we welcome. >> could you introduce yourself, please? >> and microphone. >> thank you, even better. my name is claire fitzgibbon and i've just completed a posting at the embassy of ireland here in

washington, d.c. i wanted to thank you for starters for such an interesting presentation and really was interested to hear the success stories of the women in the world forum. not to take away from those successes in any way but how do we go further than the reach of such fora. is the answer more similar type of exercises or do we need to be looking in the a completely different direction all together? >> i do think this question of the network is very important and women have to make a conscious effort to create networks of support for women in their fields so they are actually for them, so they create the same surround and texture around themselves that has only come from men by years and years and years of confidence. and if you haven't reached out to women, you're not doing your

own part. we hear women are not supported. that sometimes women can be the worst cutting other women down it's an insecure thing that we have to create the safeness of being able to be confident and bring another woman up without feeling there's this -- we have to get them for ourselves so that sounds like touchy feely but it's an important -- an important thing to do. i also think it's important to publicize and share the success stories of women that are working. it's remarkable how those stories can spread. one of our first speakers was a woman from liberia who started this peace movement in liberia where she brought together christians and muslims together to defy charles taylor and end

the civil war she got women together and showed the power of convening and showing -- making a show of force in a sense of in a way american women are passive. one of the things she said when she was at our summit was like why aren't women more protesting as an organized group more. why are they putting themselves into a ghetto and talking to each other rather than showing their no, sir the public arena. >> thank you very much. i'm an adjunct professor in middle east studies. my question is i also ran a women's organization in 20 countries and i see lots of

women's networks and i see the value but what about the old boy's networks? is it worth trying to break into that and can you talk about how that can be done? >> i think it's critical to bring men in. and some of the biggest -- you ask about success stories, i would say some of the biggest success stories that we've showcased have been with women who have successfully brought men into the process. for instance, molly melching who runs an organization in sierra leone who for the last 25 years has been working to end female genital mutilation. and she's had remarkable success by bringing men in, going to them first and explaining to them and educating them about how this is not anything to do with religion or custom, it's a health issue and how dangerous it is to a young woman's health

and in educating the men, the men became the proselytizers themselves. so another example of that is a memorable thing the german defense minister said. she was trying to pass laws when she was minister in germany which gave paternity leave to men in a particular way, which is that the woman got six month's maternity leave but the last three months was also allowed in terms of maternity or paternity leave but it would be paid to the husband if the wife had gone back to work she did that because the reason she wanted to do that was she wanted to end the idea of what germany calls the raven mother which is a term used in bavaria for women who leave their children and fly off to work. and it was a pejorative term and she wanted to end that. and she said she was get nothing

where with this legislation until the finance minister in his wheelchair suddenly piped up "i think we should pay attention to her. my daughter is a lawyer, she has a child, she wants to go back to work, she's very concerned about leaving the child, this would make the difference to her." and she said at that point i realized the power of having one man on your side. >> especially if he's finance minister. is you want to have your network but you want men in that network, too. sand you want to make men feel it's cool. look what justin trudeau has managed in canada. he's made feminism very cool. is when i know he said -- when he was asked why have you made 50% of your cabinet women he replied "because it's 2015" which became this, the shirt? cana canada.

it sounded like a catch phrase, which is a wonderful thing, so the more justin trudeaus that we can appeal to and have make it cool. and modi is also trying. in a different way he does try to foster the whole traditional women at home. he feels strongly it's the upending of women in his society but he's also trying to promote the idea of women coming up and she was very good during the delhi rape when he spoke about that as a man in a way that was very, very appeal iing and the more week see that the more it will be. >> another adjunct professor. i'm nina gardener and i teach businesses and human rights and i'm glad you brought up the whole women of not writing

op-eds and i have -- for a business and human rights class -- almost 90% women. why is that? is it because human rights are in the title? are women more -- do they come -- do they come toward more ethical courses? so my question is this, what have you seen? are women less tolerant toward corruption in women in power or have they not gotten into the power seat so they can have a chance at corruption. so there are a lot of studies about that. but it's quite interesting in terms of their tolerance. >> look at christina kershner. she was extraordinarily corrupt. i wish i could they women were not corrupt but that isn't the case necessarily. but i do think there is less of it. maybe again because they're more in touch with what's happening on the ground with their families and so on because one of the things that the woman from nigeria talks about the, because she has a courage of

corruption, she talks about how we never think about where the money doesn't go. the focus is on the kleptocracy and where the money is going. where isn't it going? where it isn't going is to beat boko haram and save those girs.s where it isn't going is to educating young women and creating an economic equality in the north so it's where it doesn't go and i think sometimes women are more connected to that because they're less aloof from the everyday practicalities of life where women understand why the prices are that high, why they can't get justice or education. i think it's a very big thing for women on the ground. >> my name is suzanne crawford

and i would love your advice about seeking a flat form. i have developed a model that reconciles the world religions. >> which reconcile what is? >> the world religions. you said what we share is so much greater than what divides us and about 40 years ago -- i'm a graduate of williams college, phi beta kappa, very accomplished and my father died and began to teach me from the other side and i started to walk and my whole life had been about that. and i -- it's been quite an amazing journey and i have this model that basically understands the world religions from an evolutionary perspective and when you see the advent of the different traditions as an evolutionary shift in consciousness and developmental

stages it becomes clear that everybody is on the same path. part of me is terrified to do something with this. part of me feels the world really needs this. i am very ambivalent about coming forward because, frankly, people talking about god really disgusts me. i don't like the whole premise and so i'm stuck and i'd love your advice. >> are you writing? >> i've been writing my whole life. i've put it all on a web site. i took the narrative to editors ten years ago. you talked about not having a network and being discouraged and i know that. the editors said "you need a social media platform." >> well, don't forget with facebook live anyone can have a social media platform. >> and this is where i'm up against my own resistance. so -- >> do you have a son or daughter? >> i do. i have a daughter. >> you should get them to turn on their iphones. >> pardon? >> prop up their iphones and

talk into their iphones and post it on facebook live and there you go. you have your platform. >> so of the women -- let me be thin specific. the women who have messages about religion, are there particular words that you would -- words of advice you would give to them? because it's a touchy topic. >> i think, you know, the things that we share are obviously the things that reach out to people the most. if you're talking about religion and you want to communicate you should be telling stories from people who have those things to say. the personal is what translates. if you talk about religion as an out there thing, i don't think anybody will respond. i think when you hear someone talking about what was said to bush, it's so memorable people talk about it five years later. >> thank you. >> i have a person in the back

then we'll come back. >> my name is serena mccool and i'm a second-year student here. my question relates to sort of what's going to happen hopefully this november. there's the possibility that for the first time we could have three tremendous female leaders of the western world. so you've spoken about the importance of highlighting narrative narratives so i wonder how the media will portray this kind of holy trinity. >> well, angela merkel who is probably going to lose her election, hillary clinton who has been through a hell's angels ceremony, theresa may who has just come out of this thing with brexit, i hope space is given to celebrate and allow them to then develop as leaders.

i fear the backlash. that's what i fear the most. in the same way we've seen racism and racial issues increase when barack obama became president, you might see, unfortunately, a real uncapping of the misogyny that has been rampant in this last year. so far from it being a time where, oh, how wonderful, it will be a pitched battle and i think how we address that is very, very important. how we put it back where it belongs which is out of sight. the misogyny has been intense. it seems to come raging out. really empowered by social media. this is the down side of the digital disruption, everybody with a malignant sword is expressing in the the public space. and we've seen in the the uk as well. a lot of it in the uk.

a lot of very, very ugly trolling in -- against women leaders in parliament to the point that several of them has police protection. one as we know was murdered in that terrible incident which was not just about brexit and a crazy person, it was about misogyny in a very dark way so we have to be vocal about not standing for it. interesting this recent explosion about donald trump's -- the videotape but it somehow becomes a wash and i'd like to feel there was a way for women to protest in a way that's effective. it would be interesting to discuss that with people who could get together and say well, how are we going to put a stop to this in terms of the way what is acceptable and what is unacceptable now in this country because what we do is copy it everywhere else. it sweeps over.

we're supposed to be the example to other count collies are deeply misogynistic in other cultures and if there's a sense it's okay even here to treat women this way, it's very dangerous for everybody else. >> sara? >> one minute, please. >> i'm vary o'hagan. one of the things i found most depressing and distressing in the aftermath of the access hollywood tape is that women have let men speak for them who have chosen to speak in the guise of -- i'm speaking for my daughter, i'm speaking for my mother, i'm speaking for my sisters and in many cases it's sort of "and i'm stepping over them to let you know how there are more important things than this to worry about." that's only one side of the political spectrum. but i'm wondering where you see

from the remarks you just made american feminism today. because if we have gloria ste steinem at the end of her career and we have maybe young feminists looking at all of the freedoms and the rights and advances that have been afforded by these early pioneers but if we have a female president the idea that the work is done is hardly the case, but yet american feminism doesn't, to my eye, seem to be at this absolutely obvious moment stepping up to take the microphone. >> i think american feminism is very confused at the moment. very, very confused. a lot of the young wonderful comedians, for instance, female comedians, feel that their statement is to be almost as crude and course in a sense as men are about women so that they

can speak like men about that and that's freedom and power. but i think it's decide the point. i tend to feel women can lead us away from that rather than feel that it's a feminist statement to be, you know, more out there, more gross, more profane. really it's the pop culture interpretation of feminism which i think is alarming. i also think that women tend to feel that it's -- the younger feminist cans sometimes feel that the job is done. it's almost uncool to be seen as a feminist. but the other thing i also see, young women are very, very excited and turned on by the stories of women heroes in other countries, smaftd. that it's interesting how they are tremendously moved and inspired by the stories of women in india, pakistan, africa.

places where many young women are volunteering, they want to go overseas, they're traveling overseas and i'm sure many of the students here are doing the same and they feel energized. it's almost as if it takes them seeing the feminism of those women to remind them what real feminism is. and i think what we do as women in the world is i found the young women where most excited because it's almost as if they're finally given the ability to see true heroes on the stage who are not feeling they have to come out half dressed or -- they're women who are true women who have confronted enormous challenges and i guess because we're an affluent country the stark difference between those challenges and those women are much less so you know, women they see on the stage are facing down real cultural difficulties, real repressions, outrageous treatment that is unthinkable in america so it dramatizes what

fenisim inisim in is and should be. that's a rising thing amongst young women, this interest in the foreign affairs. they're less interested, really in -- you know american feminism is a very, very confused thing and i think a lot of young women are very confused and threatened by it, actually. >> there was a gentleman back there. thank you. >> my name is walker carter, i'm an alum us in from 2012 and i work from one of the big accounting firms. pricewaterhouse. >> so glad to see you here. there are more of you. >> my question is from a private sector perspective -- and a lot of our discussion has been about women in developing countries and things like that -- but in a private sector sense, what are some of the things that organizations can do to promote women's leadership?

we've been trying to take a forward step but with some degree of limited success in terms of establishing women in leadership roles, women in board positions, the signing on with the u.n. he for she initiative but it feels like it's the tip of the iceberg. >> you mean what can you do corporately to develop your own women? >> yes. >> >> well, i feel the reason that women so often drop out before they get to the top, which is really -- a lot of companies complain they invest in women, they feel they they're really growing women in the leadership path then they flame out after a certain time and that is because i think work is organized around the male principle and there's not enough understanding of how women's careers are often in these more serial and cycle movements if they want to be married and have children and if you make it so

impossibly difficult for them to do both, they're going to drop out, they're not going to choose their work over their children most of the time. most of the time they're going to realize i've tried and tried to balance it out and they can't so many women flame out. it's a real, real issue. it's also an issue for the companies because it's hard to create those working conditions, it can be aggravating to have a floating population but what i feel is that we're going more and more to what i once called the gig economy where projects and -- you have to be able to have a population that's like a repertoire company almost of women who can -- and men if they want to, men want to spend time with their families, too where at certain points women can come in and, you know, do what they're doing and cycle out for a bit and come back and they don't feel all the time that it has to be unless they're doing

this that they're failures, they have to be able to move in these circular movements sometimes million is such time as their children are over and then they can be in the mood of straight up, so i think it's about having a creative look about how your company is dealing with that issue and get the input of the women there to see what it would be like for them if they could redesign the company, almost, where they would be able to work in that way because i think that -- i mean i've certainly found that, you know, i've been able to keep women a long time by being very understanding very often about these needs, trusting them to work in friend ways or work in different -- have these periods where they can go off and do something else but welcome them back rather than saying i'm exasperated, why aren't you doing what you're doing? it's aggravating as an employer but the only way you'll keep women and grow women without

losing them. >> do you think in that case if the corporation or the -- whatever focuses on output as opposed to face time, in academia those of us who have cycled in and it, it allows you to do that because the calendar is more family friendly is but there's an expectation of performance based on different criteria. >> and with things like face time it should be -- on your iphone you should be able to do that but i think companies are still very old-fashioned. >> and when they do that i've seen the younger generation is doing it, it's mostly the men who get that break to do it because they're -- they can sort of be -- they're assumed to be more able to manage the time whereas we give the women -- who knows, she might be out there baking cookies. so -- and so they run up against that, those who've tried but i

think -- i mean, it's a mind-set. >> it is. >> it really is. are there any questions? because i have -- yes? and then i'll come back to you. >> i'd like to ask this gentleman here. >> yes, he's just going to wait for that. michael is very involved in the women's initiative so he's one of -- >> thanks. marshall milsap, i'm a johns hopkins alum. >> and strong supporter of women leaders. >> and delighted to be a strong supporter. you have always been, at least in my ear, a distinctive voice. you've had a distinctive leadership style, that's the way i think about the way your story is told in the media. could you share with us, was it always thus? . how did you -- how did the story begin? were there women or men who inspired you? >> well, most of my role models were men because they were doing the jobs i wanted. passion mother me along.

you get a passion for something and don't think about anything except getting it done so i was always driven by that which was a desire to tell stories that was overpowingly strong and how do i do it, where do i do it and with whom? i do love institution building and i love team building and what i have found is that -- sorry. i didn't even know i had a phone in here. stop, stop, stop. >> and i forgot to say silence your phones. >> yes, i should have done that ch. i really think creating unconventional teams is where it's add. >> what do you mean by that? >> i mean casting teams very much not just for their capabilities and resumes but for temperament and yin and yang and -- i'm so sorry, it's my son. i'm just going to turn this off.

i often actively look for people to play againsteer people. it's like casting a play. like thinking you know i have this person who is -- like for instance i'm like a whirling dervish so i have to have a strong taurus person in there. it's riddiiculous but i literal think like that. iu'm thinking where is my taurus to quiet me down? and i can't be effective unless i have that person and if you have too many of those people it gets a little dull, you know? so it's about creating that -- it's always about between three and five people who are the critical people and i have a very, very long tolerance for very, very talented people, no matter how difficult they are and fortunately -- i have very little tolerance for people who are just okay and obviously organizations have to have people who are just okay and i'm

not good with people who are just okay but i give a very long rope to very talented people who can be very, very difficult and i think the talent managing is something that's underestimated as a skill. you want to keep your stars feeling happy and wanted and fed and confident and i'm sometimes shocked at how organizations treat their stars. and when i say "stars" i don't mean the show boats, i mean people who are gifted in some particular way. and it could be a small thing they're really good at but nonetheless it's critical for the success of the operation and you need to tell those people that they're valued and that thing you do so well -- i mean, it could be someone really good at writing captions. captions are really important. when i lost my caption writer, i spent so long trying to find somebody who would make it sing. and you have to recognize the skills and crafts and everything are as important as the big things, as the big show boat and

if you can make those people feel valued it as a much -- it's a wonderful result that everybody's involved, it creates an esprit de corps that is very often missing in a lot of organizations and fast response. i'm shocked at how many people don't respond to people. in this age of overcommunication, it's remarkable. nobody answers anything. people are so overwhelmed they just don't answer. i think that's intolerable. it's a firing offense as far as i'm concerned. >> unacceptable. >> totally unacceptable if somebody sends an article in and somebody hasn't replayed by -- first few hours goes by and the writer is sitting there and by day end starting to feel queasy, next morning nothing, you know, starting to feel anxious, by end of the day the next day that person is miserable, angry, bitter, hates you, all the rest of it. another day goes by and you're dead, it'ser redeemable.

so you have to be able to be responsive and if you can't off crummy structure. >> i comment you. you are very responsible very fast. >> it burns a hole in my pocket. >> i hear back and you're somewhere half the way around the world. >> but don't you find that you have to ask 20 times. >> and it's very annoying, it doesn't matter anymore what they're saying. by the time they respond you don't care. there was a gentleman back there, yes, please wait for the micropho microphone. >> my name is colin coulter, i'm with the u.n. alliance institute istanbul. i was looking around the room and i noticed a disproportionately smaller number of other men and what i wanted to ask was how do we -- or do we -- recruit other men into this kind of conversation? we talked a little bit about the politics of recognition and who has paid attention to and when

we talk about strategically empowering women, i feel like we can't forget that it's about power and there's tremendous resistance from, you know, the other side. how do we, or do we, bring other men into this kind of event? is it about making more justin trudeaus? is it about wearing t-shirts that say "this is what a feminist looks like"? >> i think what's a good idea is to say every woman has a bring a man with her. >> yes. >> that's one way to go. >> i'm bringing men more and more and more into women in the world on the stage in fact i'm beginning to introduce -- try to have a man in every second panel to make sure there's a man or moderator who's a man. but also when the men get in you want to make sure the conversation isn't excluding one which is why stories and exciting issues and engaging action on the stage is very, very important because men don't

want to listen to blathering about empowerment, there's nothing more dreary, frankly, than what i call sort of empowerment babble, of which there is a lot and i don't know what the male equivalent is of empowerment babble? is there a male equivalent of empowerment babble? i'll be on conferences where men babble about the need to be in -- lift each other up. there must be but i think it's very important women move beyond that and simply bring their intelligence to what is happening in the world. i think in a woman's so-called event you should be able to discuss everything that's happening in the world it's just bringing more women's point of view of what is happening as to only caring about what women are doing because it makes no sense. it's half the population. so let's bring men next time. >> right. i think having a seat at the table is the formula, it doesn't mean that you control the thing

but you are for for so long that we've been told that okay, you're one of the boys but some of the important change i think has occurred that some men are now willing to be called well, you're an honorary woman i remember there were only four women ambassadors and a man would say okay, i'm an honorary female for this gathering because i believe in the subject. so i think it's sort of something we have to work on individually within our own circles. >> and creating leaders in this space. william hague, for instance, the former foreign secretary in england has been a tremendous supporter of women. he wrote a book about slavery in wilbur force and it helped him understand how appalling it is that sexual trafficking and slavery has become a personal thing for him and it's led him in a journey where he now feels passionately that the male voice in foreign affairs needs to be

there. i read a wonderful piece yesterday actually about why misogyny is intolerable and why men have to speak up about it. not in the patronizing way we were hearing about, my daughter, my -- you know, the good piece frank bruni wrote today but because it's intolerable. he's a great voice because he's a very smart and influential man and he's made this his thing. we need more william hagues and justin trudeaus. it's coming. >> we have one question here. we're kind of getting towards the end. yes, please. just one second, please. >> i'm the libyan ambassador to the united states of america and that isn't an easy job to hold coming from a very conservative

middle eastern closed society. i was also appointed as the first deputy foreign minister in the history of libya and i was very involved after our revolution in launching a commission to support women participating in decision making, we were very -- we were inspired by women leaders around the globe, my opt separation is that when we look to the world, when we look to the united states of america, we found that after being in democracy and a lot of -- you know, being advanced on a lot of talks and rights of this stuff, after so many years the ratio of women in leadership in the united states, for instance is one of a very low compared to so many parts of the world and this frustrates us

because women here have been struggling for so long and yet i think the ratio is about 19.6 or something like this of having women in leadership. my question is after our struggle we realized that it's so much month about individual women because when you are strong you can push and find your way, it depends on you, just like men. it's about changing a lot of legislations and laws and giving some convenience to women like in scandinavian countries where it's about 56% the ratio of women in leadership, it's 50/50, men and women. and i'm amazed this hasn't been done here. >> you mean a quota? >> yes. it's a quota, yes. 56%. >> i think sometimes countries that have been through hell and are broken, like in, for instance, rwanda where the amount of women in government is

very, very high because all the men have died so they have to kind of invest -- >> that's in rwanda, yes. >> but here the structure has been so long in place and so rigid that it's harder to break through. >> but i compared you to scandinavian countries. rwanda is a different story. as you said, they have lost a lot of men but in staand ask -- scandinavian countries they have men stay home and take care of the baby, they get equal pay, a lot of privileges and why that hasn't been done here? why women here haven't fought so hard for this? this is the question i leave you with. >> i think america is different in every way to scandinavia. >> including tax. >> including tax and child care and all of those things that -- listen, we haven't even got paid family leave.

it's remarkable. only papua, new guinea, i think, is in the same category. it blows people's minds in europe that this is true in the united states. it's just remarkable, i agree with you, i think the quota system, we may have to get there because it isn't working, boards and so on, it isn't working. it seems to me nothing is moving in that sense and it may be that a quota system is better but it will be really fought over very hard. i don't see it passing. it was very hard to pass in germany and i think in fact merkel delayed it for two years so she didn't have to deal with it. and i think it will be very, very hard to get that passed here. >> especially if there's a female president i would think it could make it harder. there was a question from this side and then i have one final question. and a comment. >> hi, my name is jen and i

started an organization to start the next generation of women leaders and like vital voices, i know them very well. we're co-creating a project to highlight seven young women around the world that are in the most violent countries. so from story telling perspective, is there any lessons learned that you would give? like what are good pointers to do? not to do? especially the not to dos. >> well, video is very, very important. video is always better than an introduction in words if you can introduce somebody by a short one and a half minute video about their life that makes it instantly enstaging people are so much more going to pay attention than if somebody gives a verbal introduction. really producing and very intensely what they're going to say so that you really have worked with them to ekts tract from them the most interesting aspects of their story because

people can sometimes not know how to tell their story. they can have an amazing story but can't tell that so it's important to work with them to understand what's genuinely interesting. then i think keep it not to -- 20 or 25 minutes is the longest you'll hold anybody's attention in today's world so the important thing is to move it along quickly and make that person tell the story in a time frame that's shorter. you'll have much more response than if it's elongated and meandering and all the things that it can be if you don't focus very hard on the production elements. that's my advice. >> well, i'm sort of exercising the privilege of having been a moderator for this. i want to ask, this being almost the end of 2016, would you say that countries get judged by how they treat their women?

can we say that? >> i don't think the health of a democracy can be judged on how it treats its women, actually. the countries that cause us the most trouble are the countries where women are women. the countries that cause the most trouble are the countries that treat women the worst. that's why it's extremely important that we make sure that women are continuing to advance. as our friend from libya just said, it's not acceptable that those numbers are as low as they are. not acceptable. unless there's energy around these issues and protecting what we do towards women not allowing misogyny to become rampant without real genuine pushing back, these things can go haywire. all of a sudden you have a very different country. you're absolutely right about that, in the sense that how a

country treats its women is a critical factor for the next generation. >> right. anyway, i want to thank you on behalf of the community for being here and sharing your thoughts. >> thank you. >> i'm sure this room is full of tomorrow's leaders. >> yes. >> i hope that you're all going to turn out to be role models. i'm sure you will. i think role model is such a cliche. it's all about being great at what you do and not forgetting about people who make you great. that's what really makes you -- >> i think what you said about being passionate about it. you get the dips when things go and don't go but if you're passionate about it. >> carries you along. >> carries you through the dark moments which come. >> thank you so much for having me here. >> thank you. [ applause ]

>> i'm sorry. >> here is a look at some of our live programming today across c-span networks. join us this afternoon for education secretary john king. he'll discuss civic engagement as a cornerstone of democracy and the role schools have in preparing students to be active citizens. watch that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. later it's a discussion on money in politics. that's hosted by american constitution society. you can see that live at 6:30 eastern on our companion network c-span2. >> watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump tonight. our live debate preview from the university of nevada, las vegas, starts at 7:30 p.m. eastern. the briefing for the debate studio audience at 8:30 p.m. eastern and 90 minute debate is

at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction including calls, tweets and facebook postings. watch the debate live or on demand using desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen with free radio app, download it from the app store or google play. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening just before 7:00 eastern, ohio state university's michael ben talks about milligan decision where they found it unconstitutional to try in military courts while civil courts are operating. >> the milligan trial was part of this debate designed to prove to the public that the danger was real and that therefore the military trials were justified.

and as we know, it worked. lincoln won the election of 1864. >> at 8:00 george washington university professor on the origins of the gay rights movement. >> the gay liberation front is playing on and building on all of the lessons that the whole other social and cultural movements from this period of developing. the anti-war movement, the civil rights and black power movement, women's liberation movement. they are taking the best aspects of those and building upon them. >> then sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, we take a tour of the woodrow wilson house in washington, d.c., with its executive director where the 28th president retired in 1921 and died three years later? >> he responded to that crisis by sending food aid to armenia. the armenian people very

grateful, armenian women touring united states raising money for armenian charities were here in 1917 just after we declared war and presented this painting to president wilson. >> at 8:00 -- ♪ you like ike i like ike everybody likes ike ♪ >> president of the campaign group incorporated talks about the history of presidential campaign ads beginning with dwight eisenhower's tv jingles through the 2016 presidential campaign for our complete american history tv stell go to c-span.org. treasury secretary jacob lew testified recently before house financial services committee about the u.s. economy and stability of financial systems. secretary lew also provided overview of financial stability over sight counsel's annual report. this runs just under three

hours.

come to order, without objection chairman authorized to declare recess at any time. the purpose of receiving annual testimony of chairperson of financial stability oversight council. i now recognize myself three minutes to give opening statements. with today being the official start of fall, it's disappointing that the financial stability oversight council has delivered the equivalent of a summer rerun. it's 2016 annual report is basically identical to its 2015 annual report breaking new ground and adding little new value. fsok charged with financial risk stability only in passing for needs for fundamental housing reform fails to analyze the substantial risk that fannie mae and freddie mac, snux institutt the last financial crisis posed for next.

advent of dodd/frank we're losing on average one financial institution a day in america as they are crushed by federal regulatory burden. the big banks have only grown bigger. banking system consolidation can clearly tribute to heightened financial system risk, yet there's absolutely no mention in fsok's report of federal regulatory risk brought on by dodd/frank, a glaring emission. yet the most scandalous is the conspiracy of silence regarding existential threat posed by america's unsustainable national debt and our staggering unfunded obligation. since president obama came to office the national debt has increased by a mind boggling 84%. congressional budget office noted in a recent report that the president's 2017 budget would add nearly $7.5 trillion to our publicly held debt

equivalent to $59,609 for every american household. cbo recently warned such high and rising amounts of debt have, quote, serious negative long-term consequences for the economy and would constrain future budget policy. on this again, fsock remains silent, lose financial credibility. this commit's focus must remain on fsoc's frightening and unconstitutional powers. fsock standard process clearly gives federal regulators broad license to concentrate immense economic power in their own hands.

the designation authority is taking our financial system regrettably one step closer to the a government-controlled utility model, a model where it will allocate to classes at the cost of our freedom and prosperity. this must change. finally, the highly a little bit sized structure are emblematic of a shadow regulatory system. that's antithetical to american principles. that's why it's important the committee reported financial choice act, bring about economic growth for all and bailouts for none. it will end bailouts and replaces bailouts with bankruptcy. it would protect our financial with capital and impose strictest fines and penalties ever on those committing financial fraud, hold fsoc accountable and focus solely on vital task of emerging threats to our financial system. it is undoubtly a better way forward.

and now i yield five minutes to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary lew, thank you for joining us today to discuss the financial stability oversight council's 2016 annual report. last week, the u.s. census reported median household income increased by more than 5%, the largest increase in both percentage and dollar terms since the government began tracking this data nearly 50 years ago. the census bureau also reported that the poverty rate declined by 1.3% points and that the number of people without health insurance in the united states declined by 4 million. all told, our progress is rather remarkable compared to where we were eight years ago. when during the last days of the bush administration we were shedding more than 700,000 jobs per month.

and millions of people were being displaced from their homes. but make no mistake, we need to be doing more, especially to address the wealth gap and particularly for african-american and hispanic households whose economic security was devastated by the financial crisis. unfortunately, however, there's an unnerving sense of amnesia from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the dark days of the crisis. here we are eight years after that devastation and more than six years after dodd/frank became the law of the land considering the same harmful deregulatory proposals that would undo the critical progress we have made. just think about this. two weeks ago one of the largest banks in the united states, which was supposedly one of the

most well run was found to have opened more than 2 million unauthorized deposit and credit accounts for unsuspecting customers. this is a massive fraud of historic proportions that begs the question what further reforms may be needed. yet, in this committee the answer is deregulation and more opportunities for wall street to write the rules of the game. and like the consumer financial protection bureau, fsoc on the front line of those attacks with wall street reform, we created f sok f fsoc to look across the entire system, identifying gaps that may exist between regulators and action to

prevent another meltdown. no longer would we allow banks to shop around for the weakest regularity or move money around the globe to escape regulation. we saw how effective fsoc can be in preventing companies from going too large. general electric voluntarily agreed to shrink it's self and sell off much of its consumer financial business, returning to its roots as an industrial company. the firm is now smaller, safer, and less likely to cause risk to the rest of the financial system if it becomes stressed. in turn, fsoc allowed ge capital to shed regulatory standards that came with it. what this means is that wall street reform is working as it should. the system is creating incentives and shrinks itselves and ensuring companies like ge renew their focus on creating jobs in the real economy.

yet despite this progress, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are intent to dismantling fsoc. nowhere has this effort been more apampbt than the chairman's dodd/frank bill received by partisan legislation. this harmful legislation would strip the fsoc of its bablt to designate nonbanks for heightened supervision, repeal all existing designations for large, complex firms like aig and otherwise limit its ability to operate effectively. this bill and others will put wall street back in the driver's seat and leave consumers and investors to fend for themselves rather than continuing this commit its focus on harmful rollbacks, we should supporting reforms. we should be exploring how we can do more to prevent scandals like the one at wells fargo. so i look forward your testimony, secretary lew, on the

state of our financial markets and what we need to keep doing to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from mr. texas, chairman of our financial institution subcommittee for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ensure the stability of the u.s. financial system and to identify future risks to the system. it was given authority to designate banks and nonbanks alike for high regulation. heightened regulation. i believe, however, it also has the responsibility to ensure that the recommendations and designations are appropriately calibrated and provide sufficient clarity to the marketplace. today fsoc failed to live up to its duty to be a responsible federal agency. first fsoc failed to exercise its authority under section 115 of dodd/frank to ensure heightened standards is applied fairly to the bank who hadding

companies. in the face of analysis from the office of financial research that suggests $50 billion banks aren't systemically important, fsoc chose arrogance over prudent tailoring. second, failed to implement fair, transparent and measured progress when designated nonbanks statistically important. as noted, the determination process is fatally flawed. yet fsoc created additional uncertainty repooling this ruling. third and finally fsoc's regulatory protectionism has failed to identify market concerns like those seen with liquidity strengths in the bond markets. i hope today we'll finally get to hear substantive answers to legitimate policy questions instead of democratic talking points praising dodd/frank. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. garrett. chairman of our capital market subcommittee for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, good to see you again. i understand that you are a tough man to nail down to get to this hearing today even though it is the rule of law. i guess i would be too if my job was to come here and try to defend fsoc. so, you know, we're starting to get to a point of administration tenure when people turn to legacy and what you all will be leaving behind. unfortunately when it comes to fsoc obama administration's legacy will be remembered by what? secrecy, obfuscation and refusal to answer most basic and simple questions to provide transparency to this committee, congress and most importantly the american people. it's not just legislative branch that notices this, reminds all of us we live in a system ruled by law and not ruled by bureaucrats.

i hope treasury secretary finally understands this and i look forward to some of his answers today. with that i yield back. >> time of the gentleman has expired. today we welcome the testimony of honorable jack lew. secretary lew has previously testified before this committee on a number of occasions, so i believe he needs no further introduction. without objection your statement will be made part of the record. you're recognized five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. thank you. >> thank you, chairman hensarling, ranking member waters, members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding 2016 annual report of the financial stability oversight council. we just passed the eighth year anniversary of the collapse of lehman brothers. every autumn this date provides grim reminder of the most severe financial crisis of our lifetimes. it's also an opportunity to measure the tremendous progress we have made to make a safer is and more resilient system to support long-term economic growth. six years ago we worked together to put in

place the most far reaching update of the regulatory system since the great depression. dodd/frank wall street reform and consumer protection act addressed serious weaknesses that contributed to the crisis putting in place consumer, investor and taxpayer objections and restoring confidence in the financial system. today the success continues to be reflected in a long and stable economic recovery. we have cut the unemployment rate in half. our economy is more than 10% larger than its prerecession peak. u.s. businesses added a total of 15.1 million jobs since job growth turned positive in 2010. and our financial system is safer and more resilient, providing the critical underpinning for more ininclusive long-term growth. recent census bureau data demonstrates that significant strides have been made. the nation's poverty rate is

down. for hispanics and african-americans, it's at the lowest level in a decade. household incomes are rising with 2015 seeing the fastest one-year growth since the census bureau began reporting on household income in 1967. recent enforcement actions by occ and cfpb also remind us of the ongoing need for robust protections, and that that need is very real. without a strong consumer watch dog, the financial system can be dangerous for consumers and businesses alike. indeed, one of the most important lessons of the crisis was the need for financial regulator dedicated to looking out for and protecting consumers. the last financial crisis had at its core abusive practices that should have been prevented. as the only regulatory agency focused on consumer protection, designed to ensure markets for financial markets are fair, transparent and competitive. it's been fulfilling this

statutory mission actively and well. the conduct that lead to recent enforcement actions enforces finalizings strong, sensible executive compensation rules, a central component of wall street reform. moving forward, it is critical we continue to build upon the success of wall street reform and create a framework for responding to risks that arise in any part of the financial system. rather than regulating purely in reaction to crises, they established a forward looking approach focused on regulating and identifying risks presented by markets as a whole and by types of activities wherever they are conducted. the financial stability oversight council exemplifies this approach. too often operated in silos and there was no agency or group specifically charged with collectively monitoring and maintaining stability. for the last six years, fsoc brought the entire community

together to be on watch for signs of vulnerability and to respond to emerging threats to financial stability before they turn into crises. today the council continues to benefit from the diversity of expertise and perspectives of its members. council has been open-minded and deliberate in its approach, regularly engaging with stakeholders, frequently updating the public on its views and actions and remaining careful to avoid a one size fits all approach to addressing different types of risk. and always asking important questions and looking to the data and analysis for answers. before i discuss the council's finding in sixth annual report, worth noting the significance. the report serves as a key mechanism for accountability, out lining the council's

priorities and a road map for the year ahead. it is the product of extensive data analysis, key risk areas, recommendations to mitt goes the risks. it includes a statement signed by each of the counsel's 10 voting members that affirms all the issues and recommendations in the report should be fully addressed. the council's 2016 annual report focused on 12 key areas that have been the topic of council discussions over the past year. these areas include cyber security, risks associated with asset management products and activities, reforms to wholesale funding markets and global economic and financial developments. for each ear the report c.i.t.e.s. progress made and, if necessary, the need for further action on the part of members and member agencies. cyber security remains a key area focus for the council. in response to increasing threats presented by cyber attacks, the u.s. financial sector stepped up efforts to improve security across the financial system. efforts to include greater information sharing, and analysis and establishing private sector best practices for assessing risks. the report makes several recommendations for building on this important work. the administration remains

committed to staying ahead of this issue. we look forward to working with both the council and congress as we continue to address it. the council is focused on potential risks to financial stability posed by asset management products and activities. as these products and activity represent an increasingly important part of the u.s. financial sector, council will continue to evaluate their implications for financial stability. that end in april of this year, we published an update regarding the council's review of potential risks in this area and in particular focusing on liquidity, redemption and leverage risk. this update two years of data driven analysis, engagement with key stakeholders and reflects the focus to inform views. our work in this area is ongoing and plan for timely updates as analysis continues. let me close by saying that in the ahead, it is vital that we remain vigilant to ensure we do not return to precrisis way of

doing things. looking narrowly at jurisdictional lines dictated by the kind of charter a firm has selected and reacting to old problems rather than threats that lie ahead. the old approach did not work. regulators did not respond in time to prevent a crisis. we cannot go back. that means we must not only remain steadfast in opposing efforts to roll back reform but we must continue to build on the progress we have made. the work of the council has been critical to this progress, and it's important to continue the council continue to have the tools necessary to respond to future threats as they emerge. i want to thank the other members of the council and all the staff involved in the development of the 2016 annual report for their hard work and commitment. i would encourage the committee to work with the council to build on the progress that we've discussed today. the recent news of consumer fraud by a large firm should strengthen our collective resolve to work together to build on wall street reform rather than advancing legislation that would return us to the days we had broad,

regulatory gaps and weak consumer protections. going forward, i'm confident that the progress we have made the past six years will continue to promote the strength and stability of the u.s. financial system for many years to come. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your accommodating my schedule by adjourning at 1:00 p.m. i will do my best to keep my responses brief so we can get in as many questions as possible. >> the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. mr. secretary, one of the emerging threats listed in the fsoc report is the possibility of destructive cyber attack. as i believe you recall, it wasn't six months ago that seven iranians linked to the iranian revolutionary guard were indicted for coordinated cyber attack on u.s. major financial constitutions. attorney general lynch said at the time, "these attacks were relentless, systematic and widespread ". so a couple of questions about the recent $1.7 billion in

payments the administration recently made to iran, payments that we now know were made in cash, made in secret and $400 million of which we know coincided with the release of american hostages. secretary kerry, your fellow cabinet matter said of related sanctions relief, i think that some of it will end up in the hands of the iranian revolutionary guard corps or some other entities, some of which are labeled terrorist. isn't it true, mr. secretary, since the $1.7 billion was paid in cash, we have no way of tracing the money and you have no assuring us it will not be used for terrorist purposes. >> mr. chairman, the payments you're referring to are related to -- >> i understand that, but the question is can you trace it and can you guarantee us that it will not be used for terrorism? >> we have laid out the facts in

this transfer with a ler letter sent to this committee. the payments complied with u.s. sanctions. >> i understand that, mr. secretary. it's a yes or no question. can you guarantee us it will not be used for terrorist purposes? because i don't believe you can. >> if you just give me a minute i will answer your question. >> if you would answer me the question i would allow you to give us consent. >> it was settlement of a contractual dispute. >> i didn't use the word ransom, mr. secretary. >> you did. >> i said it coincided with the release of american hostages. >> you've asked a specific question about where the money goes. where the payment went to the central bank of iran, we do a lot of work to monitor what the support that iran gives to terrorist organizations -- >> what i asked, mr. secretary, could you trace the money? can you trace the money? >> we have not seen an increase in terrorist funding by iran. >> i think we will move on because i'm not getting an answer. we have pursued this line of questioning before.

who authorized the cash payment? so we know that cash has been called the currency of terrorism. you have an entire office of treasury devoted to terrorism and financial intelligence. according to press reports, senior officials at the justice department indicated objections. did you object to the payment or were you the one who authorized the cash payment? >> the president spoke clearly on the facts of this. we have given you the details in a letter. this was a settlement of a contract claim where the united states government, the american taxpayer, was exposed to potential $5 to $10 billion of additional damages -- you're avoiding the question. who authorized the cash payment? >> the method of payment is a technicality. the agreement to settle a contract dispute was a substantive issue. >> it is not a technicality to those on the receiving end of a hezbollah missile in israel. >> they were consistent with sanctions laws.

>> did you authorize the cash payment, yes or no? >> the method of payment was worked through a process that we outlined in a letter that we provided to this committee. >> okay, mr. secretary. isn't it true under 31 usc 1304 you must personally certify payments for the judgment fund? these funds could not have been released except on your -- >> mr. chairman, i'm telling you, the payments were properly made. i was aware of them. i was cognizant that it was happening. it was an appropriate settlement of a contract dispute that saved the american tax payer billions of dollars -- >> if you won't tell us who authorized the cash payment, what we do know is on multiple occasions, the administration said you had no choice but to use action. in fact, your statement department spokesman august 3rd said, quote, it couldn't be done over wire transfers. the president himself on the

very next day said, quote, we could not wire the money. yet a treasury department spokesman acknowledged on at least two occasions the u.s. did make payments via wire transfer, on july 2015 or april 2016. so did politico get it wrong, your spokesperson get it wrong, or did the president get it wrong? why were we misled? >> the president got it right. you weren't misled. >> were two wire transfers made, one in july 2015 -- >> i would be happy to answer your question but you have to stop interrupting me every time i start. >> if we would get answers -- >> you'll have to let me speak. i'd be happy to answer your question. we have done an effective job cutting iran off from the international financial system. the payment that was made by wire to iran was not for a billion, not for a million, it was $900,000. it went to a foreign bank account that iran had. and it was a difficult process to get the money as it has been difficult for iran to get access

to its own money because we have been so effective in isolating iran from the international financial system. >> so wire transfers were made. that is correct? >> the method of payment is a technical detail. the agreement was that this settlement would go to the central bank of iran. and it was done in a way that consistent -- >> you're confirming two wire transfers went to iran, correct? >> mr. chairman, i'm telling you before the transaction that we're discussing, the transfer we're discussing, one had gone. the other was subsequent. it was for $900,000. it was a difficult process because as it has been under under the jpoa and the jpcoa, it has taken iran a lot of time to get access to its own money that it is entitled to under the agreement. i'm not saying -- >> i believe the president did get it wrong. >> no. >> my time has expired. >> that's totally incorrect. i disagree with you. >> i now recognize the ranking member for five minutes.

>> mr. chairman, i would like unanimous consent to enter into the record from the opinion pages of the "new york times." >> without objection. >> editorial entitled "the fake $100 million iran ransom story." i think it is perhaps incumbent upon us to help debunk the distortion of what took place with iran. let me just say it's not simply about the so-called ransom story that has been, you know, made up by my colleagues. every attempt that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have made to discredit the

iran agreement, to try to dismantle the iran agreement has been made. just yesterday we were on the floor with a bill that simply said that my republican colleagues wanted to identify and list, i don't know, a whole array of the leadership of iran and expose them for the assets where they came from, what they're doing with it. they've been told over and over again, even that action did nothing but signal harassment and a conclusion by iran of a bad faith effort by the united states. i don't know why they continue it. as a matter of fact, i've said over and over again that this country needs the support of the

congress of the united states. as our president takes rightful leadership to act on behalf of this country, and to negotiate deals and to do the business of the presidency. but what we find is an undermining of this president at every turn. and it has been absolutely shameful what has been happening with this iranian agreement. and so this conversation that just took place is just one more effort for my colleagues to send a message across the world that our president cannot count on the congress of the united states. that we negotiate in bad faith. and that somehow what is going on in the united states is bad for the rest of our allies who have supported us. this ties into what the presidential candidate, mr.

trump, is doing. he has a theme about making america great again. some of us think america is already great to begin with. and his alliance with putin, his friend, that he may be doing business deals with, all of this ties in together. what are we doing in the name of trying to acquire the presidency and align themselves to trump. are they continuing to try and dismantle the leadership of this country to undermine us. talk about how bad we are, how crippled we are. how mr. trump knows better than our generals on and on again. it needs to stop. you should not have to suffer this today. this is a continuing of a political effort. i guess to align with the theme of america not being so good, not so great, what they're doing somehow with

mr. trump is going to make it better. this is absolutely outrageous. i had some other things i wanted to talk with you about today, but let's just put it on the line. what we have here is the opposite side of the aisle, the republican party, and mr. trump, who are not only not supportive of a president, they just don't think this country is much good. they just don't think the generals know what they're talking about. they just think putin is our friend. they just think somehow this country has gone to the dogs, i suppose. and they have to do everything that they can to prove it by proving that somehow this iranian deal that will help keep the world safe and certainly the middle east safe, that somehow it is wrong, it is no good and should be undermined. be damn our allies, who joined in with us in this deal to help reduce iran's ability to have the nuclear capability that

could cause a holocaust. and so i just want to tell you, mr. secretary, i'm sorry that you have to endure this. this should not be a place where this kind of politics is placed. put before you. it is happening. i would hope that you would refrain from even trying to answer some of these questions that are being raised. this is a great country. the iranian deal was a great deal. the president provided great leadership. we don't have to be ashamed of it. shame on them. i yield back. >> chair now recognizes gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, financial subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we get to my question, i want one follow-up question from the chairman, and this is just a yes or no. did we record the serial numbers on the cash that was given to the -- delivered to the iranians?

>> congressman, i would have to check -- >> could you check on that? i think that was the chairman's question. i wanted to know if we have some traceability there. my question applies to your capacity as treasury secretary and chairman of fsoc. as you are probably aware, the federal banking agency submitted report required under section 620 of the dodd/frank act. the federal reserve made a recommendation of congress to repeal the merchant banking authority for banks. as you know, it gives the joint ruling making authority both to the federal reserve and to the treasury to issue regulations. implementing merchant banking authority and limitations. in fact, they did so in 2001. before the submission of the 620 report, did the federal reserve consult the treasury department regarding its recommendations on repealing the merchant banking provision? >> congressman, it was a report prepared by the regulators independently.

we obviously are familiar with the issue, but we were not involved in the preparation of that report. >> so i guess since congress gave the authority to, and the treasury has joint rule making authority with the fed reserve -- >> i believe the report was under a different authority than the joint rule making. there were two different pieces of work that were involved. >> it was a recommendation. >> yeah. >> do you agree with the recommendation? >> look, we're looking at the report, and would be happy to work with this committee as we review it to respond more fully. we just received the report as well. >> yeah. so does the treasury believe it has the appropriate tools to analyze the risk from merchant banking activity as ? >> yeah, i think we have the ability to understand merchant banking. it's not new to us there are issues regarding merchant banking. you're asking about a specific report that came about a week

ago. >> so with the tools that you have and the activities that you had in the past, have you found that merchant banking is too risky or you haven't been able to mitigate it? what would be your response on merchant banking? >> okay, i think that the issue regarding merchant banking is really an issue that has arisen out of the fact that in the original legislation, dodd-frank legislation, distinctions were made between different kinds of activities so that, you know, private equity is treated one way, merchant banking is treated another way. i think we're going to need to take a look if there are inconsistencies there that do require attention, and i would be happy to get back to you. >> so i think basically there's

probably approximately $26.7 billion in merchant banking investments held by banks. if the vote was to eliminate merchant banking activities, who will take up that slack? >> i think it will require legislative action. as i understand the recommendation that the regulators made was a proposed legislative action to remove a provision that exempts merchant banking from the rules. so it would require this body to act. >> so that recommendation was made to fsoc, and fsoc has not acted on that recommendation? >> we just got the recommendation very recently. we haven't had a meeting since we got the report. i'm not aware of administrative authority that exists to do that, but i would be happy to check and get back to you. >> so you weren't consulted and just received the report. is that what you're saying? >> the report came to us, i forget if it was a week or ten days ago, and it was done by the

regulators independently. >> but you didn't have any prior -- >> no. >> knowledge that that would be the recommendation? >> i don't believe so. i'm happy to check. >> what would be the process in moving forward? when will fsoc take up discussions on that particular recommendation? >> i will have to get back to you, congressman. we haven't had an fsoc meeting since that report came in, and i'm not in a position to respond until we've had a chance to look at it and discuss it. >> so fsoc report its findings to congress. >> we're happy to work with this committee going forward, as we review it and you review it. we got the recommendations as i pointed out very recently. >> thank you. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from new york, ms. velasquez. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, last week, the majority passed legislation that will severely halt by subjecting it to a politicized appropriation progress repealing director structure and putting significant roadblocks to its ability to create rules and enforce them. more shockingly, it will remove the bureau's authority to bring enforcement cases against abusive products and services. in light of what we know about the impact of predatory products, leading up to the financial crisis and the recent evidence that wells fargo was trying to extract profit in these deceptive ways, what will this change to the cfpb to american economic security? >> congresswoman, i think if you look at the financial crisis, it is undeniable that at the heart of it was practice of mortgage

lending that was abusive. and that when it became part of our financial system in through complex financial instruments, it ended up triggering a financial crisis. so we know that abusive practices are not just unfair and bad in terms of the individuals who are affected, but if left unchecked, can become a real threat to financial stability. i think the recent actions taken by the cfpb and occ reflect the ongoing need for tough consumer protection, for independent consumer protection, and for an agency set up in a way that is workable, which is what we have now in cfpb. i think it's a good thing there was a place for those issues to go for them to be addressed. it was the largest fine that the cfpb has made. i'm not saying that every issue becomes an issue of financial stability. i actually think it is important

to address things, even if it is just a question of abusing millions of consumers, but we also know that when these kinds of abuses occur, it can accumulate into financial stability risk. so for both reasons, we -- i think it is critical the cfpb maintain the ability to operate, and i believe it has operated very well. and if you go around to the industries that are affected by the cfpb, there are many who say the same thing. they've done their job very well. >> thank you. and then we still -- we wonder why there is so much anger among working people in this country. so here we have regulations to prevent this same crisis that we saw from happening again, and yet people continue to use

deceptive ways to get people and to exploit working families in this country. i hope that if that the department of justice look into this, and bring justice not only for the families that are impacted, the consumers impacted, or even those workers that were tricked into going into behavior that was not the right behavior, just because of the pressure coming from the top at the bank. mr. secretary, you are well aware that puerto rico is currently facing a severe financial crisis. the median household income is $18,000. just one-third of the national average. 46% of the population lives below the poverty line. on top of these challenges, the island is still struggling with the zika virus, which has

infected now 20,000 people on the island, including 1,500 pregnant women. and just yesterday, a massive power outage left the island without electricity. 500,000 people in the island today have no water. i know we pass that was sign -- signed into law in june and it will provide for a control board and every structure and mechanism for the island, $70 billion debt. my question to you is did it not include any proposal to reinvigorate the island's economy for the long-term. the u.s. government has a colony in the caribbean, puerto rico. we have a responsibility. so given the situation that i just described, what is your

view of what is needed to happen in puerto rico? should we in congress re-visit what we did, and come out with -- >> the time of the gentlelady has expired, if the secretary could give a brief answer, please. >> i would say briefly, prmisa is extremely important, it will provide the basis for puerto rico to have a plan. financial stability. we've always said, alone, it is not enough. there needs to be more action. we have proposed puerto rico be treated as the states would be treated, things that would stimulate the economy and we look forward to working with this on gress to take additional steps to make sure that there is long-term economic plan for puerto rico. >> again, the time of the gentlelady has kpirexpired. the chair now recognizes

chairman of the capital market subcommittee. >> thank you. it is fair to say that all of us in congress, myself included, are outraged at the activity that occurred at wells fargo. i know you're very familiar with, over a number of years. the entire incident has a number of people clamoring for regulators to be tough when they finalize the incentive compensation rules under section 964 of dodd/frank, which i'm sure you're familiar with. the current proposal is to limit compensation and something called claw backs for certain high level executives that could go back as far as seven years. you know, but like a lot of things for the other side of the aisle, when it depends on what executives we're talking about here when this happens. and so let me give you one example. you, mr. secretary. you joined citigroup back in 2006 and by 2008 you became chief operating officer of the citigroup alternative investment unit, which at that time managed $54.3 billion. then the alternative investment group began to do what,

hemorrhage money that year. by the end of 2008, citigroup laid off more than 50,000 employees, the stock price dropped by 75%, and then, of course, they were bailed out by who? the american taxpayers, to the tune of $45 billion. then to add insult to injury, last year s.e.c. announced two citigroup affiliates, include one where you were chief operating officer agreed to pay $180 million to do what? settle charges that your unit defrauded investors. so you were the senior officer at citigroup unit which lost money, that contributed to the bank's near collapse, and which later was charged with defrauding investors. talk about a legacy. was any of your compensation at citigroup ever claude back? that's a yes or no. >> congressman, i'm proud of my record implementing financial

reform. >> i'm not asking -- mr. secretary, let's just get to the question. i saw how you did not answer the chairman's question. simple question. was any of your money that your seven figure compensation, ever clawed back for the time that you were the chief operating officer? >> the issues regarding my compensation have been well worked over -- >> so then it's an easy answer, mr. secretary. >> i've answered many questions. i was paid in a way that what well understood and disclosed. i'm telling you my services in this role -- >> mr. secretary, please answer the question. >> to make sure we put rules in place that work going forward. >> mr. secretary, simple question. you were paid, your unit was defrauded -- >> congressman -- >> was any of your money ever clawed -- >> i was not subject to any action of any kind because -- >> okay. >> no one asked any questions that led to that. >> so the answer -- see, mr. secretary. simple. the answer is no, none of your money was -- >> let's remember what my role

was when i was there. >> you were the chief operating officer involved. >> i was responsible for administrative activities, not for designing risk products. let's just remember what my role was. >> you were a senior executive. would the proposed incentive rules capture or impact any of your compensation if those rules were in place back then? >> i am not aware of anything that relates to me personally, but i also many not directly in -- involved writing the rules. i have urged regulators to have -- >> should the rules be such that senior executives, and elizabeth warren doesn't make any differentiation between ceo and coo, she says all senior executives should have clawbacks. is she wrong? >> the questions that have been asked in designing these rules how do you align incentives for risk taking. >> that's not the question.

>> that's what the driving issue is. how do you make there is not an incentive -- >> here is an alignment. >> mr. secretary, thanks. when you left there, despite all of the hemorrhaging and taxpayer bailout, you received something called a bureaucratic parachute, you would be paid $944,000 if you took a high level position in the u.s. government. i guess you got that. didn't you? was that contingent on you doing or your unit doing a good job? was that contingent on whether or not there was fraud in your unit, or did you just get paid regardless? >> my compensation was based on my performance at the job. the only thing that that provision said was i didn't lose -- >> the performance of your job, the company lost 75% stock. it went down -- >> congressman, you don't know what my job was. >> well, yeah, i do. it's in the disclosure as to what you were. you were the coordinator for all the units, oversee coordination between technology, regional departments.

seems like you had your finger on every aspects of the company, yet you're telling us you're not responsible for anything. mr. chairman, i'll end with this. i want to make it clear that so long as you're high ranking democratic official, you can make all the money that you want on wall street, but if you are not one of them, then you have to play by the rules if the company collapses. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. >> mr. secretary, let me spend the first couple of minutes on stuff so noncontroversial that i don't think anybody in the room will disagree, because you deserve at least a couple of minutes. >> i don't need any time. i'm fine. >> but you deserve it. first, thank you for the treasury department announcement and clarification that i asked for last time you were here. so the 8,000 people from my district who had to evacuate for months due to the world's largest methane leak are not

-- can clearly understand they are not going to be taxable on the money they got to reimburse them for their expenses when they were living outside their home. second, last month, rather last time you were here, back in march, i brought up the issue of a u.s. armenia tax treaty. i know we've told your staff, i'm not blindsiding you here, that i would bring this up again. the answer i got from your staff is, hey, it would be wonderful if we did it, but a matter of prioritizing our resources. so i want to review with you why i think it's a priority. canada, which has -- whose treasury department analog has maybe one-tenth of your resources, negotiated a treaty with armenia. your department has negotiated treaties with luxembourg and

ballot, a and dozens of other countries. but what i think your staff may be losing track of is the -- they're looking at everything through the solely economic lens, and they need to look from a geopolitical and foreign policy lens. i'm asking your department to just spend -- have one tax lawyer spend a few months to do something, and i want to describe how important it is from the standpoint of the congress and the standpoint of the executive branch, state department, foreign policy, defense department. we in congress have provided a billion dollars of aid to armenia over the last 25 years. the executive branch has a policy of getting the newly independent states that became independent from the soviet union to wean them from moscow, and that's so important, that not only have you done tax treaties with estonia, lithuania, but we've put our lives on the line.

we admitted estonia into nato. we could be at war with russia. we could lose soldiers in the field. now, i'm not asking anybody in the treasury department to put their life on the line, just asking them to do something that should be easy, because in talks with the armenians, they'll start with your model treaty. given that we've -- the congress has provided a billion for this objective, given that our soldiers are ready to die for this objective, can you spare a tax lawyer for a few months? >> so congressman, i understand the strategic significance of armenia and appreciate the source of your concern. we obviously look at these tax treaties through an economic tax policy lens. and the basic question that we ask is can we avoid the

kind of double taxation the tax treaties are meant to avoid. we don't have any evidence that there is -- >> that was the answer you gave last time. it is a chicken and egg. no investments, because there is no tax treaty. there's no just a minute. too big to fail is too big to exist. you and fsoc have a right to break them up. people on this committee could co-sponsor the sanders/sherman bill and break them up. we know they're so big they're too big to fail. we know if they get in trouble they will be bailed. the chairman says don't list them and they won't be bailed. many of us were here in 2008. if they're about to go under, this congress will pass new laws to bail them out so we're talking about fail, we're talking about bail, we're also talking about jail because the attorney general announced that he'd be reluctant to criminally indict them, these institutions because of the effect it would have on the economy. but wells fargo has given us two

more reasons, one democrat, one republican. it appears as if wells fargo, for example, was too big to manage. they hired 5300 good people. they established a system that caused people to commit 2 million felonies. they didn't monitor, they didn't notice, that's too big to manage and, finally, too big to regulate because all the regulators at wells fargo missed this too. too big to fail, too big to jail, too big to regulate, too big to manage, please break them up. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri mr. luetkemeyer, chairman of our housing and insurance subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. secretary. i'd like to have my questions in the areas of sifi designations and community banking so let me start out with sifi designation. dodd/frank calls for any bank with more than $50 million to be a sifi.

mr. chairman, we've had barney frank who testified that the $50 billion is arbitrary and we should look at alternative methods for determination. we've also heard from chair yellen and governor tarullo and they support a different thing as well. would you agree that size should not be the only thing to determine -- >> i think the real issue is risk -- >> do you agree? >> i think when people talk about what size bank is a big bank the conversation is often unconnected to where the banks fall in terms of size. there aren't that many banks over 50 and when you talk about numbers like a piece of legislation did last year of drawing the line at 500, you're talking about only a very few

institutions. some of the largest institutions are in between. >> i have just a few minutes here, please. my legislation takes away size definitions. as you can see on a board here -- you probably can't see from where you're sitting. >> i can't read it from here. >> behind you is a copy of a chart from the office of financial research dated april 13, 2016 and this is how globally systemic important banks are determined and as you can see there's five separate things and those separate criteria are exactly the five criteria i have that in my bill, size, interconnectedness, suitability, connectivity, complexity. if those are good enough to determine a gsi, should it not be good enough to make it a sifi? >> the definition process is a cumbersome one and if you to require definitions firm by firm for every firm it would require a much more massive structure than we currently have.

>> so a minute ago you said complexity of something we need to take a look at yet now you're going back to size. you know, if you do that, we're looking at an institution that's $50 billion at the bottom end of this versus the larger banks that are two trillion. that's 40 times difference in sizes. >> i totally agree there's a difference. >> how can a bank that's $50 billion -- >> we have tried to use regulatory flexibility and keep looking for new regulatory flexibilities to treat firms differently based on what's appropriate to their risk level. >> well, the way to treat them more equitably and fairly and flexibly is to support my bill for the standpoint that you have different criteria that you as a regulator can use. this is something even the office of financial research says is a way to go about it so it's a little frustration on my part.

can you tell me, sir, what the cost is to designate a sifi? >> i would have to get back to you. it's a long process. >> what's the cost to dedesignate? >> i couldn't hear you. >> what is the cost to dedesignate. you have the information. your examiners are in the banks, they live there. what additional costs are there to dedesignate or would there be additional cost. >> which institutions are you talking about right now? >> well, the ones that are designated sifis. >> the ones fsoc has designated? the largest firms? >> yeah, the ones designated sifis by the $50 billion threshold. >> there are two different issues. we've designated 12 institutions that are large non-bank institutions for insurance companies, eight utilities. >> the ones over $50 billion, sir, also have to pay fees, have to be under the same regulatory regime. >> that's not an fsoc determination. they're covered under dodd/frank

for oversight and supervisions. we don't make the designation. >> my question is you already have the information to designate them, what additional costs are to dedesignate? i'm just asking a question about cost. not whether you can or not. just asking about cost. >> i think the process of determining whether they're covered now is a fairly simple one because it's based on a review of information that's available in size. if you had an individual firm-by-firm review to see whether you meet multiple criteria, it's a very different process than the current one so for me to answer the question in the current versus the proposed world are very different. >> one more question. my time has totally expired. in my home state of missouri we have 44 banks less than $50 billion at the end of 2015. 26 of them lost money. those are all targets for merger. in fact one in my district 30 miles away if me was merged monday morning. this is due to the complexity and increased cost of compliance. what have are you going to do

about that? does that concern you? >> i agree with you that small financial institutions, community banks and regional banks play an important part in our financial landscape. they meet important needs. we are continuing to look for how we can craft flexibilities that are appropriate so we can make sure that the risks are visible but not overly burdensome and we look forward to working together to find ways to do that. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. >> thank you. >> instead, we recognize mr. hinojosa. >> thank you, my good friend greg meeks. thank you. mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony today.

we appreciate your efforts as chairman of the financial stability oversight council to identify the risk to our financial stability and to respond to emerging threats and vulnerabilities in our financial system. chairman -- the chairman's dodd/frank repeal bill which received bipartisan opposition in the commit this past week would provide a so-called off ramp for dodd/frank based on three capital and liquidity requirements and it would replace those safeguards with an insufficient leverage ratio that fails to contain the guardrails in other proposals. for example while the chairman has attempted to conflate this bill with proposals from people like fdic vice chair thomas hoenig, the chairman's proposal doesn't include the same limits on derivative activity in order to receive regulatory relief. so, mr. secretary, my question is can you discuss how replacing more complex risk weights along

with other dodd/frank measures might make sense for a community bank engaged in traditional banking activities but is wholly insufficient when it comes to global megabanks? >> congressman, that's a very good question. we, i think, should be looking for ways to simplify reporting where appropriate for small banks that don't engage in a lot of risky activities. we have to always be aware that even small banks are in the business of making risk decisions. that's what banks do. and we have seen in the past that in the accumulated activity small institutions can create a financial risk that's significant. but it's different than the activities of large global financial institutions and we should be trying to distinguish. for the largest financial institutions, i think if you look at what we've done in financial reform and wall street reform that's made the system safer, we have gotten much more

transparency, we see what they are doing, we see what they're holding, we understand how it's connected to the financial system. they have capital buffers internally so when they take risks we know how much of the risk that they're taking they can absorb before they have to look outside for any kind of help. i think if we were to roll that back it would be terrible. it would be -- we have done it, a lot of other major economies have done it. if you look at how the global financial system responds to shocks now days, we could just look back to the week after the vote in the united kingdom on brexit. there was a sense of confidence in financial institutions that just wouldn't have existed without financial reform. >> thank you for that clarification. so what impact would hr-5983, the chairman's dodd/frank repeal bill, have on financial stability and international confidence in u.s. banking system and capital markets if it were enacted?