let me ask a question. several big banks have come here and argue before the committee that we shouldn't have a consumer financial protection agency because it is dead to separate safety and soundness regulations from consumer protection regulations. but that argument, at least to me, doesn't make much sense because safety and soundness regulations and consumer protection regulations are currently together in the same agencies. and that very system failed miserably to protect middleclass american consumers. .

>> the fdic and the acc have no power to write consumer rules. we examine and enforce, so that has been separated already. i think the bank regulators -- i don't want to speak for others, but the bank regulators are generally supportive of this. the choice was between being a bank or a non-bank, and being a mortgage broker with little regulation, you could original laws without anybody looking over your shoulder. aggressively marketing these teaser rate to 28's and 327's. the agency, this new agency, is providing rules across the board for banks and non-banks, and i think, as we have all testified, that keeping the examination enforcement function with the bank regulators for the banks and having this new agency focus its examination enforcement resources on the non-bank

sector, where there is not much oversight at this point, i think would give the consumers across the board, whether they are dealing with the bank or non-banks, some base level of protection, and the right to the making sure that those rules are enforced and adhered to. does that answer your question? >> to you want to get in? >> i agree completely with everything sheila just said. we have examples of a number of ways in which integrated safety and soundness and consumer protection supervision of supervisors has brought together problem -- race and found issues for both safety and soundness purposes and consumer protection purposes that otherwise would not have been found under the current system. we believe -- that the believe the examination and supervision function in place -- examiners are good looking and rules that are written, and to the extent

that a new agency writes strong rules, they will be complied with by banks with this function better than any other alternative model. >> my understanding from the panel is that you are all in support of the consumer financial protection agency? >>, senator, that is not true. the federal reserve has not taken a position one way or the other. >> are you going to take a position? >> i would not anticipate it. we were specifically asked, i guess we would at least discuss it among ourselves. i think our effort at this point has been to point out the virtues of integrated supervision and regulation of consumer products, along side of the obvious virtues of a separate agency. >> thank you, senator menendez. as senator bunning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am happy to see all of you today. after you kiss the ring of the

secretary of the treasury, you finally got out of the room, and you are tear in person to testify -- you are here in person to testify, independently. that is nice to see that. mr. tarlow c-span.or-- tarull.oi want go back to something you said earlier. he said the fed wants the authority and power to enforce. we gave you that 14 years ago, more than 14 years ago, actually. it is 15 or 16 years ago. and you did not write a regulation for 14 years to govern the banks that were under your control. or the mortgage brokers that were under your control. i know you're not at the fed. that is not a problem. the problem is that the fed had the ability to act and did not.

so you might understand some of us not being agreeable to giving you more power when you failed in enforcing the power we gave you. for your information, you can take it back to a chairman bernanke and the rest of the board and say, "it took you, mr. bernanke, two years after you became chairmen to write a regulation on mortgages, and it took chairman greenspan 12 years not to write in, so we are a little reluctant to give at the fed knew additional authority." i just happen to agree with chairman bair on when the rubber hits the road, they are there to make something happen. now, our panel is trying to figure out how to stop the

robber hitting the road -- in other words, to prevent systemic risk from becoming too big to fail. that seems to be the major problem. senator worker brought it up earlier today -- senator corker brought up earlier today, about we really need ideas, because we seem to have failed by not giving the authority to the right person, or the right person not in forcing the authority we gave them. my question to you is what additional authority to you think we should give the fed? >> senators, as you know, i agree, personally, not a board position, with you that the fed to too long to use its existing authority to enact the consumer protection associated with

mortgages. i was referring a few moments ago, and i will allow the rate on and now -- i will elaborate on now, to provide the authority to any systemic institution. as you know, a year and a half ago, that statement would have, in practical terms, it meant that a whole set of institutions -- the five freestanding investment banks -- would likely have been brought in by law to the consolidated supervisory situation. because of the financial crisis, and the fact that a couple of those institutions are no longer with us, and that others have become a bank holding companies, the immediate practical importance of the authority would not be as great as it would have been a year and half or two years ago. there is the possibility that an

institution that has become a bank holding company in the middle of a crisis, in order to get the interim writer -- impr imatur, would decide it is not like being a supervised entity and would -- >> we could prevent that. >> absolutely. and secondly, in the future, if other institutions grow or activities migrate from the regulated sector to other institutions, we would want and make sure that any institution which itself becomes systemically important would also be subject to consolidated supervision. that is what i've is referring to earlier. >> sheila, could you expand on the ability of the fdic to preempt -- in other words, to get in front of the foreclosure

or the shutting down of -- in other words, looking prior to with your regulatory regime into banks that you have under the fdic jurisdiction? in other words, preventing. >> preventing, exactly, and we all have things we wish we had done differently but i think congress did the fdic helpful new tools that were finalized in early 2006 to make risk-based adjustments to our premiums every charged for deposit insurance, because at least for insured depository institutions, this helps us provide economic disincentives to high-risk behavior, and this is a tool we have been learning and use it and will continue to refine, but it has been helpful, i think. the big problem -- the shortcoming we have found is that when these larger entities get into trouble, so much of the

activity is now outside the insured depository institution, that our traditional resolution mechanism does not work, because we can only resolve that is in the insured institution, which is why we believe it would be very helpful to us, as the fdic and collectively, to get ahead of this. first of all, it would be a strong disincentive to we need more regulation, clearly, of these large institutions, but we need greater market discipline, and the certainty that investors and creditors will take losses if they come to the government for help -- >> if an entity is listed on an exchange, would into the securities and exchange commission -- into the securities and exchange commission have some kind of ability to examine all of the aspects of that institution? i'm looking at aig, for instance. >> i think that generally it is

the holding company -- >> correct, it is the holding company. >> i think the sec's regime is not on prudential supervision but investor protection, and it is a transparency regime. they do not do safety and soundness overside -- oversight of listed companies. >> thank you. >> senator tester. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, panelists for being here today. i think we all agree that the gaps exist. i think we all agree that we still have not sealed those gaps up. and so, i guess, referring to the testimony from a gentleman on the second battle -- panel, he writes and recommends creating a world-class financial

insufficient specific regulator at the federal level -- financial institution and specific read a letter at the federal level. quite close to what i have in mind. you guys have someone addressed this in some of your other questions, but going back to what senator menendez asked in that he wanted to know if it could be laid out to seal these gaps by rulemaking or some other method, i am not sure i got an answer to that question i want you to share your thoughts as concisely as possible, because each one of you could burn for minutes at 50 seconds with one answer if you wanted, as to why this significant reform in this direction is not the direction to go. taking off your hat, as individual department leaders,

because turf does not play a role -- if someone says i will disarm your farm, i would be upset about it -- but how would we get these gaps closed without something like this? go ahead, sheila, and we will go down the line. >> i think the charter choice, if you will, was between being a bank are not being a bank, and being much less regulated in the non-banking this year. that is the arbitrage that need to be addressed. >> and what you're saying is that that cannot be addressed with one? >> no, it could not, because you'd be consolidating what we do with the depository institutions, but it would not expand beyond the heavily regulated -- -- >> could it? >> for things systemic in nature, you could do it with this risk council, some ability to look across systems and a

dubose credential requirements regarding capital and leveraged to mitigate systemic risk. that would be across all sectors, not just for banks. >> senator, i do believe you could do more streamlining, move more down in the direction you are talking about. we do not have an ideal system. but as you move down, there are issues you have to confront. if you want to have an effective deposit insurance corp., if you go for a long time without having any bank failures, they will not have a lot to do, and will know the system very well if they do not supervise banks. likewise, the federal reserve has some things to offer to the supervision, particularly the very largest institutions at the holding company level that are engaged in a lot of nonbanking activities, and to think that a banking supervisor would do all that as well without having a benefit raises questions.

>> senator, i would say, trying to be succinct, that the most important gaps to fill it is making sure that every systemically important institution comes under the barometer of regulation, and secondly, what we were discussing earlier, which is to say that the assurance that there be charter convergence motivated by efforts to escape enforcement and bad ratings, and just be clear, it would be a perfectly good idea for the congress to legislate on that matter so that in the unlikely event that our successors did not share the same view, that they could not go in the opposite direction back to any situation which charter conversions could be done for the wrong route reasons. >> i understand that, but what you're saying that is that a world class institution, a specific regulator, could work? >> i actually think that, as sheila suggested earlier in the hearing, that what we have learned in this crisis is that

there were a lot of different models of supervision and regulation around the world. none of them performed particularly well. that seems to me more of a lesson in than anything about a particular structure or anything else. none of them performed particularly well. >> i would pick up on the point that your concept is a world- class financial institutions a regulator. one of the lessons that we have learned, and sheila has mentioned it a couple of times, is that we have banks and non- banks, providing the same kinds of services in a different structure. if you are a financial institution, you have world class regulators, currently. if you don't, you are operating in a less than regulated or unregulated requirement for it if you wanted to close that gap, there is a process by which you can do that, starting with the cfpa, the administration's proposal. the difficulty is how that is carried out. we suggest as bank regulators

that we can do it more effectively. but that is the start. you have to start looking at things like capital requirements, capital structure, for those who are not financial institutions. >> ok, currently, have made any progress -- have we made any progress, and not necessarily -- we as a general group -- toward regulation of derivatives and credit default swaps and those sorts of things? are we in the same boat as a year ago? >> i would say that we are. >> everybody agree with that? >> yes, and that requires legislation to fix. >> are we concerned about that? >> yes. i think it's huge. >> mr. chairman, have you gotten recommendations from these folks are anyone else on how to deal with these? >> we are working on legislation

that comprehensively deals with this, and hopefully we can do that and come back in the fall but that is the purpose of these hearings, to bring these ideas together. >> as anybody given concrete ideas -- >> written -- there have been all sorts of recommendations made. i will say, jon, that senator reed and senator bunning are working and an idea -- and number of our colleagues are working on various ideas to be part of a larger bill. >> i think it is someone could read it is somewhat distressing that, quite frankly, from my perspective, and i'm not an expert in this field at all, we have a lot of people trying to do good work, but there are still gaps, obvious gaps, and then at the banking level we have a myriad regulators out there and if i were a banker, i would be going crazy. i really would not know which

person to be knowing who i have to deal with -- let's just put it that way. and then if you take into consideration -- sheila, i think he said that community banks were not really a problem, but they are getting pressed as hard as anybody, as far as regulation goes. i think this is an opportune time, in the middle of a potential -- not a potential -- middle of a crisis to take a look at our regulation system and say let's simplify it. let's make it lean and mean and simplify it. i don't think that can happen unless we are willing to think outside the box and do things differently than we've done in the past. thank you all for being here. >> thank you very much. senator vitter. >> ms. bair, i wanted to ask you a few things that are a little off topic, but are important, and that has to do with the recent actions of the financial accounting standards board with

regard to bringing certain things up at an off balance sheet, on balance sheet, and what impact the will have on institutions. how will fdic to the consolidation of previously off balance sheets entities, and in particular, will the agency require additional capital for assets brought on balance sheet? >> well, yes, banks must follow u.s. gap, so if those of the accounting rules, the capital -- more assets are coming on balance sheet, then capital levels will be impacted accordingly. we still have concerns about the timing of all of this. we support the general direction of bringing this all back on balance sheet. but the timing still dismiss some heartburn, whether they need to be on this accelerated -- still gives me some heartburn, whether they need to be on this accelerated from work. the rules written now, as i

understand, even if he retains some portion of interest, the whole securitization might have to come back on balance sheet, and keeping people having some skin in the game. i think there are a lot of issues and questions about the timing, but we cannot control that. we cannot file letters and that is about it. but banks must follow u.s. gap. >> of the capital ratios set in law -- >> yes, they are set by statute. there is not a lot of flexibility there. >> not flexibility for phasing? >> not very much at all, no. >> senator, i think that traditionally, the leverage ratio follows gap completely. there can be variations, and at times, it has been more restrictive than cap. there is some flexibility to look at this and phase it in at

some time. that is an issue that i think all the regulators are looking at now to address, try to address some of the issues the chairman just raised. but i think that the bottom line is that this stuff is going back on the balance sheet and banks will have to hold capital against it. it is a matter of timing and how it gets things done. >> i don't think anybody is arguing about the fundamental issue, but i am concerned with timing and facing, because it could have negative consequences if we are here tomorrow overnight. what is the current thinking about how that should be handled? >> i think the regulators are still discussing how this affects regulatory capital. at the accounting rule becomes effective at the end of this year. beginning of next year. and how the regulatory capital rules respond to that is something that we are discussing and providing some notice to the public shortly. >> when do you think there will

be fairly clear guidance for institutions about what to expect and what time table and what facing, if you will? >> if i had to guess, and this is an interagency process, i would say weeks, not months. >> and i assume all the agencies and regulators involved are in discussions about this? >> it is an interagency role as cap requirements like this always are. it is a discussion among the agencies. >> does anybody else have comments about that? ok, that is all i have. >> senator reed. >> since countrywide was brought up, i want to make sure i have some facts right. it started off with the national bank subsidiary. you regulated the bank, mr. dugan, and the fed regulated the holding company?

under your policy in case law, the subsidiary of the affiliated mortgage company was not subject to california law? >> so we regulated the bank, and it did a portion of its business inside the bank. it did all of the subprime lending outside the bank, not in the subsidiary bank. >> it was subject to california law? >> but the bank itself was not subject to california law, and it is also where they did not do their subprime lending that caused them a number of problems. >> prime lending it was an entity that was subject to california -- a prime lending was an entity that was subject to california law, attorney general review, all that? >> at that time, before they switch charters, yes. >> did they do that, to your knowledge? what completed the use?

-- what template did they use? >> you will have to ask the regulators. historically, there has been this anomaly where the banking company gets heavily regulated, and the holding company affiliates were not subject to the same requirements for annual inspections, and that is a thing that needs to be fixed, and the federal reserve has been doing more on that area, but it is not the same, and i believe it should be. >> let me switch to mr. bowman. when countrywide came to your supervision, you were the holding company supervisor and also of the bank, i presume. and the company that the bulk of the subprime was a california-regulated market and it -- california-regulated mortgage entity? >> i don't remember the percentage of california as opposed to new york or other

states. >> when you, your organization, reviewed and inspected these holding companies, did you notice anything? did you inspect them, or just the fsb? >> we spent a lot of time with the fed and the occ earlier in previewing for what it was that was coming our way. we also convened shortly after granting the charter. the charter was granted in march 2007. we convened what i call a regulators conference, where we invited at had a regulators from many states come in and discuss with us some of their particular concerns, if any related to the operation of the if it's within a holding company structure, including new york, california, others. >> did that alert you to potential problems? >> yes, it did. it started to, sir. >> we had come a few hearings ago, mr. meltzer and doctor

rivlin, who had a longtime association with the federal reserve. their recommendation was that the federal reserve should get out of supervising entities and concentrate on the issue of the monetary policy, and perhaps other issues. my question -- i will let you answer last, the governor could i think you have an opinion on this. but to the other panelists, if the federal reserve, following this advice by two very knowledgeable and experienced people, does not perform as the supervisor for a large holding companies, who would or should? do we have to create another entity? what is a general knowledge about that? >> that is right. the fed is the holding company supervisor for the vast

majority, not all, but the very largest institutions. i think he would decree a new agency to do it. -- i think you would have to create a new agency to do it. >> you can put the holding company supervisor and bank supervisor in the same entity. i think, frankly, for smaller institutions, a lot of institutions, were the only subsidiary of the company is the bank, there is logic to that. but where u.s. companies with a lot of different businesses engaged in nonbanking activities, that is where the particular expertise of the fed, because of its clauses of the capital markets -- its closeness to the capital markets, all that comes into play, and replicating that would be the most difficult challenge for any agency to recreate either separately or inside the credential supervisor. >> very cook it, because i have to give the governor -- >> i think you could replicate

that. the difficulty would be in dealing with the state-chartered organizations, where you do not already have a right to little like the occ or to yes. -- do not already have a right to a little like the occ or ots. >> if the fed is the regulator, you have to be able to work with what is now the deference to functional regulators, which we have identified as a problem. you might want to put that into your answer, too, governor. >> thank you, senator. you know, people are attracted, particularly once people get out of government or who have never been in government, to need solutions that look great on paper. i think that anybody who has dealt with this crisis and financial supervision on an ongoing basis will tell you that

the whole point about the financial sector of our economy is that it reaches everywhere and it affects everything. and if one is looking to a central bank to perform the dual mandate given to it by the congress of trying to maximize employment and achieve price stability, i don't think there's any way that without having an awful lot of attention to financial stability. to achieve financial stability, one has to have an influence upon the major kinds of financial activities which are going on in that -- performed by the larger institutions. i think the interrelationships between monetary policy aims and goals of financial stability really undergird the case for

our central bank and central banks around the world of being involved in supervision. point two, a graphic illustration of what can happen when the central bank is not closely involved in supervision was observed a couple of years ago in the united kingdom, where, following the decision to have a single financial services at the ready with all supervisory responsibilities for all kinds of financial institutions, the bank of england, the central bank, was not involved in supervision at all, and when a significant financial institution, northern rock, failed, the bank of england was not in a position to be able to make judgments about the failure of the iraq -- failure of northern rock and within the system. you have a robust debate within the uk now as to whether they

need to return authority to the bank of england in order to coexist, i assume, with the financial-services authority. there have been some proposals to put everything back into the bank of england. i personally would not think that would be a good idea. you raise the question, the issue of the ability to get information and enforce where necessary. it is important, if you are going to ask an entity to perform a role consolidated supervision, you have to make sure that they have the tools to do so. now, as it happens, right now there is, and i have no reason to expect there will be, quite a good relationship between the fed and the controller with respect to banks within holding companies, but we need to make sure that sometimes kinds of information that are not gathered in bank supervision or, for that matter, supervision of other kinds of regulated

entities, insurance entities or other entities, can, if necessary, be obtained in order to provide the kind of supervisory oversight of the whole institution that you are asking about, or looking for. i don't personally anticipate that there is going to be lots of utilization of such a thing, but i think you do have to have that kind of backup authority. >> i have gone way over my time. i'm abusing -- >> just if i could very quickly responded on the functional by the latter point, it may go to for the way it is now, but the way the administration has proposed it has pushed it too far in the other direction. >> point noted. thank you, my colleagues. >> senator martinez. >> i want to ask about the proposal of the in administration regarding the elimination of restrictions to

interstate banking for in state banks. communities in florida would be greatly concerned about that. i wonder if aggressive ranching did that contributed to excessive risk-taking, which, i desire to increase market share, may have had a lot to do with the problems we have seen lately. eliminating branch banking -- how would that change the competitive landscape? >> senator, the fdic has not taken a position on a particular provision. we don't have a corporate position on it. >> i do not think it would be a good idea to reimpose limits on interstate branching. right now there are some limits left for doing your first branch into a state. but basically, the decades-long restriction on them gradually

evolved over the year to prevent interstate branching, i think it did permit more diversification geographically, which is helpful in some circumstances. i would personally not be in favor of for the limits. -- of further limits. >> i would just say that you alluded to certain the circumstances in which interstate operations became a problem. i think that can be the case. but that is where it is important to focus on business model of the entity in question, and it ought not to be allowed to engage in unsafe and unsound practices, whether they involve excessive branching that is unsupported by sound business plans or other practices. >> let me point out that thrifts enjoyed the ability to branch interstate without restriction. with community banks, my impression is that that privilege has had some impact,

but i am not certain how great. >> my colleague from montana brought up the testimony from mr. ludwig, i want to go into another area of his testimony that i found very interesting. he makes the point, and i'm sure he could make it much better than i, which he may get a chance to do later, but he would suggest avoiding a two-tier system that allows the largest too big to fail institutions over smaller institutions. he makes the point that perhaps it would be also two-tier regulators, the best light it is in one system and others in another. the--- to regulators in once -- the best regulators in one system and the others in another. and not treating a bias and the system that would be in favor of those institutions to develop over those that were not too big to fail.

>> there are a couple of questions, one being weather should be tier one entities designated as to begin fail, regardless of the occ and oversight. and weather as part of regulatory consolidation that you have a regulator based on size. we have concerns about designating institutions formally as tier one. i think you could probably say he was not, based on asset size, be -- you could say who was not, based on asset size, be systemic. if you don't have a right -- if you don't have a resolution system, it could be problematic. in terms of bank regulation, and like consolidated holding company supervision, -- are like

consolidated holding company supervision, you should have a federal charter and state- chartered we have a fairly large state chartered entities. the charter choice, i think, is a good one to have. you do want to have not given regulatory policies, but perhaps ones with -- more immediacy of it dealing with the state level banking supervisor is helpful. i would maintain that along the state federal charter as opposed to size limitations. >> i know we have a vote, and i don't know how much time have left, so i will leave at that. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> i wanted to start by asking the governor -- it is my understanding that some problems at citigroup and other major institutions result from moving risky activities back-and-forth between the holding company and national bank to minimize supervision.

my question is whether by creating a similar structure, instead of the fed and the occ, it would be the fed and national bank supervisor, whether we are creating the same risk in the new system of moving activities back and forth. >> senator, i think that under any system, you have got to have a set of requirements which apply across the system would to minimize the opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. that means within institutions and it also means between regulated institutions and non- regulated institutions. i would say, without talking about any specific institution, that i think there are certainly more circumstances in which institutions may have taken advantage of different applicable capital requirements, or bundling things in one form and moving them around the

entity, and that part of what needs to be done is to take regulatory steps that minimize those opportunities. the senator was asking earlier about -- senator vitter was asking earlier about bringing off balance sheet assets back on to the balance sheet. that is one way to combat regulatory arbitrage. >> do you think would make more sense to have a holding companies and the banks under the same regulatory agency? >> i don't, actually. with respect to small holding companies, particularly those that have only a bank -- it is basically a shell, and there was a bank, no other entities -- by now the additional holding company supervision is quite modest. as the bank holding company picks up additional activities, if it does any of its own capital raising, if it has even

a small additional subsidiary, if it does management from the holding company level, that is when an independent scrutiny of those activities seems a valuable. as you get to a bigger institution, even more complex institution, it seems that the task becomes more specialized, because you are looking not just at immediate impact on the bank, although that is important, because we are protecting the deposit insurance fund, but you are now also needing to examine how the whole entity is creating, can be creating risk in an of itself, and that involves different kinds of activities, different kinds of regulated entities that are, as you say, moving things back and forth or acting in parallel, and that is where i think you do need a different approach which looks at the holding company as an integrated whole,

supplementing, complementing the rigorous functional regulation that takes place in the subsidiaries. >> yes, please be very quick, and i will get my second question. >> i do think there are times where there are activities in the bank and holding company that there are some types of activities but subject to due to different levels of supervision and we ought to fix that. >> we have suggested in prior testimony large institutions have their own resolution plans so that they could be acquitted quickly if they got into trouble, at a creek -- and a key to this is separateness of what is in the bank. resolution is very complicated with these large institutions because of the interrelationships between the bank, and it is hard to tell the difference. we also, in terms of -- there is a provision called 23a which is

designed to restrict banks holding strings for the holding company. we have increased pressure to agree to -- the fed has the authority to approve these requests to move more higher risk assets into banks where they are funded with insured deposits. in terms of the incremental step, we would very much like to have a statutory role in that 23a approval process. >> i want to get senator bennett in before the vote. senator bennett. >> probably given the time, this will be more of a statement that you can ponder that question that i want answers to. but i would like to get some answers later on. it will come as no surprise that i want to talk about ifc -- ilc.

no one has discussed the ioc charter in their written testimony. the growth of ilc's has been one of the great successes in financial services markets. they are the best capitalized and safest banks in the country. they were in no part a contributor to the financial crisis. they provide credit in places where it has not been available for comment niche markets, a diverse set of products, and the administration's proposal says to eliminate them. i find that incredible. we talk about lehman brothers, cit, all had ilc's and as they wound down, those with assets

that were the crown jewels. the ilc's had the most value. and yet the proposal is to eliminate them and eliminate the charter. you made a comment that the center of this crisis is too big to fail, and much of the discussion has been in that area of two big to fail. may i respectfully suggest that the center of the crisis is not too big to fail. too big to fail as a manifestation that came out of the center of the crisis, and to put it in very much layman's terms, the center -- the crisis was caused because of a game of musical chairs with respect to risk. and we build more and more risk into the system because while the music was playing, more and more institutions past the risk on to somebody else, thinking,

to use the phrase that sheila used, "i have no skin in this game any more." of the skin being this particular instrument. it starts with the borrower. he has no risk whatsoever. there is no equity in the house. he is getting 100% of loan. sometimes it is a liar alone. the broker who arranges the loan has no risk in the game, because he passes it on to the lender. the lender has no risk in the game because he passes it on to the gse. the tse has no risk, because with the rating agency that has no risk, it has rated it, and he can pass it on and securitized it to somebody else. at every step of the way, somebody makes money -- on a fee, a commission, whatever it might be. and when the music stops, it

turns out that everybody at risk in the game, because the whole thing collapses. i would like to know a regulator that can focus on that question, not how big you are, but where are you in this chain of musical passing on of risk, musical chairs, if you will? no more loans in the beginning. no more liar loans. brokers, you have to have some kind of risk if you get involved in brokering this loan, so that you will then, by market pressure, do your job better to see to it that you do not pass a bond with the letter maintains some kind of risk as the chain goes forward. the gse maintains some credit risk. the rating agencies, he will -- the rating agencies, you will get a risk.

nobody had a risk, and the bubble grew and grew and grew, because everybody was making money with no exposure. that is the problem that i want to solve with this restructuring rather than working around some of the turf battles that we have talked about. i will now go save the republic and you can respond -- [laughter] to chairman warner. >> anybody want to respond? >> i will just say a word, since this will be recorded. i actually agree with everything senator bennett said except that i think too big to fail played exactly into the narrative that he gave us, because when he was talking about the the gse's, some of the biggest institutions of all, regarded too big to fail, it was at the gse's is not the only

problem, but it is a very important problem. i should be careful about speaking for people on the panel, but with respect to things like making sure that risks are properly assessed by entities, and making sure that compensation systems in entities accurately reflect the risk and that employees are assuming, are important pieces of a reform package. >> i would say, speaking for myself, i would agree that, as i said, the ability to choose a state charter, a federal charter, we don't think is a driver or contributor to this process. we are not aware that the administration is going to propose that. speaking for myself, i do not see that they were in any significant way involved with what was going on. >> let me go ahead and ask my questions, and then i will call on senator schumer. spank you, senator schumer. -- thank you, senator schumer.

i want to go back to where chairman dodd started. this question of a single regulatory depository read a letter. some of you raised legitimate concerns. i know that folks on the second panel will perhaps have a different view. paul volcker has a different view. past chairs of had a different view. your point was valid, how you make sure you don't infringe on the insurance function. i think you can achieve that i have a backup authority and going in and checking those institutions, your ongoing role as an insurer and what senator corker and i have talked about, and expanded resolution authority. i also tend to think that the notion of an enhanced system at -- enhanced systemic risk council the would include the fed and treasury and the fdic and others would give you the

ability to have those variety of voices heard and i would also just raise one other point, that we have talked in a lot -- talked a lot about the truck during -- the chartering and the ability to change charters, and that beyond that, you have raised a proper questions. each of you have a licensing division. there is a question of the selection of a charter when you are starting an institution. i guess my first question would be having that very nature of the taurus at the beginning, not switching midstream, but the selection toys at the beginning, -- choice at the beginning, doesn't that create regulatory arbitrage? doesn't that create the

arbitrage issue? >> first, senator, sheila and i don't have any authority to trucker institutions. the banks we supervise are state-chartered. i would say, though, and she can respond to this better than i, but i would say that because we have a similar regulatory requirements -- >> if he could do it fairly quickly -- >> similar requirements for all institutions, and the fdic has to decide whether to grant insurance to each depository institution, no matter wants to be in short -- to be in short -- there is a way to contain that kind of arbitrage all permitting a useful kinds that states engaged in. >> i would agree that we have a licensing function, and i would

say that just because you have a choice when you begin operating, not necessarily arbitrage. there are differences with the charters and what they can do and how they can do it. some prefer to have a local, state government regulation, even though we have a local examiners on the ground there. the fdic does grand deposit insurance to all of them. it has been after they have been in operation, where someone is facing a problem and they seek to change the charter to avoid a downgrade or enforcement action and move to a different charter. that is what troubles all of us a great deal. >> in terms of choosing the charter at the outset, the thrift charter is unique in terms of the kinds of business that an entity would want to engage in. people choose a charter based on the business plan. in terms of people switching charges because of some received favorable difference, there are

50 to choose from, 52 to choose from, with the federal charter you have two. anyone who is looking to avoid some kind of supervisory enforcement action, as we've talked about here, we as a collective group have taken steps to avoid that, to make sure it does not happen for the wrong reasons. >> one, nothing from all of you, i think accurately reflecting -- one commong thing from all of you, i think accurately reflecting that the source of the crisis was from -- i would like to get all of your comments on -- would be consolidated into a single entity or maintain the current structure, how do we get our arms around this non-bank financial arena? clearly, what approach the administration has talked about

is on the consumer and, specific financial products, coming from this array of institutions. another is if they kind of bomb up to the love all of -- bump up to the level of becoming systemically risky, the fed would have oversight. what i am not clear on is should these non-bank financial sector have some level of dated a prudential regulation? i have not seen anybody propose , one, is it needed, and two, whether that day-to-day prudential regulation, in terms of safety and soundness, would land? >> i think you have a day-to-day separation because -- with the non-banks, you do not have that. >> should they have some?

>> i think, actually -- no, i don't think you need to go that far. i think the consumer abuses for the small entities for more of a significant driver, the lax underwriting, which then spilled over to the large institutions because of the credit situation that they created. but no, i don't think they do. if you have the ability to post credential requirements for systemic institutions or systemic practices, you don't need institutional -- >> the council for systemic and the consumer down here? >> i generally think it is a daunting challenge for the tens of hundreds of thousands of different financial providers to regulate them all around the safety and soundness, but i think the administration would do so and have the authority to do so for consumer protection. it does not get at what is a fundamental issue, the extent they engage in very bank-like

function, and there is a safety and soundness issues like an underwriting standard, down payment requirements. that is not really a consumer protection thing in the traditional sense. >> it goes to the, that senator bennett was making of making sure you have skin in the game. >> but part of the mortgage legislation that passed the house last year at, and standards that i would say were prudential standards that apply. that would be helpful for mortgage providers, but not necessarily all financial providers. there may be some instances where some of that is warranted. >> but what did senator bennett's approach that you originated a product and keep it in their -- it would put some requirements of safety and soundness on the institution? >> absolutely. >> i do think that the question of where regulation stops, how

broadly the perimeter is cast, is an important one going forward. we know that we will not have the same problems we had a few years ago. if it will be new problems. -- it will be new problems. i thought that one of the important roles of the council, some kind of interagency council, is precisely to that i tend to issues that don't seem under anybody's regulatory umbrella at that moment. >> beyond just being whether there is systemically risky -- >> i think you pointed out the problem. you have systemically risky institutions addressed, and regulated institutions already regulated that are addressed, and then you have consumer. but even if you have a practice that is troublesome, there ought to be a mechanism for somebody making an evaluation of that practice, and if the council saw that if one of its members had

authority to regulate, it could suggest it. the congress to think about giving some kind of the fall of backup authority to the council in the van -- >> very quickly, because the senator from new york is anxious -- >> the ability to regulate or oversee this group between the council and the cfpi. whatever scheme is brought up for past legislation, there are very creative people will look at that and they will find a way to get around it. whether it is at the state level or federal level or what ever else. people have a business model and they want to engage in a particular activity, and the preference is to engage in that activity with the minimum regulation. it is a difficult issue. >> i want to thank you all for being here. we have gathered here with one common goal, to make our

financial regulatory system is strong enough to prevent another severe financial crisis from happening. i've read the written testimony. if i were in your shoes, i would make the same arguments. but some would argue that there is a bit of turf protection here. that is natural, but should not be the dominant consideration as we move forward. .

>> there is more discussion in the systemic risk regulator. there is a good argument the insurer should be separate from the regulator because they are different concerns. so let me ask you this -- here are four arguments for a consolidated regulator -- first, a consolidator regulator would prevent charter shopping site bank cannot take its own charter and regulator. countrywide did that. remember that, mr. bowman? a hodgepodge of regulators as a conflict and create confusing burdens for the banks. we have heard from banks or told one thing by one regulator and

another from another regulator, each of them had authority. third, a secret -- a single regulator could keep a track of dangers and development. fourth, a single, consolidated regular could eliminate arbitrage and gaps. no bank could escape from being held accountable for violations of poor practices. my question to you is do you disagree one consolidated regulator would avoid these problems or have these four benefits even if you think other mechanisms might be better for the reasons? who wants to go first? >> i will start. i would say each of the four things you mentioned is an important thing. some of them, like avoiding charter conversion arbitrage can be avoided short of a single

regulator. that's one thing we have tried to do already. the only thing i would add to what you say is that there are costs to going single regulator route. one of the costs is that the fed loses some insight into how banks are functioning, how they are moving money and why the volatility of money is what it is. another potential cost is you have a single, all encompassing regulator and sometimes it loses perspective because it is the only game in town. >> i know the arguments on the other side, but you agree that these four arguments make some sense. >> i think a couple of them are strong. >> i would agree. those benefits are there and real and this is the right equation. you have to ask what are the costs.

there are certain things the federal reserve brings to the table in terms of closeness to the markets and expertise from the open market operators that would be difficult but not impossible to regulate, but that are real. second, as i mentioned earlier, it is hard to be good at it is it you -- it is hard to be good at it if you are not doing it all the time. >> i would just say that i think on the monitoring, if you look at the single regulator, they really were not any better. if you have a single monopoly regulator, that contributes to regulatory lax -- that regulatory laxity. it's not just a matter of picking bank charters, if you don't include securities common for of the graves dealers, and others, you still can't use a legal model that would fall outside of this. unless you put everybody out of

this, you'll still have some degree of arbitrage. >> i would agree the single form of regulator has not proven to be any more effective in terms of what we have now. i would also be remiss if i did not point out that since 2008, 79 financial institutions have failed. 50 national banks and 11 thrifts. i also need to point out that of t.s. and charter countrywide, -- ots and countrywide, countrywide was sold to bank of america. the ability we had to affect countrywide in that time was very limited. >> i have another question. this relates to the point mr. bowman just made. as you said, 54 of the 69 banks that failed this year are state- chartered banks.

i guess it is a historical anomaly why the fed supervises state chartered banks and mr. dugan supervises federally chartered banks -- when i first get to the banking committee in 1981, i didn't understand it. it just happened. let me ask mr. tarullo , most of the failed banks were not regulated by the supervisor or by ots. explain to me and this bair can answer as well. explain to me why the fdic and the fed should keep state- chartered supervision, particularly if we're giving the fed more responsibilities and other areas. if you think those functions should be kept apart, from the

proposed national bank supervisor, why shouldn't at the very least merge fdic and the fed supervision of this state chartered bank? >> can i ask the panel to try to answer quickly? >> i will ask unanimous consent that each panelist be asked to answer the question in writing. i did not realize we had a second panel and i was the last one here. thank you. >> it looks like we're going to have to reschedule the second panel, so i'm anxious for you to respond to the senator's question. >> mr. chairman, i am deeply

grateful. >> the national banks would be chartered by the -- would be supervised by the otc as a loss charter. members of the federal reserve system and would be supervised by federal supervisors by the fed and of their non-member banks, their fight -- their primary regulator would be the fdic. there are two answers to the question. one is that you suggest history. the controller was started in 1863 to create a new national charter which had a dual banking system ever since. i think chris unconcern on the part of state banking commissioner's that -- i think there is concern on the part of the state banking commission that they have had as their overseer of the federal level, the same entity that charters national banks. >> that is what we call in brooklyn tight. >> unquestioned.

but the concern is whether or not there be the same treatment of national and state-chartered institutions. second, are their gains from having the fdic and the fed supervising banks as well as performing other functions? i would suggest that the arts. >> -- i would suggest that there are. >> there are a lot more state chartered banks, so lot of these are very small institutions. >> a lot of the biggest failures were not under mr. bowman, but his predecessors watch. >> we have provided support for larger institutions and i think it needs to be taken into account. i know it is confusing that we have these multiple regulators and it's frustrating because it's hard to explain to the public. on the other hand, as a deposit insurer, we find helpful to have

bank -- that people in banks all the time. it gives us a window into what is happening and what emerging risks that might be. we could perhaps fix it up through a back up supervisory process, but if we were going to shift to that model, we would have to be must -- we would have been much more robust. with have to keep this data points continually into the risk assessments. that would add to the regulatory burden. supervisor perspective that we give that to state charters banks is useful to that function. >> if i could add to the confusion, the ots is the backup regulator for the state chartered associations. so you have a federal regulator at the state level. >> i would like to thank the panel for a very interesting morning and one that has been very helpful. i want to apologize to the next panel.

i understand staff will be back to about rescheduling. we want to hear your views and a dozen of the views from the second panel were perhaps more sympathetic to the single depository regulator and we want to get those views on the record and get a chance to ask questions. thank you very much to the first panel and we will reschedule the second. the hearing is adjourned.

>> >> as you may have heard, they are scratching the second panel of this banking hearing. the democratic senators are heading to the white house for a lunch meeting with president obama. wrapping up the coverage and to tell you about some other hearings where covering today -- hearings on how the government can better fund transit systems. testimony from transit systems representing systems in washington dc, some from cisco, and atlanta. our coverage begins at 2:30 eastern. this senate is in session today. members are working on the 2010 spending bill for the agricultural spending department with final passage likely to occur today. also, the chamber could take up the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be a justice on the supreme court. final confirmation vote will likely happen before the senate adjourns for the august recess. the senate is also likely to

take a measure giving an extra $2 billion for the cash for clunkers program, a bill cash -- a bill passed by the house last week. also, live coverage which examines ways to protect consumers from defective medical devices. a patient injured by the device cannot sue the manufacturer for responsibility. that is live at two o'clock 30 on c-span3. >> how is c-span funded? >> i have no clue. >> may be some government grants. >> advertising for products. >> public money. >> my taxes. >> how c-span funded? america pause cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money.

>> now, a discussion on the recent meeting between president obama, henry louis gates, and police officer crowley. race relations in america are discussed. a portion of this program contains some objectionable language. this is close to one hour. >> thank you for coming. i'm going to begin by introducing our esteemed panelist. before i do that, i want to remind you of a couple of things. we have a book signing, "the state of black america" that will be after this panel. will also do questions and answers for about 30 minutes and will open up to questions from the floor. you can see microphones in every

hour, you can line up if you have a question for panelists. we will get to that about halfway through. let's begin with introductions. we begin with dr. don jackson, the president of the foundation for education and has been an adviser on education matters for president clinton and the obama -by in transition team. -- obama-biden transition team. stephanie jones is the director the national urban league policy institute and the -- and a civil rights attorney as well. she has counseled john edwards and president clinton. please join me in welcoming her. michelle bernard is an attorney

and political strategist and chair of the washington d.c. redevelopment land agency and has served on the bridge -- on the bush-cheney inaugural committee. melissa [unintelligible] is an associate professor of african-american politics at princeton and her next book is "sister citizen -- a tax for colored girls who considered politics when being strong was not enough." [unintelligible] is a political motivator and commentator for bet. he has been a senior adviser to people for the american way and as a book coming out called "everything i'm not made me everything i am." [applause] gwendolyn grant is president and ceo of the urban league of

greater kansas city and the first female leader focusing on the improvement of education, corporate diversity and a graduate of the fbi citizens academy. [applause] dr. michael eric dyson is a professor at georgetown university and is one of the premier public intellectuals, author of many books "can you hear me now? ." please join me in welcoming him. nice to have you. let's start with a beer. that's what everybody else is watching. it 6:00 p.m. eastern time and president, sargent and professor are going to sit down and enjoy

a beer together to talk about what has been leading the news for the last little while. let's begin with you, michael. what should be said over this beer? >> it is a significant brouhaha, so the speak. [laughter] i'm not sure to get to what ails us. >> is going to be a very long panel. mary long. [laughter] >> we have the same argument between sgt crowley and the president and prof. gates, but we know it's bigger than that. after the beer, after the invasion and polite conversation and referring to each other in gesture, the real problem is still on the street where disproportionate numbers of black and latino men are

subjected to arbitrary forms of police power. if we're going to have a real conversation about race, we the open up and be honest on all sides. the real fact is it to the president of the united states of america and a professor with harvard pedigree just to argue against the words of a white policeman who was a sergeant in cambridge. [applause] what that says to me is that the everyday, ordinary, average person who is subjected to these kinds of vicious forces may not actually be talked about and will we must do is refocus a conversation between putting a personal face on a structural problem. to have reconciliation without structural changes to do little more than to change the deck chairs on the titanic. >> is this meeting symbolic or structural? potentially. >> i think it is structural only in the sense the goal is to give

us back to policy conversation and often the conversation about dates and the cambridge police. -- gates and the cambridge police. what is interesting about the symbolism here is that there are two powerful black men and less powerful white man and yet as a professor suggested, it takes an enormity of power, the most important, structural important black professor in the country and the president of the united states against a sgt. but it is interesting that the meeting, when we think about community policing, it is normally a roomful of white and black police officers and a few community folks who are deeply disempowered in that conversation. in this case, the question of race and power is a lot more complicated than we might normally think of as.

to the extent that it is structural, it is only in the sense that it suspected conversation about health care. that question came at the end of an hour-long conversation about health care reform and immediately hijacked this said that none of us are talking about what the blue dog democrats for louisiana are doing to hold up american health care reform. instead we are talking about a beer at the white house. >> i think this meeting at the white house is going to be interesting for a lot of reasons. skip gates is going to have red stripe, probably for the first time ever. as some of jamaican heritage, i hope he enjoys a very much. one of the most important things that needs to come out of this meeting is that understanding of where each person is coming from. that's what is missing in the debate. we keep hearing that skip gates

is either crazy or was it the subject of racial profiling. or he may have been racially profile against the police officer. one thing i immediately thought of the first conclusion i jumped to i regret it is i immediately thought skip gates was being persecuted and racially profile. i firmly believe he should not have been arrested in his own home, but one thing we're not hearing in the conversation is what is it that happens to black males, particularly black males of uncertain age group? what psychologically caused skip gates to open the door, as i have the facts straight, and immediately say are you asking me for my id because i'm a black man in america? what has happened that some many of us automatically jump to the conclusion we are being persecuted? i don't think other races have a

fundamental understanding of why sometimes we feel the way we do. i also think we don't have a fundamental understanding of why somebody in the position of surgeon crowley did what he did. part of that is because we don't have the fact -- if it's what sgt crowley did what he did. part of that is if we -- part of that is we don't have the facts. i don't know what a post-racial america means, but if your going to have this discussion in light of what it means with the first african american presidents, it is talking about what is that people feel when a white man shows up at your door and you have worked very hard to get where you are and they say shamir id. -- they say show me your i.d.. >> one of the things that was interesting to me in reading the comments from sergeant crowley was he could not understand why

professor gates -- he did not seem grateful i was there. [laughter] this is a man who is an expert in racial profiling. to me, the first thing is he did not understand why he was so angry and second, he did not seem grateful the police had come to his home. again, from a guy who's an expert in racial profiling. where does this conversation have to go? i'm not trying to be funny. i'm completely serious. where does the conversation have to go that you have these experts in the history of african-american culture and the guy who is the expert in racial profiling for the police department and they are not completely at odds with each other? >> i want to answer your question, but i have to speak to

miss bernard. she is a sharp sister. attali what sets the predicate for their is something amiss. we could name 50 or 60 other names -- oscar grant his begging for his life in oakley -- in oakland california. a policeman without provocation reached up and dislodged a bullet in his back and murdered him in broad daylight where everybody sought. the history of brutal relationships between police people and black communities is a predicate. we cannot miss the structural reality here. it's not skip gate subversives jim-crow-ley.

the reality is, the atmosphere is this country, a man who teaches race for profiling -- black people would tend to be sensitive to the assertion of police power in the face of obvious and since. professor gates is that his crib, he says i'm here, he says this man is affiliated with harvard, sent harbor police. intellectually, you know he is collette -- he is connected to harvard, but to call on on a cane wielding black man. did he see professor gates as an up the negro who broke the silence code that you should not [unintelligible] to police people. some people say i disagree with colin powell and the president who say that perhaps professor gates over responded. white men don't have to police themselves and the same way. i have seen white men get out of

a car, cut the police down and get out. i'm running for cover. [applause] i think that's the background. not every example of black people acting in misbehaving should be excused, but it does suggest if you are living in an era where police brutality has existed and stereotypes of black men and latino men have prevailed, if you are halfway sophisticated police person, you understand that. his inability to comprehend that says more about the police force and its inability to comprehend where black men are than the other way around. that's what we have to come to grips with. [applause] >> the only thing i want to disagree with is that we may not know what going on in sgt crowley's mine. we know, harvard is the brain

trust for [unintelligible] and it is about explicit attitudes. we have devolved in conversation and he can't be racist because he has not shown explicitly negative racial opinions toward black people. in fact, he even gave mouth to mouth to a black man. [laughter] skip had a white wife, so he can be racist either. it's not that we don't know, we do. we know quite well that part of what happened is opinions understandings about race that operate at the pre-conscious level. for most of us, that this matter most of the time because we don't have to make decisions in a pre-conscious moment. we don't have to make

relationship decisions or grade papers in a pre-conscious moment. police to make choices in a split-second and so this study at harvard tells us what was going on in his mind. as much as history should have set the stage, it should have better inform the gates who says he is surprised this happens. had you called me and said michael eric dyson was [unintelligible] >> absolutely. >> we know professor gates well enough to know -- the most surprising thing about hearing rush limbaugh and these guys go off, want to tell them president

obama and professor gates might no way more than the most of the rest of us. [laughter] we are giving you the best we have. this is the very best we have, intellectually personally, and in their sense of wanting to bridge socially and personally and intellectually. if you reject them, if they are labeled as militant or radical or racist, there is no hope. >> what i know is i knew my role on the streets of detroit. i know while i met the crib, yes sir, no sir, at that is what you think, yes sir.

intellectually, i am raising a finger at him, but i understand you have to show your young kids not to pave the way professor gates did. you don't have a harvard pedigree and you don't have barack obama as your friend. you be quiet and silent until you can assert your man had later on. not testosterone, black survival. that's what the real deal is. [applause] i do think we are trying to look at a macro situation through a micro lens. you talk about somebody's mamma, you are going to invoke response and professor gates knew that. on the micro level, the sergeant new he should at least ask the question, what is disorderly conduct? is professor gates a threat to anyone and why my arresting him? we still have to deal with racial profiling.

when you look at longitudinal data, there is a consistent trend of incarceration. what happened in 1980? if using micro analogy, all black men got together and made a decision they're going to react different to the police department. that did not happen. in 1980, the reagan administration institutionalized new criminal justice policies where he began to see a 70 degree spike in the number of incarcerations for black males. we can have this conversation without talking about the systemic policies and practices. you are not going to solve that macro challenged by kicking back a few beers at the white house. >> there was a boston police officer responding to said this -- he called professor gates a banana eating junk among the numerous times. that was an and mass e-mail he

sent out to his colleagues. he then -- his lawyer said he was taken out of context. [laughter] i just reported, i don't make it up. he also said he is not racist. my question is this -- the additional voices that continue to weigh in, does this signify progress? it seems there are a lot of people on one hand who know about racial profiling and people who seem to be learning about it, or is highlighting a lack of progress? we are in the same spot we've been in for a long time. >> i think it's highlighting the fact we have lied about progress. it is highlighting the need to have discussions that we continue to not want to have. i'm defend -- i'm offended by the discussion of the white

house. if we were serious about dealing with the issues, gates would be there at crowley would be there, but so what tyrone and a bunch of other young people from the hood who have in the last week dealt with the similar kind of psychosis from police departments all over the country. they are ignored in this conversation because we failed to deal with the micro level and are only dealing with the personalities as opposed to the real issues. what is happening is we are seeing an issue that continues to throw back in our faces we're hypocrites about progress in the name of being comfortable. i wish some people would say yes, i am racist. i don't like black people. [laughter] i would have so much more respect for them. he was taken out of contents because he meant chicken eating and not been and eating. [laughter] he meant what he said end what

is interesting is these police officers who are experts in police profiling are experts in what john was talking about -- police departments being taught how to continue to disenfranchise as a modus operandi and then claiming this is about decreasing crime. so he's an expert in manipulating the process of policing to beat down on one group and what to allow another group to get away with. in closing, at the end of the day, if we're going to be serious, it is not present obama's job. is the job of art -- job of organizations like the urban league and the naacp and doesn't have been doing work around police brutality and profiling for decades to have not caught in the proper resources or

support. until we begin to shift this to a local conversation with people who have been doing the work more challenging police departments, i would like to see president obama speak honestly about the fact that the only way you change a history of police brutality is by holding accountable federal dollars from police -- withholding federal dollars from police departments with a history of these kinds of activities. their ability people who don't understand what it means the person of color. they're going to be people who don't like people of color. i don't care if you are racist not. i have no concern at all with how you feel about me as a black person. i am concerned with how you do your job. how you do your job needs to translate into taking into account the rights that i have and hoping that. if you present the racism and use that power to discriminate in speak, i want to make sure your departments held accountable through federal

dollars. i want to make sure there are civilian review boards that have subpoena power because of the don't have these internal committees that have people on the back. that is not it -- that is not a conversation we're having. >> was at a three. answer to my one. question? >> yes, because i know this may be and out -- this may be only time i have to talk with dr. dyson. [laughter] >> i agree, but so often we talk about the institutions that are pressing us and the need for groups that all this appreciate like the national urban league. but one of the things we fail to do as african-americans is talk about the need for us as individuals, not just rely on the national urban league or

naacp or other groups out there to speak on our behalf, but be out there as individuals raising hell. when you say someone is racist, yes, but saying they are racist is not going to get shaniqua out of poverty. what is going to do that is every single person in this room should be out in the streets demanding tax dollars back from police departments that do not police, school teachers that don't teach, education department's that don't teach your children the fundamentals of what they need to become barack obama or like anyone else in this room. get your money back. >> you have listed a number of issues and our topic today is the state of black america. racial profiling is one of those issues. education, police protection, financial wherewithal.

what is the most important issue -- people can be running in the streets every day, they have to go work. why should we be focused on first and foremost? >> my personal opinion is education. not -- have been working on a project and i have been going to some of the poorest neighborhoods in washington dc, and interviewing people about what it is they see every day when it to the barbershop, again the word -- that in the morning, take the bus, what do you see? it has been very disheartening. a lot of us don't like to talk about the trees, but here is the truth in a housing project. there are women everywhere, which is a beautiful sight, but there are no men. that's the truth. they are gone. i have interviewed women, one wimped -- one woman looked at me and said at the heard about the women who kill all their children?

i thought i is going to pass out. i said you feel like you would do that? she says no, but i know why they do it. they don't want their children to suffer. these are women whose children cannot get a proper education in the district of columbia, it can i get help for special needs kids, it is every single person i have talked to has said all the water for their children is to get a proper education. -- all they want for is for their children to get a proper education. we should be beating the streets for and demanding it. >> you were the editor in chief of the state of black america report. what is the number-one issue we should be concerned about? >> i don't think we can say there is one issue. these issues are interrelated. education is tied in with economics, health, the criminal- justice system, all these things have to be dealt with in a very comprehensive way.

that is what is overwhelming to people. we do want to think that is the one thing to focus on and there isn't. but we all have to be out there pushing these issues and what ever issue you think is the most important issue to should be what you should be fighting for and not get overwhelmed because so much of this -- it's so much bigger than something we can handle. we can make a difference. with the education work you are doing in the work everyone on this panel is doing and everyone in this room is doing, it does make a difference. i also agree when you're talking about pushing these issues, i think the media plays a big role. i'm glad there are some immediate people on this panel to issue are already doing it. people think of the media as something different -- distant from them and they don't have a lot of say in it.

but there are some of the misapprehension and misconceptions that are based on distortions from the media. i think it is up to us, anything we're watching, anything we think it's not right, we need to put pressure on the media outlets. local, cable outlets, what ever. they are helping to frame the stories. that's why we're happy with this special ed what you're doing -- [applause] -- the special and what you are doing. >> i will tell you an interesting thing -- we report on some of these terrible things like education rates for black men. i had people call me and say why would you want to show that? do something positive. that's an embarrassment. i thought as you are welcome to

call me, but though what and for that school or 29% of those boys graduate. that's an insane number. but we get pushed back like that. i have a thick skin and rolls off my back. but when you get pushed back, people get very angry at some of those images. i agree. anyone in the media will say we did the story on professor dyson's brother who is in prison. it's an interesting question -- but if you're going to have an honest debate, it's hard to not talk about facts. >> i think you are right. it is in part to show this things, but there are positive images. one of the problems we see in a way these issues are portrait is there's a false equivalency. there's a false equivalency presented and notion of where in

this balance the week began to build this paradigm. when we're talking about going back to the gates case and what constitutes disorderly, that's a very narrow perspective what constitutes disorderly. there's a false equivalency between professor dates and officer crowley and poles of been conducted asking who was at fault without recognizing sgt crowley is a police officer with a gun and a badge in power. professor gates, while he may seem to some more not familiar with african american intellectuals, he may seem bigger than life to us, he is an ordinary man standing in his house with a police officer in this house. there is no equivalency to start with. but we have this notion that we have seen with the sonia sotomayor hearings, this idea that if it is from a white

american perspective, it is the norm. it is unbiased, colorblind, far from the beginning. anything that deviates from that [unintelligible] >> i would like to invite people to come up to the microphones. please lineup. i haven't seen anyone black ask this question about what happened with sgt crowley and skip gates, but what is the black police officer standing in the picture doing? there was a black police officer. >> he was in the second tier of officers was called. he said in his report that he responded alone and that was one of his concerns was that he was responding to calls not back up. he was a police officer who came later. >> i appreciate the point you just made about officer crowley

and professor gates. everyone is standing up and taking to the streets and this idea that education [unintelligible] professor dyson and i spend time pushing back this respectability idea forded by bill cosby. somehow if we would just all be sufficiently respectable, pull pants, name your kids something else etc., then your say. and don't worry we can achieve a quality. you just have to stop squandering the work of the civil-rights generation with the mess that is the hip-hop generation. if there is no other thing, the skip gates arrest proves -- disproves because the theory.

education did not save skip gates in that moment. it saves them in the long run, no question the outcome is fundamentally different than the outcome for someone who is the structural a position -- structurally in a position of economic inequality. but what it does do is say it's not the level of respectability of the individual black body, but the way black bodies are part of a larger system. i hear you on education and everyone taking to the streets, but not convinced taking to the street is as an effective strategy as it once was. i'm also concerned that as taxpaying citizens who serve in the military, and meet the responsibilities of citizenship, that we have a burden to not telling me the responsibilities of citizenship, but this other added burden of having to be superstitious and new don't just get the education our taxes pay for and the police are taxes pay

for and national security our bodies pay for, but we have to do all these other things. if obama ought to represent anything, and out to be the fulfillment of the black citizenship reality. we are citizens. instead it has become a question of whether or not a black man could even be a citizen. when they ask is barack obama born in the united states, they are saying no black people are truly citizens. [applause] >> i'm not sure they are saying that. i'm not sure the argument is that deep. i think as other under towns and it takes us off topic and i want to get there are questions. >> how do we avoid what is going on in washington from just being

a beer and highly make it real? in chicago, where i'm from, where a similar situation where we had a state senator and a pastor of one of the largest churches. the car may rolling stock and he got out and the sergeant knew who he was. the sergeant drew his weapon and told the reverend to get the f back in the car. the following sunday, the police superintendent came to the church and had them, but nothing changed. systemically, how we fix the issue? >> -- how do we fix the issue? >> i did that the great point. you can't reduce it to individuals and it's great for you and great for the reverend who i know very well as vice

president of the rebel push coalition. he certainly -- the rainbow pushed coalition. i think individual response is critical, but the most important thing is this is a collective problem, not just an individual problem. the point the professor was making was that besides being poorer and less educated, black people have to take are less educated, porsche sells and what people with far superior education's don't do. -- we have to take our poor selves and to let people do a far superior education and don't do. we have to articulate a conception of the legitimate american identity. even if the was not intentional everyone is being implicated, maybe for the brothers is they are not that deep and don't have -- let me say this -- the

cleverocricy -- in-line >> thank you for say i did not say that. >> these people who articulate themselves through fox news can go on the shows and articulate themselves by calling the president a racist, this is the machinery are ranged against black people and latino people. it's not just as individual people's if you behave right, skip gates has done the right thing, he over done the right thing. you can overdo it, so what you have to understand is your not an exception. don't buy the mythology that education can exempt you from being treated like day nigger. -- from being treated like a nigger.

the educated elite must never think they are [unintelligible] because that could be your black ass too. if you want to know what to do, instead of going to church and talking about the gospel and didn't jesus bless us comedy are black but on your school board and talk to the teachers out of your children and elect state representatives and political figures who will represent your interests. other than that, president obama, you saw when the white police board named you -- they do give a non-apology apology, a bed the white house was exempt, you need to speak more about race and not less and educate us in america. [applause] >> that was very arousing, but we have eight minutes. [laughter]

we have to lay down some laws. we have to keep a very tight. seriously. whoever you deliver it to on the panel, tight. dr. dyson, tight. rousing but short. >> how does racial profiling that predominantly affect black men -- how does that -- how does that affect our conversation with is part of a late black officers or hispanic officers in the same situations that are pressing an insulting black men? is it appropriate to only focus on white officers? in the neighborhood, that occurs also. >> it is systemic and policy- based. we don't deal with personalities of the officer, regardless of what color they are. we need to deal with the police department and the broader state

legislature to force the kind of misconduct from the police department. >> when we talk about dealing with the policies and systems and structures that persist in the area of racial profiling, we need to view as street -- we need you as an advocate the challenger state government and attorney-general hold local police enforcement agencies accountable for their reporting. we need to have uniform reporting in order to attract -- in order to track get this, so you can hold them accountable from the upper level. if you cannot have documentation there profiling in with the ways we collect data nationally, it's very difficult to put forth sanctions against those jurisdictions. you have the power to go into this jurisdictions and demand uniform reporting guidelines so that every police jurisdiction is collecting the same data and

you know there profiling and you can begin to withhold funding. >> i wanted to ask and age -- ask you about an issue of like president obama to address. people who are coming at a jail and they say -- people say i don't want to hire an x bank robber. how do you deal with the devastation of someone who wants to turn their lives around? >> there are several areas of legal discrimination. certainly one president obama has been particularly awful on has been illegal discrimination against gays and lesbians, in our armed services, that should have been immediately dealt with on day one and hedging on the question of marriage equality. that is also a legal form of --

in many states, gays and lesbians can be kicked out of housing or lose their jobs or lose custody of children simply because of their identity. that is systematic bigotry. president obama has not been strong enough on this on a policy level. the other question is similar. it is about identity. what happens if you serve time under a new criminal justice system which actually moves the law which is crime. i can make a million more criminals tomorrow or a million fewer criminals overnight. how do i do it? changing the definition of what constitutes a crime. in the '80s and in the nineties under clinton, we increased the number people who are criminals, not by changing the actions of people, but by making more activities criminalize. by placing in some communities and not others. the lifting of want to add is that is not about black men. black women are the fastest-

growing population of newly incarcerated people. they tend to go into the system with [unintelligible] so i agree that the idea that people lose their rights to vote and their capacity to hold basic jobs and housing, when we have expanded the number of people who are criminals and highly identifiable by race and economic circumstances, we are generating a permanent underclass that we will then need to police by providing jobs for a different part of the underclass new needs this permanent underclass which is delivered it and it can be addressed through legislative action and the action of the president. [applause] >> we have heard a lot about post-racial america. if we think about where this

occurs, cambridge, boston, near harvard university, there is nothing post-racial about that area of the country. i went there in the '80s to boston university and i felt like i was in south africa. no one in the media has broached that. has a lot to do with where you are. depending on which look like, you will still be considered less than. nobody has addressed that. >> is there a post-racial america? >> is not post-racial. let's keep it real. i don't feel comfortable with some of the police officers in d.c., baltimore, atlanta or these cities and viewed as a chocolate cities either. let's understand whole notion of post-ratio is ridiculous the so we need to stop talking about it. -- post-racial is ridiculous. let's have the real

conversation. the real conversation is with the honest about the fact that many of us all our -- many of us of all races are racist. but how is that racism manifest itself in people's power to be able to push that racism out on someone to do their job. whether it is hiring, educational, the police department, those of the conversations we need to be having. more than that, we need to start dealing with -- attorney-general also need to be gauged around this issue of how we shift what it means to be a previously incarcerated person. but there are roles each of us have to play. we keep playing checkers and said of chess. -- instead of the chest. we're just sliding across the board as kings, not making any impact. as opposed to a chess board, each of us play an individual role. figure out the role you are. are you the pond, are you the

bishop, are you the king or queen? even though i may move differently than the other pieces, those dealing with education are connected to those dealing with criminal-justice, connected his dealing with economic development, connected to this dealing with electoral policy. if we look at ourselves as the kings of our own space as opposed to activist, organizers, then began to create impact and symmetry across the board as opposed having small victories which stand in the way of people fighting with each other's. .

i do human rights. everybody -- s soon as everybody in america start to recognize each other as human beings first, we can enforce human rights in america. i think brother martin luther king, jr., and brother malcolm x would start turning over in their graves because there's a great disrespect for the human rights movement that started in the 1960's and kind of slowed down. there was an official visit to america, and there was no publicity behind it. i had the honor of hosting it. the last thing i was left to think about was this. he wondered how the world would perceive racism in america after barack obama was elected. this was in may of 2008, before

the election, when he came. and to win for us, he said, the right to be recognized as human beings, they will never seen nothing simple about us, and we will never get the civil rights that we are aspiring for. thank you. [applause] >> i will be very brief. malcolm x tried to take america before the united nations in the 1960's, as you know. so that precedent has already been set. the human rights movement certainly did not start in the 1960's. it had a powerful expression, but that goes way back. in terms of recognition of each other, we have to do that in our own communities. the self hatred we have and the -- we're not living in a post- racial world, but we should aim to live in a post-racist world. post-black. we elected barack obama.

we have passed that test. problem with that is that your president and mind, i was on the front line before many black people of any prominence stood for him. i am not a hater. i am lover. you have to call him on this stuff is not doing right. here is the point. he chose not to go to the u.n. conference on racism. when george bush do that, he had a fit. when barack obama does it, we gave him a pass. if you should expect more from the president, not because he is black, but you should not expect less of him because he's an african-american. you must recognize those human rights yourself. barack obama has an important job. we cannot put everything on his back. he is one man in public housing in washington, d.c. it is hell of a public housing. the question is, what will you do to make sure that you do not put everything on him but that

you generate grassroots organizations in your own communities to speak truth to power including barack obama? he is not m ok. he is lbj. you need a profit to speak to the president. that is why we need preachers, activists, and social critics on one side speaking truth to what barack obama and his presidency and his administration present. eric colder talked about black history. he said we are a nation of cowards. two weeks later, barack obama comes out and says i would not have said it that way. well, later on you had to deal with it with gates, and yourself. had you listened to eric holder as opposed to sing shut down the risk of recession, we might have a better way. human rights are critical, but black people have been invested in the human rights of all people. you try to dog some gay, lesbian, transgendered people, you took money from them. i have seen no black person who says i do not take money from

gay and lesbian people. that is a humans rights issue we can deal with. >> thank you for being brief. our final word goes to dr. jackson. >> i am glad to be a part of his show, first of all. we need organizations like the urban league to get away from this new frame of identifying success as individual. yes, we have a black man from chicago in the white house. i grew up in chicago. but also in chicago, 37% of black men are graduating. 37%. so you have a black man on a mountaintop while the people are still living in the valley. that is not success. i saw that yesterday when i listened to the great speech. we perpetuate that. throughout the speech where he got the most applause was when he said, black men need to pull up their pants. pull up their pants. yes, that is important. but after they pulled up their pants, we send them to schools where they're less likely to have access to early childhood

education, less likely to have highly effective teachers, schools that do not meet them from the cradle to occur but from school, a pipeline to prison. were this that originated. it is not that their parents will sag. it is the fact that their parents will sag in the visual park city to where we are. we are -- we have got to change that. we have to build systems of success which involve legislation which involves litigation, and sometimes it even involves agitation. because the sec did not cause a 32% graduation rate in chicago and a 37% graduation rate in new york. nighties and graduation rate in indianapolis. if we're going to ask those yasna -- young man to elevate their pants, we have to elevate our game and the push the legislation, litigation, and agitation. >> that is the final word. thank you for joining us this afternoon. [applause]

♪ >> democratic senators are meeting with president obama at the white house at this hour. coming up, robert gibbs will brief reporters. we will have live coverage of his news conference at 1:30 p.m. here on c-span. this afternoon, a hearing on how the government can better fund transit systems with testimony from local transit officials representing systems in washington, does go, and atlanta. that starts at two o'clock 30 p.m. eastern. the u.s. senate is in session today. this week, the week before the

august recess gets underway, working on agriculture spending. they're back at people 2:15 for more debate. also, the audit program as cash for clunkers will be talked about. the senate will begin debate on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor your for the supreme court alive courage of the u.s. senate on c-span2 this afternoon. now look to the prospects for human exploration of mars. scientists with nasa's goddard space flight center and of the hubble institute offer their expertise is international convention. it is an hour and a half. >> good morning. for those of you who were here yesterday, we had a great day.

we had this spectacular screening of roving mars. the director was george butler. we also had the deputy associate administrator for exploration systems and nasa. it was a busy, exciting day yesterday. before i start off today, i want to actually thank our sponsors. first off, i want to thank the school of engineering for sponsoring this event at the university. without them, we cannot have staged the event here. citywide to the department. i also want to thank space news, our official media sponsor. i want to thank the sponsor of the reception last night. the national space society. i want to go over the the chief

scientist for nasa goddard. then we will have a member the space telescope institute of in a nobel prize winner from nasa goddard. and the doctor, president or executive director of the planetary society. then we had this wonderful exploration panel. then we have it or of the space systems lab. if you're going on that tour, we're going to meet down in the front lobby by the front desk. so try to get there at 4:30 to go to that tour.

did there on time. get there as quickly as you can so we can get to the tore in a timely fashion. tonight, we have miles o'brien moderating a panel that there should be quite spectacular. another item, we have c-span here today. because of that, you can see that we have two microphones right here. so after each of the presentations, if you have any questions, you have to go to the microphone. we will alternate back and forth when you have questions and they will be caught by the c-span sound people. we are about to start. to introduce our first speaker, i want to bring up david shulman, an attorney at nasa's goddard and good friends with our first speaker. he will introduce our first speaker. david.

>> thank you. hello, everybody. it is an honor and privilege for me to introduce my colleague from barnard space flight center who met close to 10 years ago. he has a long list of achievements. he is a world-class geologist and work on a number of instruments for spacecraft that are highly successful. his long list of accomplishments and recognitions from the agency and chief scientist at goddard now. i want to highlight one aspect that does not appear in his official by a which is considered to be most valuable and the critical for what we are all engaged in. that is his ability to convey with enthusiasm the great message that we have to carry. it is an under-appreciated, under-recognized talent that probably several individuals, maybe a half-dozen, have within the agencies. it is critical to convey the message in an interesting way to the public and capture the public's imagination. he is the greatest exponent of

that. you'll see why in his presentation. jim. [applause] >> thank you, everyone. thank you for the introduction. pleasure to be here and talking mars. that is where my little children think i am actually from. i do not know if that is good or bad. i do not think it affects the politics of this. what i thought i would do today, in the next 35 minutes, is try to expose where we have come in the last decade. 10 years ago, i chaired a committee for the then administrator, mr. goldin, which had the original name -- is sound like a booster shot that we all get as children. notice the decade planning team or dpt. yes, i had my booster. the idea was to craft an integrated strategy, a vision and strategy internal to nasa by works for integrating

exploration of the universe from science and humans together. because as we look at mars, it is a very human place. it is a tangible place. a lot of us appreciate that, particularly in this meeting. i would like to share with you the enthusiasm and highlights of the last 10 years. you will hear some of our best scientists tomorrow and some of our best astronomers today. and you heard steve squires last night. i cannot possibly do justice. but let me say, and the words of a great hockey coach that inspired a lot of us, that was almost 30 years ago. this is mars time, and we're ready to make the next leap. i think now's the time to convey that message. let me quickly cut to the movies. i will share with that. where have we come in the last decade? that is really a question that a lot of people ask me. i was the chief scientist for

the new mars program as crafted about 10 years ago. so i would like to share with you a little bit of the vision of where we have come. right now, we're talking about a new era that the augustine commission is debating in which humans, we hope, will get back to deep space destinations. of course, the moon is a destination the relevance to mars and a scientific exploration. this is not a conference about the moon. but-so this introduction of video to remind you that to get to mars is a trip that is so many times farther than anything in human exploration history. we have to remember that we need every trick in the book. we need our great robotic space lab. you know about rover on mars and the fantastic mission that is still running years after the event. what is it going to take? then we go back in time as i tried to paint the picture of the mars frontier and give a few

highlights for you to think about. the first highlight, i think, for many of us is really, what does mars look like? well, i had a vision when i first came to nasa a long time ago which was to look at mars the way these images show. this is mars in 3d. what i am showing you is not a photographic record but a record of 700 million laser measurements of the 3-d structure of mars. it seems pretty mundane and boring. but this data set together with gravity information, shown in color here, reflects the physiography of the planet we have to deal with. we need this data to land on mars. people, machines, and, what ever you want. what is so spectacular about it really is the tremendous magnitude of the typography of the planet. how did they plan is smaller than earth put together such a tremendous range of relief? this is the north polar cap of

mars. it has been called the great hockey puck. it contains a volume of water ice. discovered from this mission, the mars global surveyor, now a decade ago, that is equivalent to the greenland ice sheet on earth. if you think that is irrelevant, remember the global climate variability of our planet can be measured through the ice sheet records of our planet. this is a goal for earth science. here on mars, we have a more is equivalent. so one of the things we have come up with over the last 20 years in mars exploration is using mars as mother nature is great control experiment for understanding our own world and all aspects of this destiny. i will show you at the end of my little talk how we use mars on earth to color and train our thinking. steve squires had a team of scientists, many of whom were experts in earth science. i like to stop with this picture because we have all seen the photographs of olympus mines. many of the new the jeopardy question, the tallest mountain in the solar system, what is

olympus mines. great stuff. anyone watch jeopardy? i know it is early. just checking. this is really more important than just a big mountain. because that flank of stuff, and i cannot point to it, but i will try to. this large part here which is deeper and taller than most mountains on earth by several kilometers has actually told us the story from mars that we map to worth. it is a story that large, a big heavy mountains made of lubbock collapse upon their own weight in a gravity field and produce the facts. on earth, we discovered these iran was the big oceanic islands aquino's including those like hawaii. -- island of volcanoes like in hawaii. if this happened in the atlantic, we would have tsunami is here in maryland said the idea of a collapse of the giant volcanoes is controlled by their mass and gravity is not new.

but we recognize this is a born on earth by looking at mars. interesting how our universe perspective skin color us. part of this data reflects something that we needed to know. this data set i am flying you over was considered in 2001 by members of the national academy is one of the few definitive planetary datasets we have as we look in our solar system. so it is very spectacular. what we have learned to do as we look at mars and as we build a program architecture is to convert the perspective from that view in the 3 d to the view in the 3-d colored by the chemistry and topology of the surface. so we have combined the data from the mars odyssey to produce a spectacular fly through, a scientific visualization of this. here's los angeles 4 scale. probably should be washington, but forgive our poetic license.

it shows the sheer magnitude of some of the processes on mars. how does a planet or itself apart and produced as garments in the valleys that are 5 to 10 times those on earth? a lot of people said it does not have plate tectonics. what ever. this is what makes mars so spectacular. it does not read our textbooks. the fact that it does not and that there is the standard be in the walls of these canyons is a reflection of the history of another world. by the way, our grand canyon would fit right here. i just got back. it is a great place to go. some magnitude. topology, history. how do we see mars? the the thing that mars has taught us is to be ready for the anticipated. this is what is so beautiful about science and of the whole universe. you'll hear about that next. as we started to get to know more is to the mundane landscapes and the exciting ones, what did we see? we saw features that were not

familiar to us. a lot of people said we have seen all the landscapes on earth. but the answer is not a ball. as we got to know the surface, starting in 2004 with the landings of the rovers as part of our program, we started to see more is on our own human scale. this is an important step. because before, it did not allow us to move within the features that we wanted to understand. so what were the great contributions of the mars exploration rover, still running now after 1600-some days on mars? i would like to start with where we were in may 2000. in may 2000, the leaders of nasa were posed a question. what do we do that but we just lost two mars missions? two missions lost. the mars global service was working, but two important scientific missions were lost. what we did was this. we flew a pair of robotic geologists', led by a great

scientist like steve squares and his team, to explore mars chemically at the scale in which a geologist's work. you might say that sounds scary. geologist's look dirty. in fact, the work in the dirt to read the records of planets. i like to tell the story. here is the rover opportunity. about a year ago at the rim of the victoria crater. i like to tell a story because when i talk to children about mars and of the universe, i like to remind them that i have never met a rock that lied to me. ever. as a scientist, we can read the record in these rocks and understand the history of water for mars and thus the potential history of habitats. by looking at the history of these rocks perhaps reflecting an arab two to 3 billion years ago on a plan it then may have been hospitable, one that we would like to have been, that we believe could have been, we start to gain insight into our own history. before the mars meter a

discoveries and announcements about 13 years ago, we do not think to look for an and skill records of life. we did not think too. we thought pretty much that the big explosion occurred, the atmosphere involved, and our planet became the place that led to all these things. we learn by looking at mars and its rocks that that may not be the way we should think about things. and this paradigm shifts are would have punctuated the history of mars exploration. you all know we went to the viking era to the modern mars exploration error that we have through the robots. one of the things i am proud of about the mars program, and perhaps it is not played well in the press, is the mars reconnaissance -- the mars reconnaissance or better or mro. it is to give is the kind of reconnaissance to plan the future. it is important in science. we do it in the universe,

through hubble and all the great satellites that we have. we also need to do it for planets. the scale we had seen morris, for viking, the spill was off from a global survey, here is a crater, was this scale. the skill we saw from mars odyssey was this scale. we realized it was not enough. we needed the chemical scale and the topology scale, the morphology scale, as if we were there. that would guide our planning of where to go. we presented this to the president's office and management budget in 2001. we said there thousands of places we would want to go. people with machines. however, but we can afford to go to a few. so when planning your summer vacation on mars, which one can you afford to go to? i am not being facetious. we had used these metrics. there is a patch of ice in the north, the npld. it is a few hundred meters across the one of the early

images. this mission -- share the sand dunes and the layers. this mission is produced now 35 terabytes of data. that is more data than every single other mission of planetary exploration in the history of an asset. one michigan is in its first extended mission now. this kind of capability is really important as we make the decision to go to the next step on mars or forever. one of the things we did was flight a cooperative experiment with italy that allows us to use wave linked radar to see into the layers of sediment of mars and into the ice caps. this is the north polar ice cap with the spiral canyons. here you see the record of sound and radar, the experiment published by roger phillips. what we have seen is the grounding of the ice, lawyers the reflect the climatology of the planet over millions of years. the way it loads, in fact, the

number crest of mars, and whether there are lenses of potentially frozen fluid layers them may have reflected different climate states. we have also used imaging and a raider to see the record very nice. not only at the polls on mars but in areas near the equator. these are stupendous findings that may have been glimmers' in the eyes of the former arab better now quantify. today, the record of mars is quantified. it is a water planet. there is no getting around that. how much water, we will continue to debate. there may be literally frozen ice sheets the size of and are to cut around mars. we do not fully know that yet. that is left to be discovered. but the mars reconnaissance orbiter has given us the ability now, finally, to see into those records in three-d. and the next steps, they are even bolder. mro continues to do spectacular work. the other thing it has allowed us to do is to zoom in to the

kind of places we want to go to. where can we afford to send the missions to mars that will ask the tough questions? what are the building blocks of life over there? the first mission in that sequence was the first mission to mars, the morris meeting flanders, bill thought of the legacy of the mars 2001 the lender that we did not flight wisely. it has new instruments and a new science team. peter smith's mission with many colleagues at the university of arizona was launched a couple years ago as the first competitively selective morris issue in history. this is like science does the olympics. with the competition. of the 20 finalists, we down selected to four. when they won the metals. then we selected the gold medal winner and went to mars. and they landed in the post dissent motor system, a new way of landing. the operative for 153 days in the northern polar regime, an

interesting area of climate on mars is survey the landscape and a provided measurements, some of which had never been seen before. one of the things that was most exciting was the way in which are mars program came together. here is an image of phoenix landing from mars reconnaissance or better. this is like a needle in a haystack. pointing a large camera streaming in and hundreds of meters the second, a real statement to the team. the engineering that enables the science you have seen here has been the story of mars exploration. we like to see the sunset over the polar climate of mars. we watch the wind. we measure the boundary layer. these are seeming esoteric aspects of understanding mars. we did detect the hoh molecule of water, concerning the opposite result the there is an ice table on mars. you can see the big being. this is the blast zone under the

lender that exposed ice. we're not convinced, as the polar false set in, that these deposits are water ice mixed with co2. so phoenix confirmed are authorizations -- observations. edolphus the tricky it will be to ask questions about life as we understand it on earth or another world. there is the wowing moment for phoenix last november. what is coming? a lot of people have talked literally about a mission. i am proud of the mission. it is called the mars science lab. some 850 kilograms of flight system. it has been named curiosity by a young woman in a competition, i think run by disney. this was put in place in 2001 as the first bold step back into asking whether the chemical building blocks of life could exist on mars in the right conditions. you might say, didn't we know that? isn't that obvious?

or is it right -- heretical to think? so this particular vehicle, now nearing launch date in november of 2011 after the launch slid, is the most powerful sense of it observatory on a planetary surface ever imagined. i ask you to refer to our great apollo astronauts because when i first described it this to jean sturman, the last man on the moon, he said, you can actually do that? maybe thinking it might not be as easy for a scene in geologists' to do with this laboratory can do. but this is the step, i would maintain, at to give us the confidence to consider those polled voyages of some future time with humans to mars. things that i think are important. msl is a roving field laboratory, not a geologist. but the kind of roving field lab that will land on a helicopter-

like jet powered rocket system that we call the sky crane to prevent contamination of the site. it brings down the river, three times the size of the mars exploration rovers. it is powered by a wonderful backpack. notice, no solar panels and no hydrocarbon fuels. it is powered by several tens of pounds of plutonium. that will allow it to operate and do the kind of measurements you see here. this is a remote a elemental analyzer, one of the experiments designed. we have a drilling system, and handling system, and an experiment payload known as sam. i am not sure why sam was not sue, kasam was built right here in maryland and is undergoing testing. sam will process up to 78 resembles. you'll hear about it tomorrow from the principal investigator with the team. it is to look at the full isotopic specter of the building blocks of carbon, oxygen,

nitrogen gent, many other features. it will start to get as to the surface of mars, the way we were looking at moon rocks 40 years ago. you have all heard of the great stuff from the 40th anniversary of apollo 11. what did we learn? we learned how old the planets are. we learned of the put themselves together and were they may have come from, in the case of the moon. this is moving the kind of laboratory gear we all had in labs across the world to the surface of mars. that is pretty cool. so getmsl -- a lot has been said. is it too big, too hard, too expensive? that is for you and of the public to decide. it is the most powerful field robotics laboratory system in the history of humanity. we're sending it to mars because that is the right place to start the quest for the chemical building blocks of life on another planet. the rest of the universe is wide open, too, and our astronomers will talk about that. msl is like the hubble space

telescope does mars with 78 samples it can run into millions again process through its analysis capabilities. the imaging system on here, too, was inspired by the cinematography of james cameron. so we're going to go from imaging where we see sorghum 20/22 imaging with telephoto lenses. it will take a movie of the full dissent as we come down. pretty powerful stuff. so get said, people. msl will reach mars. the next three steps in mars exploration will include -- include atmospheric experiments. and something we have been thinking about since 1976 but up until the deadly three letters of the most mentioned. it is the road to human exploration, mars sample return. a lot has been said about that. this is a concept we have been working on at jpl and across nasa for almost the last seven years. it is to use the technology to land as three separate systems, the building blocks of returning

materials from mars safely to earth for analysis here. where billions of dollars of labs will be ready to collect the materials discovered and brought back. this is a mission that really couples geology with astral biology. how we search for life on the planet and the records and rocks and soils and the frozen stuff. here you see one concept for the mars sample return mission lander. it includes as part of that land not only a little fish rover. these are the solar panels. but it would also include a mars as in the vehicle, or a rocket that will return those samples to mars orbit for return to earth. this is the mission of our dreams. the 500 grams to kilogram of stuff we would return from mars is the confidence that would allow consul's like this, and this is purely national, for human beings to go to mars. so the science we're doing now is science in its own right. it is exploration. it is also the gateway to the

things many of you are interested in. whether we can get off planet and the land in another world, a world that is not earth, never was earth, and probably never will be that can tell us about ourselves. this kind of exploration is shown in this movie and is certainly not real. it is just one concept for how humans could go to mars. nasa just finished a two-year study. the report is out. it is on another design reference mission for humans to mars circa the 2030's port. the date is subject to whenever. but eventually, will have to make that leap. it is a choice to be made by the peoples of the world. for science, exploration, for technology, for motivation, curiosity, for information. all those great things. it will be an investment and our nation's and the peoples of the world's future. a great program was done in canada for discovery channel china -- canada.

when a volstead these for the last 25 years, putting humans on mars. but you might ask, is it really worth it? robots can do so much. and they can, they have, and they must for the next several decades perhaps. but eventually, going there are cells, exploring, as humans do, adapting that environment, is very special. i lit a study of some 30 scientists around the world on with the science bowls of people there and how they would be. but making because the discoveries -- of course, this looks like something out of a shopping mall. but it is an analogy for what we can do. i believe humans must good mars someday sides agree. as experiments and also to allow us to really interrogate the mars system for those really elusive clues to how this plan works. we found that works here on

earth. i will show you in a moment how it works. one of the building blocks that is going to be needed to eventually enable human exploration, even sample return of mars with robots, is new glasses of vehicles. these are being debated now by the augustine commission, rightfully so. one of the ones it would be most enabling returns to our mind as we think about going to mars which is the kind of heavy lift launch vehicle now on the drawing boards. putting hundreds of metric tons into low earth orbit is the enabling step, the same with the transcontinental railroad goddess to california and we were flown to watch the dodgers in los angeles on the 707's. those kind of the vehicles and the information technology and the science planning tools and the next generation of kids that will be doing that are necessary ingredients to opening the mars frontier. they really are.

there's no getting around it. there's no need the -- easy path to space to the going to space. since we live in space, it is natural. the shuttle has given us one way to access it. there are other vehicles. let me finish with a couple thoughts. one of the best ways to get to know mars is through robotic missions that we are flying out of the mars reconnaissance orbiter and the rovers. odyssey, the european mars express mission, upcoming missions known as maven, for example, being built here, and the mars science lab. the other ways to go and understand it as if we were on mars. one of my favorites was one in by two air force pilots in 1962. it is right here seen from the eyes of the satellite in the dry valleys of and start to cut. this is about 1 kilometer by half a kilometre wide. it is the coldest what place on earth. the waters and of this month

like pond actually contain the bacteria, whether a was blown in were fed by the discharge system, it feeds that pond. it is unclear. but this kind of environment on earth is rare. it may be so rare that a better embodies some of the things on mars. the average surface temperature years minus 22 celsius. pressure at the surface of one atmosphere. but however you look at it, it is a harbinger of what is to come. this is the salty terrain seen from a helicopter were inside some of these salt deposits, we find how thick and cry all types of organisms. this is the pond when it is rarely what. these are the kind of environment on earth the scientists today go to with the kind of equipment that we set -- which can send robots to mars. this is when it is dried up. this is an ecologically protected site actually. we have found deposits like

this and the odyssey and instruments on mars. salt-rich deposits that could be the kinds of things that we need to recognize as possible agent habitats. the fact that we found this kind of environment, not what, today on the surface on mars is a began for us as we think about the planet. going to mars today is very exciting. another thing we do is we go to places where we can fully explored with humans as if we were going to mars. one of those places is the recurring field trips and one coming up did you hear about tomorrow. it is to reach an island where we take some of our field astro biology here from across the agency to places that contain these otherworldly signatures of things in the rocks. a team of scientists are leaving later in the week. this is the mars meteorite.

we look for things like that and the signatures that we can study in the field. these are people. notice the computer. anyway, not sure they are ready yet. but they're getting there, i am sure. but this is the kind of practice we have for field analog programs. let me finish with a thought. i have been looking for mars honors my whole career. it stands now 30 years, i am embarrassed to say. one of the places i have been most mystified by revenue lands on earth that form after volcanic eruptions. this is the biggest one that formed in the last 50 years, an island off the coast of iceland. it is the mid-ocean range coming on land. here systems shown which are identical to those we have now discovered 10,000 times on mars. this was a revelation in 2000. press conference. we have seen this on earth. these eruptions, a temporary, the produce of layered rocks.

we have now seen their from orbit with mro. this kind of apology, these kind of chemistries, there is made -- not on mars. they're the kinds of things we're looking for. of course, we also have extreme life environment in our footsteps. these are the modern records of what we're looking for on mars, and they are elusive. they may be everywhere or may be almost no wear. steam goes down to the mid ocean ridge. nasa and the national science foundation invested in studying these environments. they may be lurking on mars. we do not know. this is what we would love to find on mars. this is the region in iceland which most recently erupted. these kind of boiling steam events, we have seen chemical signature is now of the rock deposit that would come from this kind of thing. i like to tell the story to our

camera man. when we filmed this, he did not quite realize the peril he was in. it shows the nature of human exploration. that is just the ooze that we find that would love to find on mars. about 50 years ago, 51 years ago now, the great american modernist painter, someone -- someone known as georgia o'keeffe, painted this famous picture, of ladder to the moon. i did it was a harbinger of an era of human exploration that went to the moon and the space shuttle that allowed servicing hubbell. it was a harbinger. this great picture was painted by the inspiration of her ranch in new mexico, and i think it might have defined the first and second generation of exploration on in universe. it led to hubbell and the dreams of the next decade. now i think those dreams are

changing. the bigger universe for this planet are beckoning. scientifically, exploration- wise, and in the minds of many of the people who have to do it. i maintain it going to mars someday with humans is both scientifically compelling but is also compelling in its own right as an example of what we can actually do in the domain of high-technology in space. i would like to finish with the thought that you have not seen anything yet. sorry to have this moving again. it is loaded up again. i would like to finish with this thought. mars is the fourth planet from the sun. here's my daughter in the sixth grade giving a presentation about mars to her buddies, 120 kids in broward county. but i show this because they were interested enough to ask for a writ. a bunch of random americans sixth grade girls and boys wanted to hear about the universe through the eyes of

mars. that is what we are presented with today as our nation deliberates and the nations in the world, how to get to mars. the science from the program has been inspiring. as compelling as the system has been for our own planet. it is ready to continue to deliver. i want to thank you all for listening. please look forward to the mars science lab and its curiosity rover. you have not seen anything yet, in my view. so thank you very much. [applause] >> i do not know if i have time for one question. >> yes, you have to come up to the microphone. >> a quick question. what do you say the people who say that we do not need to go to the moon in order to prepare for mars? >> the only answer i can give as one individual is, as we know,

morris is 1500 times or more further from the years and the -- mars is fit in better times farther from the earth to the moon. we're still living off the legacy of the findings of what they returned. mars is exceedingly far. we have gotten good with robots. we have 20 years of robotic exploration to continue at mars, including returning samples. i think the moon is an ideal ground for some of the technologies that will make them more is frontier successful. that said, we could go straight to mars. however, i think going to the moon is a stepping stone where free space is a stepping stone, for that matter, the present of the possibilities of learning as we go. learning as he goes how we did apollo. remember jim and i -- gemeni.

remember apollo 8. we did a study 10 years ago about the roadblocks to getting humans to mars. we do not even understand the basics of the gravitational radiation adaptation across the time scales of getting to mars. second, it is space propulsion. where has that gone for the last 25 years? i think those were the best we ever built. that was the 1960's. we do not do this frequently. so these roadblocks are heavy left to put the masses needed in march to keep fiver six women and men alike. this is not simple stuff. we had a joke in the early days. one of our colleagues said, you know, if we could just send the people's heads. i mean, how to keep the rest of them alive and being an issue, i believe for the medical colleagues in the room. i think getting to the moon is

the very worthwhile steppingstone. the robots have a lot to do. sample return is critical. the confidence of the round- trip, robotic week, from one or more than one is so essential to making that next step. i think our leaders in this country now see that we're doing simple return to their partners in europe and elsewhere, and we're going to get it done. that will give us the confidence. i think that would change the equation. i think we needed the moon. how long we use it? how we use it? those are critical engineering questions for a lot of people a lot smarter than i am. i am bullish on the moon as a step to mars myself. i am one man. i do not know. maybe it is a providence view. thank you for the question. >> and do you think that a human mission will be done in stead of the mars sample return? how necessary is it to the mars

sample return mission? one is a plant? >> think robotic mars sample return mission, since it has been recommended by every national academy study that i have read since 1978, is a necessary step since it agreed to understanding mars. critical. and i think because of that, it should come before we make the investment in human missions. it builds the round trip engineering confidence of going and returning. safely, with samples of stuff. secondly, it gives us the chance to exercise the laboratories of this planet. not just here and europe but in russia, china, and everywhere else to look to those materials. 500 grams of mars, 1 kilogram of mars, a place that might have preserved evidence are building blocks of life are evidence of something related to it would be phenomenal. we do not even have the time boundaries defined absolutely.

we use meter rights and greater counts. this is a poor person science. i think we need it desperately. that is not to say that human missions cannot do phenomenal sample return to morriars. but i believe it robotic sybil returned done properly by nasa is essential. i think we need to get started. we're already started now with the mars science lab landing on mars in 2012. the building blocks are in place. now we just have to go and do it. i think it will have the kind of impact in a different way than hubbell has had in exploring the universe. because the universe can also be explored through samples. and we know that. one more. >> politically speaking, how would you make the argument for the kind of investments that these kind of projects and explorations will demand, especially as the push for clean

energy technology and development seems to be at the forefront of everyone's mind? >> first, i am scientist at nasa, so i do not speak politically for anyone except one american. just so you know that. that said, i think it is all a question of investment. i ask my colleagues often, you have children, right? they say yes. not all. some have pets. but what ever. i ask what kind of investment you make for their future. i have children that i care deeply about. is it 10% of your net worth? what is it, when the sun? they say, it is something like that. ok, so is a thing about the investment in these programs. exploring the year, looking at the universe, looking at morrar. .05% of what you would invest in -- is that in normal investment? it is not. for the investment and understanding the universe

around us and the places we may need to go, which may make some conditions on our own planet, like mars, possibly like venus, too, to be fair, it is a small investment. that investment is -- for the price of one family of four going to one movie, whatever you like, once a year, that level of investment is equivalent to the total nasa investment that people make. so i think having the prospects of understanding our universe and of the kind of discovery is remain in just the last decade from hubbell, mars, the observing system, you pick the mission. i think is fairly worthwhile. it is justified in the history of the annals of exploration since magellan did his thing. that said, there are other critical things that affect people and always have. whether it be plagues and post- renaissance challenges, what ever. i like to say, it is a question

of public interest and investment. if we're willing to make a small investment in understanding where we are, then what we do is very relevant. if we're not in the that is the choice we make, fine. but i think it is a plan to look to the numbers. one less common. nasa's total budget, about $18 billion, being pretty flat over the last several years. it is less than a 10th of just the beginnings of the economic bailouts and the recoveries that we make to protect our nation. invest more per capita in popcorn. which is fine, by the way, i enjoyed myself. i think these projects are part of the necessary distributed mix to keep nations here and across the world moving forward. they inspire us and pushed our technology. we're still living off apollo technology today. i am not being facetious. those things have challenges.

about a month ago, i was at a meeting at mit. the college the built the first release small commuter -- computer, navigation computer, for paula showed the scale. they filled the room and put them in a box, sitting about the size of the microwave oven to power the navigation for apollo. there was no other forcing function for that development. 9. banks did not needed. companies did not want it. they did it because of exploration of the moon and now, of course, other places. that is a pretty important catalyst. so maybe the investment is just catalytic. i do not know. i am one person. i cannot speak for the nation and leaders. but i believe, wonder years from now, we will look back and say, my god, those earthlings' got off the planet and did something interesting that shaved their future through this small

investment. i believe it is worthwhile. of course, many others have other opinions, and that is their right. thank you so much for your question. [applause] >> thank you. that was quite spectacular. several years ago, just after the been vision for space exploration was announced, the nasa administrator at the time canceled the hubble repair mission, saying that repairing the hubble was too dangerous. we cannot send people to hubble space telescope because they might risk their lives. just after that statement, this organization, the mars society, declared no. we must repair the hubble space

telescope. if we plan on going to mars, it is ridiculous. we have to repair the hubble space telescope. after we took that stance, other space advocacy groups kicked in and started lobbying to save the hubble space telescope. the administrator changed. he brought back the repair mission. and just last month, the mission was launched. myself, and the doctors were don there for the launch. it should be better than it ever has been. we have a member of the space telescope institute that will be talking about the hubble repair and possible future discoveries we might be making from it. he is the senior astrophysicist at the space telescope institute and the head of their office of public outrage. he is the author of numerous books including "the question

that cannot be solved." it is the first extensive popular kind of group theory and the language of symmetry. his new book is "is got a mathematician?" it discusses the question of why mathematics is so powerful, but the laws of nature and properties of ordinary nods. he will sign those books outside, said it will be available for sale later. ladies and gentlemen, dr. mario libyio. [applause] >> thank you. somebody said is very difficult to predict, especially the future. so i am not going to tell you so much about what the future will bring us because that is always surprises. rather, i will tell you about what hubble has done so far with a little bit of a look towards the future.

i gave a somewhat similar talk to the royal society last year, and they asked me, how were the top 10 scientific achievements chosen, and i said there were chosen unanimously, meaning i chose them. [laughter] so i used my own judgment to choose this. given the time constraints, i am going to tell you that although i have 10 topics there, depending on the time, maybe i will only discourage 5, 6, 7, 8. we will see how we do. let me start with the accelerating universe and of our energy. basically, what do we do? we would get very, very distant explosions that are called type 1a supernova. you can see a galaxy here, and then this light appears. the galaxy is there. and this light appears. and so on. these are very powerful explosions. they are still a menace that we can see them half across the universe. we have known since the 1920's

that the universe is expanding, but we thought of the universe should be slowing down. the reason it should be slowing down, we thought, is the same reason that these keys slowdown or that, you know, when you try to launch something, it tends to slow down unless you push it with something. instead, what we found, you know, you look at this distance supernova and can tell how the universe was expanding then and compared to how it is expanding now. what we found to our amazement is that the expansion is actually speeding up. so this is the equivalent to me taking these keys that of my pocket again, throwing them up, and not only will they not be slowing down, but they will start speeding up. this is how shocking this discovery was to us. and it has since then been confirmed by observations of the cosmic microwave background. we will tell you more about that in a minute. what we dier