case, that is an indication of where things could go. >> i am trying to get your opinion, not your commentary on others. >> there have been some really good points that have been written. some articles. i would be happy to forward them to you. it is dangerously close to becoming a state actor. that is why i think -- it depends on the case. >> then the answer is they are, to some extent. they are a state actor, but they may not act like one in a particular case. so what you are saying is they should be treated as a state actor? >> i think they could be found like that. >> you sound tentative for someone who is on the job. should they be treated as a state actor or not in their current form? >> if they remain a monopolistic type of regulator

-- >> if a year from now they look the same as they do today, should they be a state actor? >> again, i will say that given the right case, i do not want to say yes or no. >> on the question of pre- emption, you said that the garrett bill should be changed. there are new rules on governing the affairs of business entities. but of course the garrett bill is not confined in its subject matter. should we not then put that in there for all preemptions? or should we worry about preemption only a state governments are pre-empting other things? or not just talk about the new

rule impact on states? >> i would answer with a very simple distinction that there are some types of preemptions that are official and some that are not. i think there was some bipartisan support for the national securities market improvement act in 1996 -- to answer a question about the reason you focus on corporate governance is because that type of preemption deals with the tighter regulation in which states internalize their costs. >> that is not what i asked you. i must say, i tell you, a lot of my colleagues, a lot of us -- people in both states rights versus national, pre-emption versus not. my sense is that for many people, the decision at one level of government that a policy should be set depends on where they are likeliest to get the outcome they want. that is perfectly reasonable.

i don't think there is any kind of fundamental moral principles here. people should acknowledge that. but you have not answered my question. you've told me why you want to talk about governance, but would you object to broadening that or would you have us consider the impact on pre- emption only of governance or would you have a more general requirement in the list of things to be considered with the impact on state law? >> to the extent you want to generalize it -- >> i do not want to generalize it. you are an unusually deferential panel. i am asking you what you think. this is your language. you want to do it for state governments, would you have it cover preemption in general? not for or against it, because this does not say for or against it, although it does have somewhat of a non- preemption slant, but would you

agree that it should be a general position with regard to pre-emption? >> i would not agree on the grounds that i think in some instances the states internalize the cost of regulation better than others. for example, in the creation of business entities in massachusetts, i think the state does a good job of internalizing costs and benefits. if it becomes a bad signal to be a massachusetts investment trust, i think your state will internalize that. >> that is not a matter of corporate governance. you would cover only corporate governance. >> i would cover the corporation of business entities. >> i am less parochial than you might think. would you think that is covered by corporate governance or wish to expand it to cover that?

>> you are merging and people too often do this. i can understand people saying one preemption is good and the other is not. there is no principle, just one is bad. i am just surprised, i am not surprised, but saying preemption in those cases where i think it will be bad and to not look at it elsewhere, i think it writes people's policy conclusions into procedures, which is not a good idea in law. >> if you have any other ideas, i would be glad to discuss this with you. >> i thought that is what we're doing. my point to you is this -- you were writing a procedure which embodies policy preferences and i think that is a bad idea in law. if there is going to be procedure, it is in the policy- neutral and apply to the whole topic. >> my only policy is efficiency. >> let's move on. >> thank you, ranking member. it is always exciting when you come visit.

[laughter] this is something i want to share quickly. on occasion, when you look up you will see not a lot of bodies in the room. understand there are a lot of eyeballs watching us. as you walk through different rooms, we are on television cameras in lots of different places. i want to take a huge step back and help me understand something conceptually. i want to start with the professor. if you were starting with a clean slate from a regulatory standpoint, not just sec but some of the other agencies that also dipped their toe into this world, considering the chairman is starting to put together a package that would have $100 million for additional

technology, and living in the age of the internet, if we were starting from scratch, what would a regulatory environment look like? >> i would start with the principle that government actors as well as individual actors are at their best when they compete. when we compete for resources, when we compete for people to join our group, whatever that might be, we are at our best. i would look to the principles of regulatory competition. i will look to reform sro's, sec creation of sro's. with all of that in mind, i am in agreement with former commissioner atkins on that issue. we should consider making membership voluntary and giving more deference to voluntary membership organizations rather than mandatory organization. for instance, a center of relief based on -- i know you ask me to start with an insight, but it is hard to think about that.

>> part of the nature of the question is that as we are moving their platform to what makes access of information -- i am trying to get my head around what would be the optimal if we had started from scratch and could we possibly move in that direction? >> i hope so. that is a very broad --

>> depending on how they were born as, that is how they were written. that is, in my view, not the kind of still we should have. we should have a central regulatory system for financial services. the only things that i would exempt out of that are first

monetary policy. but i would force the i think it would be great to imagine that and great to try to achieve it. i use today do a fair amount of

-- separating out these two functions. point number one. point number two, and i know it has been said, but it has to be emphasized. we are the only country in the world, i think, that is a separate futures regulator and securities regulator. i believe it is an enormous impedestrian -- impedestrian meant to -- impediment to our

competition. another issue is corporate disclosure founded on the basis of positive material. and our system now has just become so bogged down in trivia and it is still a paper-based system 25 years later. we need to fundamentally change our disclosure system, and get away from something built on pieces of paper put in the mail every 90 days and get away from prescriptive trivial requirements for our cities, and get back to tell us what's material about your company for your shareholders. >> you actually hit on two of my favorite fixations. >> mr. chairman and congressman, 10 years ago, around the year

2000 the british decided they were going to have a comprehensive regulator which would cover banking, securities, and everything. 10 years down the road how are they doing? can we create something that large and make it work? who knows. what will keep those investors safe? >> right. >> just conceptually what would that be? >> if it is focused on security,

as congressman frank referred to earlier, whatever we can do, even if it is just securities, i think we can make changes. i think the risk is to try to try to do it all at once and just create a new agency from scratch. i don't think that's viable. but that said, i think we can morph the existing organizations in positive ways that would achieve that over time. and what i'm talking about are core focuses and core missions. as mr. katz said a moment ago, when you look at the reporting requirements, some of them are excellent, some of them are just a waste. capital formation, the procedures could be simplified. they need to be. capital formation. get it right, get it simple, get it protecting investors for full disclosure but make it so more businesses can raise capital.

capital formation. market surveillance. with all this crazy stuff going on, we have to be able to look at it in real time. they tried to deconstruct a few hours and it took them three hours. we need to enhance them. we see what's happening in real time in the markets. if there is a manipulation going on, stop it now. likewise, when we do our moving in the markets and trading in the markets area, we see what's actually happening. it's not what we imagine happening. if this efficient capital

formation, real time market surveillance, real time surveillance, and the last thing congressman chairman, the enforcement tools and beefing up enforcement with the tools to deal with the world we live in now, before issues are perpetrated against americans by entities off shore, the surely -- surveillance tools they need and streamlining of their investigative and litigation processes, part of which have been done recently with dodd-frank and little technical things like that which sound picky but are important to make the program run well and efficiently. so i think core things morphing over time, i think we can really get there.

>> one more question. >> i think one thing we can't forget is that dodd-frank has changed a lot of the situation. i think it is a calamity, frankly, for the marketplace. with regulators trying to limit the time limits that the statute set, vague directions to them. the huge missed opportunity, like the chairman was saying, to actually reorganize. and the s.e.c. is one aspect of that. the financial oversight council we're ascribing to bureaucrats sitting around a table that they can peer into the future and prick the bubbles before they happen because ultimately it is always one person's bubble is another person's livelihood.

that was the problem with the housing crisis and the build-up there and the 2000's. and we have s.r.o.'s that really are no longer, and we have lost the s and that has changed things significantly. to the point we will be able to monitor things in real time. we have to say, is that the best way to monitor things. the sec has subpoena power. it has ability to, and it should be working closely with market participants to get this information should the government have that separately

in other ways. we don't always do everything in the government relevant many. there is sometimes working in the private sector to make sure things are kept up to date and more importantly, the extra, which is hard to get and is costly, that the government can tack into that when it needs it. >> if you were to call out one or two actual activities that slows down or is a barrier to smaller organizations gaining capital, gaining economic growth, producing jobs, which we're all fixated on here, what is that activity?

as a policymaker, how would you change it. >> the major one frankly, we all know it is important to have people out there in the private securities. the government can't be everywhere, and you have to rely on, to a certain extent on people out there to police the markets. on the other hand, in the united states, i think it is hard to find anybody who would say that, you know, we don't have a surplus of these sorts of deletirious actions that inhibit capital formation in the marketplace. so that plus the red tape that's added through unnecessary filings and having to hire

lawyers and other things. the threat from private litigations has increased for all sorts of markets. >> congressmen, the person that said in the joint session last week we have to cut the red tape, enable small businesses to raise capital, promote growth, and raise jobs. the problem, congressmen, is we are putting band aids on a system that was created in the 1930's for capital raising. we have a typewriter era telephone world that has been created. we have exemptions from registration, obviously, and we can talk about those and

rule-making that the sec can do. but i think you hit on it earlier when you said we're in an internet world. we're in a really different world right now where we communicate differently, and there are ways to check on things and check on the validity of things that didn't exist before. i suggest that we check the system but nowhere near the crazy cost. a platform where the information could be available to everyone. it could be widely disseminated, but also where there could be electronic vare vix where outside professionals, whether it is financial lawyers or accountants could contribute electroncally to the filing.

rather than putting banled aids on a 1933 system, i would suggest days very different era we live in now. and those who are experts in this area tell us how we can create an electronic platform that will be safe and secure for investors but will also let small businesses raise capital cheaply. >> the commission has tried on

occasion to change the various markets. has that worked well? i have come to the conclusion that an i.p.o. is not always a good way for a small company to raise the cash that it needs. right now given the problem in the banking industry, people are saying, maybe the i.p.o. is the answer. i keep thinking at various times there have been these concepts of promoting venture capitalists, promoting business venturists. i would suggest -- >> to that point would that be raising the number of shareholders? >> that becomes a piece of it. my problem with the 500 shareholder rule is, i hate on-off switch regulation. i keep looking for gradations so it doesn't become such a dramatic shift from one to the other. there was some way to develop some sort of model where you had

lead investor roles before you become a fully invested company, something in the middle like that may be an interesting avenue. >> thank you. >> i think we have a couple problems. the first is we're dealing with an antiquated system. most of the updates have been by angery-rigging existing statutes to sort of get around some of the restraints. there is not enough enough attention paid to the fact that

government is a service business. when people have new ideas and they want to get to market and they have ideas, if they run into the kinds of bureaucracies and red tape that they do markets. when i was in private practice, i saw people's moneys dry up because they didn't know how to juggle their efforts. one problem is clearly the fact that the statutes are antiquated. second we have a system now that's predicated on reverse logic. if you look at what the most sophisticated investors want when they choose to invest their capital, they want to current and future information, and what

they want is what is available now and what you are yang a year from now and back it up. there is a huge disconnect here, and i think what happened with goldman and sachs is you have a company that raised $50 billion, an unheard of amount for an i.p.o. without going through the s.e.c. process all because that process takes forever, induces litigation, as commissioner atkins said, it requires red tape to get through the s.e.c. and get your documents out, and it gives investors the most meaningless of disclosure. namely, what happened last year instead of what's happening

today and tomorrow. >> because i'm out of time, the chair will yield itself, what, six hours? >> fortunately i'm in agreement with the panel on this. and i would pay attention to what has been an unfortunate eventuality of a form of rules in the commission, which is an exemption is established either at the beginning or as it is interpreted, it is eroded away. but to make use of the exemption, you have to, for instance, in a number of regs

you have to issue reports that are maybe not auditted but have the same substance as a 10-q or 10-a. we create exemptions that aren't really exemhundreds at all. also, in part, i think this goes to erosion by the agency. i think part of that, it goes to the heart of the lawyer dominance of the agency. different fines of law that are enforced by those agencies, but in many ways analogous. the s.e.c. 1,000 employees, almost 1 had you hundred --

almost 100 of them are economists. >> gentlemen, why don't we call it quits. i want to thank you. you are raising an issue that is really important. it is one of those few occasions that both the right and left have a common agreement emerging, whether it be the reggae, the cloud funding, the use of the internet, directory better public exposure, faster timing, a more current lot? is that more of an honorable future for a regulatory body, but also much more cost-effective. our great hope is as we could -- as we continue to move into these discussions of capital formation, does this provides an

opportunity to go to the next generation of regulatory. if any of you come across articles or something you think we agree, please send it to us. it is time we get our heads around this. with this, i understand the hearing record will be open for 30 days if any of you have anything you wish to submit. with that, we are adjourned. national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a marine who saved the lives of 36 soldiers during the war in afghanistan was awarded the medal of honor. that ceremony is next on c-span. then up, "washington journal."

a discussion on people without health ens. "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern. >> today at the economic club of washington, a discussion on u.s. national security. we'll hear from president obama's national security adviser, tom donalin. live coverage begins at 12:30 >> author, film maker, and

political activist michael moore recounts his life, from starting his own newspaper in the fifth grade. michael moore will be our guest on "in depth." get the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> do you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> and what is that? >> it is basically -- well, it has been pretty much proven recently that it allow the right to bear arms to individuals -- individual citizens in the united states. >> the right to bear arms. >> it is the right to keep and bear arms. >> do you feel safer wearing a handgun? why or why not? >> yes, i do. being a woman i'm automatically the weaker target than any other man would be. i feel with a handgun here i

would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you are talking about a robbery, this definitely. if you had a gun, a lot of people would not bother trying to rob you. >> you can see all the videos online at studentcam.org. the topic, the constitution and you. get more information at studentcam.org. >> president obama awarded the medal of honor to an afghan veteran. he's being honored with saving 36 soldiers during a fight with the taliban in 2009. he's the first marine to receive the medal of honor since the vietnam war. this ceremony in the east room

of the white house is just under 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states along with michelle obama. accompanied by dakota meyer.

>> if you would, please pray with me. oh, mighty god, we pause to recognize your grace. we confirm in this ceremony that in accordance with your divine guidance our forebearers establish aid nation rooted in the ideas of curnl and virtue. we yield to your direction for this country even after you bestow its highest honor on sergeant dadothe cota m depsh on officer dakota meyer. god, here our gratitude for your honing sergeant meyer's character through your countenance as well as countless mentors and friends. when called upon to preserve the safety and dignity of his camrades he was able to demonstrate the valor of his character.

god, for his courage revealed that day, this nation is exceedingly grateful. as this is draped around his neck, you encircle him with the depth of your love. acknowledging not only him, but those marines and sailors who were so much a part of his actions on that fateful day. speak to him in the privacy of his heart and assure him as his actions are honored, you equally recognize those who demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice everything in order to uphold the ideals we honor this day. with that in mind, we pray your abiding grace on the families and friends of the marines, sailors, soldiers, airmen, and coastguardsmen who have given their lives in service for this country. we lift up in prayer all those

who remain in harm's way throughout the globe. now bee san diego -- now bestow your wisdom on each and guide them and each of us on the examples of these our heros who love country more than self, mercy more than life. god, bless america. in your holy name we pray. amen. >> on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. it has been said, where there is a brave man in the thickest of the fight, there is the host of honor. today we pay tribute to americans who place themselves in the thick of the fight again,

and again, and again. in so doing, he has earned our nation's highest military decoration, the medal of honor. and we are extraordinarily proud of sergeant dakota meyer. today is only the third time during the wars in afghanistan and iraq that a recipient of the medal of honor has been able to accept it in person. we are honored to be joined by sergeant first class leroy pet rifment e. i would point out something else, of all the medal of honor recipients, dakota is also one of the youngest. he's 23 years old. he performed the extraordinary actions which he's being recognized today when he was just 21 years old. despite all this, i would have to say dakota is one of the most down-to-earth guys you would ever meet.

when the staff tried to arrange phone call so i could approve this medal, he felt he couldn't take the call right then, because he said, if i don't work, i don't get paid. so we arranged to make sure he got the call during his lunch break. [laughter] i told him the news, and he went right back to work. that's the kind of guy he is. he also has to -- wanted to have a -- dakota, i do appreciate you taking my call. the medal of honor reflects the gratitude of the entire nation. we're joined by members of congress, including someone from your home state, the republican

leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell. we are joined by leaders from across my administration, secretary of veterans affairs, and leaders from across our armed forces, including the comendante of the marine corps, general james amos. we are proud to welcome dakota's father, mike, his extraordinary grandparents, and more than 120 of dakota's family and friends, many from his home state of kentucky. i want to welcome dakota's camp rads -- cacomrades. i realize this has not been easy for you, retelling the story of that day. you are a modest young man, but as you said, you do it for a simple reason, retelling the

story, because it helps you honor those who didn't come home , and to honor those men and women who are over there fighting every day. so that's how we'll do this today. it's fitting that we do so this week having just marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks that took us to war. in sergeant meyer we see the best of a generation that has served with distinct through a decade of war. imagine it is september 8, 004, 2009. patrol of afghan forces is on foot making their way up a narrow valley, heading into a village to meet with elders. all over the village, the lights go out. that's when it happens. about a mile away, dakota, who has been a corporal, and staff sergeant juan rodriguez-chavez

could hear the sound over the radio. it was as if the whole valley was exploding. they were unleashing fighting from the hills and even the local school. soon the patrol was picked off taking ferocious fire from three sides. men were being wounded and killed, and four americans, dakota's friends were surrounded. four times dakota asked permission to go in. four times dakota and juan were told it was too dangerous. four times. a teacher at his high school said, if you tell dakota he can't do something, he's going to do it. as he said, those are my brothers and i couldn't sit back and watch. the story of what dakota did next will be told for generations. he told juan they were going in. juan jumped into a humvee and took the wheel.

they were defying orders, but they were doing what they thought was right. so they drove straight into a killing zone, dakota's upper body and head exposed to a blizzard of fire from mortar and rocket-propelled grenades. coming from afghan soldiers, he loaded each into the humvee, each timex posing itself. they turned around and drove those back to safety. those who were there told it the most intense combat they had ever seen. dakota and juan would have been forgiven for going back in. as dakota says, you don't leave anyone behind. for the second time they went back into the inferno. juan at the wheel, ddakota up in the surf, going through gun after gun. again they came across wounded

afghans. again dakota loaded them up, and brought them back to safety. for a third time they went back, insurgents running right up to the humvee, dakota fighting them off. ahead some wounded americans were trying to avoid the bullets raining down. juan wedged the humvee to block the bullets, and with dakota on the ground they helped those americans back to safety. for a fourth time they went back. dakota was now wounded in the arm. dakota later confessed, i didn't think i was going to die, i knew i was. still they pushed on finding the wounded and delivering them to safety. then a fifth time they went back into the fury of that village that seemed to come from every window, every doorway, every alley. when they finally got those trapped americans, dakota jumped

out and ran toward them, throwing all those enemy guns on himself, bullets kicking up the dirt all around them. he kept going until he came upon those americans laying where they fell together as one team. da cota -- dakota and the others picked up their comrades and through all the bullets and chaos carried them out one by one because as dakota said that's what he will do -- that's what you do for a brother. he said he will accept this in their name. he remembers the husband and father they called gunny james, gunnary sergeant edwin johns. staff sergeant aaron kenefick. the medic, hospital man athird class james leighton, and a soldier wounded in that battle who never recovered sergeant

first class kenneth westbrook. dakota i know you have grappled with the grief of that day. that you said your efforts were somehow a failure because your teammates didn't come home. but as your commander and chief, and on behalf of all americans, i want you to know it is quite the opposite. you did your duty above and beyond, and you kept the faith with the highest traditions of the marine corps that you love. because of your honor, 36 men are alive today. because of your courage, four fallen american heros came home. in the words of jane leighton's mom, they could lay their sons to rest with dignity. because of your commitment in the thick of the fight hour after hour a former marine read about your story and said you showed in the most desperate and final hours our brothers and god will not foresake us. and because of your actions,

kids across america will know that no matter who you are or where you come from, you can do great things as a citizen and as a member of the american family. therein lies the greatest lesson of that day and the truth that our men and women live out every day. "i was part of something bigger" dakota has said, part of something bigger that lifted everyone up and worked for a common goal. every member of our team was as important as the other. in keeping with thoo day, i would like to ask juan and all those who served with dakota to stand and accept thanks from a grateful nation. [applause]

[applause] >> to our marines, to all our men and women in uniform, to our fellow americans, let us always be faithful. and as we prepare for the reading of the citation, let me say god bless you, dakota, god bless our marines and all who serve, and god bless the united states of america. semper phi. [applause] [applause]

>> the president of the united states in the name of the congress takes pleasure in presenting the medal of honor to lieutenant dakota meyer for the risk of his life serving above and beyond the call of duty for advisory command 37 in kunar province on 8 september, 200 . corporal meyer maintained security at a rally point while members of his group moved on foot into the village of gon jigal for a pre-dawn meeting. the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket-propeled grenades and machine guns. hearing over the radio four u.s. team members were cut off, corporal meyer seized the

initiative. with a fellow marine driving, corporal meyer took the exposed gunner's position in a gun truck in a daring attempt to disrupt the attack and locate the trapped u.s. team. disregarding intense enemy fire and now concentrated on their lone vehicle, corporal meyer killed a number of enemy fighters, some at near point-blank range as he and his comrad made it to the enemy range.

>> he upheld the tradition of the marine corps and the united states service. [applause]

[applause] >> let us close in prayer. god, may this ceremony serve as a reminder of the pob that comes as receiving the great gift of freedom. and as we depart this hallowed hall and return to our daily lives, we pray that you would enoble and enable us that when

called upon we would recall the resolute fearlessness of sergeant dakota meyer and all those who wear the star of valor and live up to those who bring honor to you and to this country. it is in your holy name we pray. amen. >> thank you all for joining us here today. we are grateful for dakota, we are grateful for all of our men and women in uniform. i hope that all of you have not only been inspired by the ceremony, but also will enjoy the hospitality of the white house. i hear the food is pretty good. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. [applause]

>> in about 90 minutes, a debate on spend infrastructure investment. that's hosted by the "national journal" and fets underway at 8:30 eastern. and later in the day, the united kingdom's home secretary, theresa may, will talk about counterterrorism efforts in her country six years after the london subway bombings. she'll be at the council on foreign relations at 12:30 eastern. >> in an election marred by

moral scandal, james blaine lost but changed political history. he's one of the 14 featured in "the contenders." live from the blaine house in agusta, maine. learn more about the programs in our c-span.org/thecontenders. >> "washington journal" is next. we'll look at today's news and take your calls, e-mails, and tweets. we'll hear from president obama's national security advisor, tom donilon. live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern. and coming up this hour, a discussion on the role that independent voters will play in the 2012 election. john avlon of "the daily beast" joins us, and