what allison was talking about. educationng at higher opportunity compliance, which includes all of this, when i had compliances initial project three or four years ago completely grass roots because realized we have a problem, we need to get everything into compliance, when it was all said and done i coordinate with 27 separate organizational units. enforcementom law to wellness, to dch e.o., so and iery complicated agree with alison, it has to start with the institution. ad there needs to be centralized entity to keep track of it. because what my law enforcement officers do every day is completely different than my title 9 coordinators, than my folks in athletics versus

counsel's office. so central organization is very important. around really great work this issue of coordinated community responses are happening at the community theyge level, because typically operate within the local community, and have to with localooperation law enforcement with local domestic violence shelters, plus plus title 9., bergen county community college created a great program that's bilingual to population student that connects them with all the resources on and near campus, leading the way.

obviously it's done some good work. but i have been disappointed with a lot of the title 9 cases regarding enforcement and i've thought that the department of vus is the, their office of civil rights needs to involved because sometimes schools are doing more than just violating civil rights or reporting, they are actually obstructing justice. model,ooking at that bringing in the department of just is the i think would be a statement, this isn't just education, we're not just throwing money at this problem, we're actually laying down the law. crime, it a civil rights violation, it's many things. enforcementge the aspect, i think that really needs to happen from the government and it's not can do.g activists only the government can demand enforcement.

>> i learned a lot today, i appreciate all of you being here very much. this an opener channel of communication. we should have draft legislation the lasttime after roundtable. we're working on it now and obviously will anxiously await the draft.input to we're working on it collaboratively, and obviously really going to be informed by these roundtables. lot of staff in this room today taking lots of will bed all of that collated and we'll look at all of it in light of the list of about we're talking legislating about and hopefully come up with the right piece of slays that will improve empowerhave and survivors in a way that they have not been empowered before ofh the right mix regulation, support, and penalties.

you all very much for being here. >> thank you.

>> coming up on c-span, former treasury secretary tim geithner book, on theis new 2008 financial crisis. then the house rules committee on a defense program bill. and later, the justice department accuses chinese military officials of hacking into several u.s. business computers. >> on the next "washington we'll get an update on the justice department nowpt that it was indicting five military officers for computer hacking. we'll talk to benefits gerald of for a new american security. then a conversation with dr. michael bell of the center's control and prevention about the potential virus.of the mers we'll also take your phone calls on the primary races. you can join the conversation on and twitter. "washington journal" live each morning at 7:00 eastern on

c-span. former treasury secretary tim abouter sat down to talk his new book, street test, financial crises. he spoke with plate -- politico's michael len and ben white. this is 55 minutes.

>> welcome. we're excited to be hosting the former treasury secretary ben to us about his test.stress i'd like to thank the bank of mek for making these possible.ons we appreciate their partnership on this forum to talk about the most inhat matter washington. so we appreciate bank of america for their sponsorship and their of play bookport programming. >> thank you, mike.

here.you for being it's exciting to see people actually eating at one of these you enjoy your lunch. it want to urge people who have questions for secretary it to us hash tag play book lunch. the got the actual copy of ink which is underlined plane places. i did pay for this at barnes and jersey we'll be questions.itter we don't have a lot of time, so let's welcome to the stage, former treasury secretary, timothy geithner. [applause] >> secretary. i would make the former goldman jokes --r >> do you guys have jobs? work at goldman? i can't believe it. >> any way, thank you for joining us.

of ground we'd like to cover. i want to start with the main geithnerround the tim story, and that is that on the one -- >> it not just one. >> well, the main one seems to be are you the savior of wall broader economy at the expense of main street and housing and all of these other things? and one of the things that struck me in reading the book, here was my way down some of the discussion around housing reform. one quickted to read passage from the book. >> you do housing in that same question? >> i'm going to do housing in question. this came from further back in the book. this is when you're discussing the table toare on help homeowners after the system stablized through the bailout. you said we didn't want to spend helping borrowers who could afford to stay current out without our help, but there

fairness issues around using tax dollars to help in over theirgot heads. didn't you do for bankers when they got in over their heads and bailing them out through the tarp program and other efforts were unwilling to do that for the most part to hope owners, that you applied to homeowners that you didn't apply the banks? >> no, that would be mistaken. >> i'm shocked that you would say that. >> i think it's important to start with a recognition. this is a classic financial panic. the worst kind of crisis, crises.t from all other it doesn't happen that often, people forget how damaging these are.s in that context the only way to protect people from mass step in and is to try to make sure you prevent the collapse and failure of the financial system. that's like the essential necessary, moral thing to do in that context, nothing is possible if you don't do that. a plane,ike you're in

you're the the cockpit and the plane is on fire, and there's a of people who are going to die if you don't lab that plane safely. come oute want you to of the cockpit and try to figure out, you know, could you conditions on the it.s before you land could you figure out how to figure out what caused the plane fire.on or are you going to go land the plane. that was our obligation, that what we tried to do. and it was messy and it was very damaging because the panic at that point had so much momentum, but that was the first obligation. did that, weer we tried to do everything we could to try to get more support for over a longer period of time so unemployment would would occurrowth more rapidly and we'd have a strong recovery. that, we tried. got the economy growing again

in six months, remarkably quickly. i think if you look at the of our outcomes in this crisis, even with all the country,s we face as a they look very good against the last 100 years of crisis response by governments in developed countries. think of what panics have caused throughout history. the great depression, for comparison, we had a massive shock, caused 25% unemployment, the economy to 25%.k by there were bread lines 'soup lines for about a decade. the shock at the beginning of this crisis was five times larger than what happened at the beginning of the great depression. >> that's a handsome graph. >> i'd like to do a dramatic footnotes.m the >> mr. secretary, in the book, i come back to housing though. mike.ad, >> no, finish real quick. >> housing was a tragic,

terribly hard, terribly disappointing to all of us. ashing we did in-housing had much traction, as much benefit, as much power as people deserved context. >> why was that? >> because the scale of the problem was just massive relative to the tools and the authority and the resources we had. >> why was it so massive? >> it was massive because this hugehe crisis following a long boom in borrowing in credit and leverage and because so many job.e lost their because of the force of the recession.ic and the >> in that context, we tried to do as good a job as we could limited authority and our use of that authority did stay inlions of people their homes. take advantage of lower rates, stablize home prices. but those actions were not powerful enough -- quickly then over to mike, a yes or no question. $700 billione in

as did you with tarp and do and allowwritedowns people to reduce the amount they owed on their marriages? a i asked barney frank question about whether we could sec and the ftc and he said you could do that, just country.is >> so maybe you fight harder for it and make it happen. it seems there are occasions onre you're quick to give up ideas. >> i don't agree with that. if you look at the scale of the crisis, idid in this bear all the scars of our to, i havehe damage a deep appreciation of how much failed toleft and we do. but if you look at the scale of what we did, relative to past experience, we did a dramatic thingsarkably effective in the face of the perils of that thing. it wasn'twas messy,

perfect, and it seemed deeply toair because in a panic, rescue people from the risk of mass unemployment you're going that lookg things like you're helping the arsonists, it's just inescapable. we hated doing it, but the alternative would have been much unfair to the in victims of crises. >> let's talk about the politics the few timese of in the book we see the president being sharp with you is the dosident was pushing you to more on housing. >> the president would get these letters, i think he's talked this, he'd take home a set readtters every night to and i got the same letters, were just about the pain and the the frustration people felt in that context. hewould pass the onto us and put pressure on us. >> are we talking face to face?

yeah. you'd want him to do that. that's what you want in a time of crisis like that. >> what is the president like, and you know this president better than almost anyone, you spent more time in the west wing than any cabinet secretary of this presidency. when this president is putting you, what pressure on is he like? >> it looks like pressure from the leader of the free world, it's what you'd think. ( laughter ) it's not, it's not really that comfortable. way.e put it a different he was exceptionally good at doing, and this is a necessary any effective leader is, he would subject the problems we are facing and the choices we presented to him to tough brutal internal debate, without being paralyzed

choices were. without getting too deep in the weeds of the technical issues. and he was very good at trying to make sure he was exposed to a broad diversity of views from inside, his team and outside. was good. it wasn't that comfortable. but it was good and was it was just, because he could not put himself in the position of saying, well, of the treasurer thinks i should do x and just faith.at on he never did that. but on the other hand he was willing to do some very hard tough things after looking at the alternatives. and it is the nature of that that none of the alternatives were very good, they were all very bad and messy. would expose himself to those, not many survived much debate. they would run into the reality life. warren buffet told me a story like toke tyson buy i'd

repeat. after he retired somebody asked him how did you approach the people would come into and ring and they'd have a strategy. i hit said, and then them. and i don't know how i can make people, buting to so much of life in jobs like the problem,e to you've got these ideas of what you should do. outside people on the have ideas about what you should do. crushing,un against a horrible constraint which is either about politics or or money. >> just one more on this. is president obama's most overlooked characteristic as a boss?r, leader or list. there's too many to saynot sure how i should this. i'm a deep admirer of him, you know, so i don't recognize the

of him in what, in what is much of written about just don't see it. >> if you were to buck the leadership lessons of barack obama, what would the first page say? >> it sound embarrassing because so positive, but i'm going to say it because i believe it. crisis, greatin at making decisions, very tough on people when he should be empathy, department appreciation for how these things were, and worried about the right thing to do. sound too naively true.stic, but it's my first meeting with him after i was confirmed, i was painting the terrible darkness of what we would face and we would have to hundreds of billions of dollars to a bunch and he saidgiants, thent you, i want to do

tough stuff early, you figure out what you think is the right thing to do, and don't worry about the politics. we'll worry about the politics. and that's what you want in your leaders. you want them to be able to look deeply, the deep noise of politics in the short term youtry to figure out how can look past that and figure out what makes sense for the country. seemed often in the book to want to tend more towards what you call old testament justice for the bankers. >> every human being wanted that. >> and it seemed that you would pull him back from that, and when,ically the morning this is shortly after you became treasury secretary, he wanted to over wall street bonuses paid in 2008 during the height of the crisis, which he did. but you also said i'm not going to read this. why did you decide not to read it and why did you think it was inappropriate for you to echo the president's comments, which

what the american people were feeling, which was we're spending hundreds of bailing these people out, yet they got record bonuses. talkingyou seen those points that they asked me to read? unless you see those talking aints you shouldn't take view. remember, he's the president of the united states. office. the oval he was just elected by the that con dispeks he giant order, not my so i felt it was important for him to carry the burden. >> the talking boys were too over the top or too weak or what was their problem? nothing worse than public life. than watching people read, talking points they didn't write, didn't understand, have

this artificiality to them. and i'm just not that good at and i'm not, did you watch me afterwards? i'm not that good at doing that in makingt that good it up on the moment. you've gotten good at it. you talk about this 2008 metdown flood.0 year what is the likelihood that in our lifetime there will be another event like that? >> very low. the memory of this crisis will while.r a these things, look what happened after the great depression, of peoplelong period saving a huge fraction for a long period of time. may not last that long, but it's going to last for a while. the risk isn't zero, but it's also low risk because we dramatic restructuring of the financial system and cleaned out a lot of really bad things,

and forced the system to hold much more capital against the crisis.another and passed a set of reforms that are messy and disappointing to many, but at their corps have this hugely powerful change to hold to force people more cushions against the risk of mistakes or things they don't know.tand, don't it's true, over time those will be eroded. but these things are very tough, conservative now and have the prospect of buying us a long period of relative calm. forever. but they are at their core very good. like some ofcal the speeches you gave leading up youhe last crisis, not that didn't point out that there were risks building in the system, lot of talks also a of how much more stable the system had become. when you look back on the years leading up to 2008 and the

specifichat are the things that maybe you wish you had seen more clearly or had been able to react to and do things to prevent the crisis that we went through? a common theory which i'd like to say different, but part of too. which was it did not seem conceivable in this country that would face the risk of a great depression like financial entirea run on the system. now, i lived in financial them,, grew up with watched them over time, probably spent more time trying to deal people inthan most public life. so i new they were fragile and deeply damaging. i had watched governments mess decade.for more than a and when i went to the new york fed i was deeply concerned with two basic forces, one in the mid of a long boom in leverage, and i talked about that, but also a huge part of that leverage was building up

outside the core of the banking system. what happened is after the great depression as a country we did the right thing, we put in place a set of constraints on risk depositor banks with insurance. that mix of constraints and protection against runs, which collapse ofprevent financial systems. but over time the market outgrew that. you had institutions, you don't know who they are, beartment banks like stearns and lehman, g.e. capital, even fanny and freddy in size to be larger core of the banking system. had no visibility into them. but it was a problem and i was deeply worried about that problem. it was a problem that was not amenable to easy solution in the boom at that time. this tried to write about very candidly in the book. knewy about how much we

about whether capital was sufficient, uneasy about the risk in the systems. of work on trying stage stressrly test to figure out how would the system fail in the event of big losses. as i explain in the book, it took great depression-like loss the vulnerability to a panic like this. which wasas something hard to talk people into the view that in the united states of america in 2007, you needed to prepare for the risk of a great depression, people find .hat inconceivable it was a -- >> people weren't trying to you at the time that there was this cries is in sub to happen, and that all the lever an that banks had used to package mortgages ms el them was going to come back and blow us up? >> that wouldn't the core of it,

but if you look at this crisis there were a huge amount of things that contributed to this terriblehere was a amount of fraud in the system, a risk.mount of systemthis regulatory with a lot tribal war but not power. lot of things to worry about in our system. they were observable. but the thing that was hard to appreciate, even imagine was the risk that losses the event ae, even deep collapse in-housing price others a bad recession would a run on a modern financial system that had the this run had. and the reason why the run had so much power is because there set of tools to come in and stop the run. so damaging to

us. counterintuitive, because most people still live with the view that this conventional bailoutss that the were too powerful. it's a little more complicated that. what happened was the run was allowed to gain huge amount of momentum. much harder to slow and reverse of 2008 wethe fall go torepublican president congress to ask for unprecedented emergency authority. complicated story, and feeling the scars of the damage caused by that run. frank gave you new tools, reassures you about dodd frank also took away some of your bailout ability. does that worry you? >> it does. , you know, you don't

make fires less likely by fire station of equipment. it's just not the way crises work. >> and you're saying that the dodd frank legislation did that administration? >> the reforms did some thertant things, give us authority -- as a part ofsting what we do going forward in supervision again is designed to is runninghe system with the capacity to absorb losses.pression-like that's a fundamental thing. are much constraint more broadly, they are applied much more broadly today. dodd frank also gave us the largey to wind down a institution without the taxpayer funding it and without the risk damage. of federal

we didn't -- that's a very important thing. but dodd frank, we were lent a --ng in in a deeply unless you can reduce the incentive for people to run, exits to rush for the protect themselves and that's what brings the risk of massive unemployment. everybody i know likes to discuss dodd frank, i want to talk about the point tore you were trying convince obama, trying to make would notor why you

be the right person for the job. i think you mentioned hillary clinton as a possible treasury secretary. stories. mixing two i told our publishers not to index.u a book with an >> you did at one point mention hillary as a possible treasury secretary. what would make her a good treasury secretary? would be terrific. she would be, she's got a great experience, a great decisions. make she's very tough, she's very smart, she's very careful. a pretty goodk ability to work with peel on both side of the aisle, so i great.he'd be >> it's a public service question here. yesterday's "new york times," fair game, said there was an

unanswered question from your huge which, how could a regulatory army miss the economy's buildup of risk? question. and i write about this openly, there's a lot of regulatory system.in our which in the main failure was the failure to extend ahead of the crisis the basic set of constraints on risk taking and of protections against runs that are essential to crises.ng financial and the deep failure was the failure to extend those over system which were accumulating a huge amount of risk. too. were other failures we had this wild west of finance with little protection again abuse. and those were systematic failures. the only defense against those failures, it's not like you can financial crises by having more regulators by havingy, or

central bankers that are perfect view of the future, it's unrealistic. because what causes financial crises is the excess confidence by long booms, long periods of stability to make confident taking on more risk. the only defense against that is this mix of, take their shock absorbers against loss, like what the stress test forced in system, which you can anchor in reforms and you can make very durable, alongside the capacity to put a lot of money in the window when things apart. one is not enough, you have to do both. have that, you're going to leave your country more vulnerable to crises in the future. and we're in a better position today against those risks, but course never could we say we'll be invulnerable. you about one of the favorite subjects, the aig out.es that got paid

when people who are reasonable criticize the geithner record not very opposed to having you did, there certain things they pull out and say bigamiesed opportunity to do something that would punish the arsonist, would make people feel better about what we were doing to bail out wall street, a necessity, and one thing that on comes up is the fact got this massive several,the first of they announced plans to bay people at aiges financial product who at least in part were responsible for the blowup there. made the argument that there within your authority to block those bonuses. true, could you not use the force of the office, the as well the presidency and say you guys cannot have this money, you just captaining it bad for america.

why dnlt you do something to stop that? most human has the same view. it's inconceivable to people we had no means at that time. but as i write in the book, we --n't just the president went out and announced to the public that askay that he was going to the attorney general to go back and look too and they did a nice thoughtful look at that and they reached the same conclusion that we had. it would be great if it were otherwise. >> could you have taken them into bankruptcy? >> in a financial crisis caused massive run produced by a across systemic failure the system, and the system that finances the united states even in early 2009, just think back to what it was like then, the

falling off a cliff. even after we had guaranteed or supported tens of trillions of liabilities, there was still a dangerous moment, and the idea that we would have been able to protect people from the risk of unemployment going much with, byn it was reigniting the panic, somehow that would have been fair and it would have been terrible. >> had you put aig in bankruptcy would have intensified? >> absolutely. think about financial crises, they're about the loss of trust, and confidence. we already had a crisis that was was a bad because there lot of zig-zagging by the united states of america, because of limited constraints. and that is what produced a

crisis this terrible, was that basic sense that, gee, we should let this thing burn, because it will be just for the people who took too much risk. that instinct which is again so understandable, so human, so important, so appropriate in most state of the world, is what causes financial panics to become great depressionings. that's what happened in the great depression, that's what happened in 10 of the last systemic crises over the last years. the instinct to let it burn causes it just, is what innocent.amage to the only if you have full authority to guarantee. thing in a system, and we're closer to that today but not perfect, you want a system can be indifferent to the mistakes of people running big institutions, can be indifferent to that type of failure. that's the ideal thing.

you have to have thicker shockch absorbers against loss, applied more broadly. a much better position today. that's not enough though. to have to have the ability brick a pan exhibiting stop it from running and that requires the full capacity to guarantee everything. that capacity doesn't exist. but your question is the right question. the ideal thing, you want to allow the failure to happen in the weak s parts of the system and be able to build a fire break that is so powerful, so the fire can't jump that rest of theing the country bow the collapse. we're better off today than we were, but not perfect still. >> mr. secretary, the most fascinating dram you in your book is between you and your summers --or larry

>> it's not that dramatic, it's a psycho drama. president's first summer in august, august, 2009, they're on martha's vineyard, he renominated ben bernanke to a second term at the fed. nominatingidered larry summers to be the fed secretary. what was your advice on that and in the president's decision? >> the president, that was term. early in his first still i think most people felt like the crisis was still with us, hadn't -- a very tough economy at that point. facing this question what to do about the succession at the fed. he sort of said, is this the right time for a transition at the fed. and if i make this change, the change i want to make at that to have twoing

transitions. we're going to transition to the fed at a franl it moment and i'm to lose a lot of -- he made the disoition ask the stay, and i agree with that. >> you advised him to stay the course? ,> well, we talked through it and i thought that was the right balance. this. >> summers argued the case a number of times for the nationalizing city and bank of america and the fact that it wouldn't have enormously bad implications and that you could then force outboards and force management. go back, i'm in favor of the old testament. really him.

i think that it's important for people to understand that there and peoplee damage, deserved the greater measure of justice. and putting out the financial making sure it wasn't a great depression was not going to be satisfying enough, and i that deeply. was very supportive of trying to our sure we gave enforcement authorities more resources so they could do a better job. i'm deeply in favor of that. the debate we're having is not whether old tess tammies good or bad, it just and necessary in lots of cases. just a slightly different question from how do you land that plane to cause the least damage. in a crisis you have to make order and sequence iny you do things. because if you try to have it ways, we'll do a little of this, a little of that, do it going once, then you're to leave the country burning. nationalization, i

don't think it's quite fair to say that larry was a big nationalization. that's not true. larry was an excellent at option, everery are you choice from all sides. frustrating, but necessary and good, and good for a president who is curious and exactlying -- exacting. crisis interest this with no memory of panic and we great depression would be cat atrosk. long drift ine japan, keeping everybody alive, idea. like a bad and there was sweden which was a successful example of nationalization. we looked at all those choices. when we were having this debate the stressod when test was pending, we knew there stress testk, the would reveal a level of losses that were so large that the wouldn't come in and

provide capital and we would end capitalg to put interest those institutions. and that was going to look like averageization to the person. so we talked a lot about how we if weoing to do that faced that issue, but it was sort of a hypothetical point becausethat we were waiting for the results, and this was very important and powerful, the fed released the stress test results, the market level them credible, the of transparent city -- provided was without precedent. and the market came in and put capital in those institutions on very substantial scale. so we didn't actually have to taxpayers capital into all but i think one additional institution. a pretty active debate, which you'd want us to have about what we're going to holesthe event that the were so large and the markets unwilling to fans them we had to bunch public money in

there. and then we were going to do probably youhat guys would have called old testament. >> one of the great moments in book is with scott brown who then was a senator from new forshire, now is running senator in -- >> he was going to new hampshire. us that story. reform.cial complicated process. i'm not trying to make it boring, i'm just trying to give you a little context. funny scott the brown story. >> okay. well, i went to see him because we needed some votes on financial reform and he was a had a nice talk about a lot of different issues. to me i think i want to be with you on financial reform. was good.that got to dod, but you

two things for me, we've got these two institutions that we to make sure don't get volker rule.the and he, i thought it was sort peeling, he asked -- >> reminded me which they are. >> everybody wanted to be for reform. that's not quite true. there were a bunch of people who wanted reform. wanted to bepeople for reform could not really be to reform is reform is going damage the economics of institutions or businesses or materials that are safe, it's the reality of life. >> you come away from this book that your world view is washington is better than we think and congress is worse than we think. congress ishink worse than you think.

to do that. we'll let the luncheon crowd here sty. phone call toyour mark kirk, now senator from illinois, when he was in china. >> i was, i went to china pretty my tenure. china and thein foreign service officers who had following mark kirk around beijing told me that in his meetings he was telling the chses they should sell treasuries because we were going to have hyper inflation and might default. find that disturbing. there was no reason to be concerned about that because the chinese were pretty smart of their --d most i was city worry about it and i up and said there's a quaib tradition about the

politics, andn it's generally not a good yet when you're outside your country neblaim we're going to hyper inflation and you should sell your treasuries. july -- >> he was very responsive when i said that. >> were you as generally el with him in that conversation as you oilt it, in countrying or was that a more heated conversation? him,was very direct with .ut he was very responsive >> didn't get the fed care slot when he hoped for it and obviously it made sense to job.bernanke in the not about the timing, it's about the merits. >> you don't want to change a of ahair in the mid rolling economic crisis and financial panic. >> if the fed chair is deeply

competent, which ben bernanke is. larry summers share that view? >> that ben was confident? i thought larry was excellent this. i think he thought the president was rereasonable, and he ended another year in that job at the white house. have question is should he --ten there was some anger of the lack of punishing. tied to wall street was one of critiques of him, was his possibility of being fed chair a casual active all this? think so. you guys live in this place, let's do a little reality. to be confirmed by the senate we live in a world where you need votes. 60 votes are hard to fine. onecan't find them in party. you know, we have a political

now which is pretty divided in both parties. summers was going to lose some democrats no doubt about it. but that probably would have happened at any time. you could probably have a booming economy and that would happened. so the question is, was there going to be enough inublicans that would join that context. and we're not living in a time when there's lots of those moments of grace. >> over the years what's been more irritating to you, the theicisms of the left or criticisms of the right? >> i try not to be irritated by these things. what we hear. kind of, i don't know how i should describe this. you'really important if in these jobs, you need to understand what your critics say. because you want to understand how your policies are being

received and described, because politics is central to the capacity to govern. need to understand those things and you want to make sure breadth ofsed to a ideas. but generally i try try not to to what people wrote about me, because if do you that too much you'll want to crawl under a rock and you won't make any decisions, because when you make decisions you're going unhappy.eople was that responsive to your question? >> sure. to be moregoing responsive so -- >> he's abandoning the question. >> you have said that you are not working for wall street now. what's the distinction between what you're doing now and wall street? >> i don't think i would have it quite that way. i had this great amazing in publicof working life as a public certain vabt for a long time, but i knew i it forever and i had to do something new and different. i was deeply worried about the

perception you refer to. and i made a conscious choice, i go work for to somebody we had rescued directly. a long standing interest in the investing world, interesting, important part of our economy. i found a group of people that you think are really good at very ethical group of people. so i feel pretty lucky to be that. >> what exactly is it? school growthold investment firm and i'm helping them do all that. go to walljust street? >> well, most people think i came from there, and i thought about just validating that myth back.me and going >> you're taking all the flak anywhere. >> this seemed more compelling to me. >> i want to ask one throwback getsry question that brought up a lot. they say in the 90's there was regulate theot to

derivatives market more closely, derivatives, have them cleared through an exchange. that youn the bock admire some of her ideas, but this was no perfect plan that put forward. was that a missed opportunity to clear up an area of the financial system that would to haunt us,ck could you have embraced that? >> it would. record, and i do write about this in my book, but i my time at treasury before was second i worked on the international side of treasury. i wasn't in those fights about fiscal reform at that time, i no experience the those things. i was doing emergency emerging markets, currency marketings. and her instinct was right. what's happening a cross the financial system, there were change of innovation and and risk that were growing up outside of these basic that systems need.

and it was hard for people to wereciate what those risks and was hard to find solutions requiredhey legislation. it was hard because again they by a severetested crisis for a long type, so people had too much confidence the stability and the coolness of our system before crisis. >> there's an editorial in the "wall street journal" today, geithner's missing memoir where they talk about a fueling ruling a judge last week that you'd have to turn off evidence of a you had.ion will that conversation prove to be more interesting or more think?be they >> definitely more boring. was that rap i enough for you? >> perfect. barnese's an event at and noble in new york. do people ever just walk up to you and say thank you?

answer?he >> if they do it's pretty surprising. but people are very gracious to me. except for you two. ( laughter ). >> we do our best. becomemccain had president there's a possibility he would have asked you to be his treasury secretary. they way that would occur? so. don't think >> you were a republican. point.s, but not at that >> in the past. one more rapid fire question. ofyou could read one review your book that hasn't wrn yet, would president obama, larry summers -- than that.do better i'm trying not to read any reviews. >> you haven't read reviews of the book? some pointt, but at i will. my colleagues say they're pretty good. >> we talked about the amount of time you spent in the west wing.

played by vicee president biden? >> most my experience with him situation room where we were talking about those of state. or in the fiscal negotiations, we had over the course of 2011, 2012. closely with them in that context. interesting. he prepares amazingly. and he very, very deep does a really useful thing that i think is very important in which is helly, tries to make sure he understands not just what the opposition thinks, but why do they think that y. do they hold that view, what's behind that view. even when it's so different from ours, because that level of understanding is important to out.things so i admire him a lot, liked working with'. by valerie played jarrett.

>> valerie has a formal responsibility for business liaison, intergovernmental affairs, a whole range of work with outside groups. and she's one of the president's got at friends and she's and is --st tables, >> any table she wants? >> i'm not sure if i could say at many tables. >> could you give us a 30 second view of your outlook for the economy and have we shaken off crisis?over from this obviously they ten to have long lag times. rust give us your quick view on of this year, are we going to see faster growth. forecasts,believe in and don't think they have much value, so you should take this with a grain of salt. but i think the u.s. economy today is definitely stronger the last four in years and i think it's stronger 2007, 2006, 2005

when a lot of the tbrt was based unsustainable foundation. we've healed a lot of the damage through the crisis. look at what's left after those head winds economy that'san gradually getting stronger. country, we lucky have this amazing amount of technology, and if you're plan back from china, even mexico because america is a today,mpetitive place energy is pretty impressive and weof change there, have a lot. challenges still. poverty,igh rates of long perfect of no tbrt in median income. damaging increase in inequality.

the quality of your health care still depend way too much on the color of your skin and how rich parents are. and those are things that governments can do things about. i think that the economy is pretty good. yeb, the political system still kind of broken. we have to figure out the capacity to govern so we can a difference.e of we have a wealth tax? >> in this country on this planet? just don't see how it happens. i wouldn't look at this problem mobility orr inequality of opportunity, you don't want to look at just prism of taxes. it.e that's part of but you need to look at more deeply the set of public

investments that affect the quality of opportunity people get. tax reformce of before january 2017? >> i don't live in this place it.don't under i'm not a good person to ask that. you shouldely, but ask people that know more about that. >> a couple of personal questions. your collaborator in your book. what is he look as a collaborator? awesome, unbelievable, great writer and he's very hard asme as you would expect and i deserve. we go back and forth and i'd send him stuff that i thought pretty good, poetry even and he'd say -- ( laughter ) looks like you've been on.ng with your mittens >> people would be surprised to find out what do you in your basement. >> oh. >> tortures bankers. testament justice. >> i have a long aspiration to do wood better.

so i've done some big things, i with my son.pipe and i have done, he's taught me they'reo dovetails, pretty cool. how to do dove tails. so i would like to do more of that. >> how is tennis like life? >> i don't think it's like life, at all. >> who is better? >> it hurt my arm. my arm is very damaged but maybe that's like life. >> who is better? >> you should ask him. i'll be gracious. >> ok. >> and last question here. the place where you serve up on the cape has become infested with great whites. >> it's true. you're not supposed to surf where there's seals for the definite reason.

>> thank you everybody for coming. >> we'd like to thank our audience. great conversation. [applause]

>> now, a conversation on public sector data and consumer privacy from "washington journal" this is 40 minutes. , ar

recent story. who watches the watcher? big data goes unchecked. about here?talking what companies are we talking about? we thought it would be interesting, given all the attention paid to the nsa and spine, what is going on. we found most interesting that there were companies across the private sector, and some of them were in the business of gathering data and others were in the business of picking up data along the way. it is everything from information in your electric meter about what time of day you use electricity homage to the numbers you give out at this market and drugstore, that tell people what products you are buying, two companies that are doing other things like taking pictures of license plates and parking lots and figuring out where cars are parked. privacyo has various

consents. computers are getting stronger and stronger data storage and the ability to crunch the data is getting cheaper and cheaper. information web of is being built, where you could put that data together and build a picture of individuals. my colleague look at this government report, that you could get up to 75,000 data points on a specific individual, things you bought and websites you visited. someone gets your e-mail address can link it to some of the other information in your profile and track you as you move around the web. in the last year or so, it seems --e there were a lot more as advertisements that followed you from one to the other. three or four days later, you start to see add enticements -- advertisements for similar products on other websites.

companies are becoming increasingly sophisticated about following them around. >> why does it matter? >> it matters to some people for a couple things. companies can use this to market to you. to talkled profiles about financial success. there may be other companies that want to purchase the information. for some people, that might not bother them, but there are obviously privacy questions. there are questions, of course, but what happens with that data. could it be used by employers? it could go back into the government. and even if information can be withned by the government a subpoena. it becomes a revolving door where the private sector can

have information about your private life. christ can people expect a certain amount of privacy when shopping online or parking their car? this is a good question. was something discussed in a white house report on big data, that you are giving consent when you go on a website and purchase something, when you click through terms and conditions that nobody reads on various website tom or whether your apple product is up to date, you are agreeing to let people share and look at your information in certain ways. that model starts to break down at a certain point, for example when you're talking about somebody building a database of -- licenselates plates and where they park, i do not think everybody shopping in a parking lot, somebody's recording that. they would not remember it for

long but somebody would store that for one year, five years, 10 years, forever. it is not regulated at all in most places in the country. taking a look at the privacy and security online, most internet users would like to be online at least occasionally. many people think it is not possible to be completely anonymous online. many people sought to remove four masked their imprints. what do you think the numbers tell us about where we are headed here? >> this stems in large part out of the nsa controversy. a lot of people basically thought it was no big deal, that people would view this as a modest intrusion of privacy. program as regards to americans, phone numbers and which ones were being called by

other phone numbers, some of the information we were able to report on in the private sector, they were far more detailed. there are companies, if you use commercial e-mail vendors, they have access to your e-mail and can figure out what words you use. there are people who are creek -- increasingly concerned, and it is a fascinating diversions. young people seem particularly concerned about privacy aspects, even though a lot of folks regard young people as major over sharers in terms of putting out a lot of things on facebook, twitter, and snapshot, where they share things they perhaps should not. information in part because they have an unreasonable expectation that it will remain private area if you look at some of the data, there

is a fair amount of interest in privacy. host: can you mask your footprints from the private companies? guest: to some extent. there is -- there are different ways for your browser not to be tracked. it becomes very difficult. ,f you go to the supermarket you want to go online that -- and get an e-mail provider that does not sift through your e-mail, you will probably have to pay for the service instead of getting it for free. there are ways you can try to confuse the system. that brings up another question, which is, how accurate are these? we really do not know. is it 50%, 75%, 100% of people on the list that are accurate? a lot of this data is not necessarily coming from a reliable source. you take your car into jiffy

lube and suddenly they have your license plate and name together. if your son or father or a friend of yours takes it in, they might wink your license plate to that person's name and they are building information that is not accurate. we do not have insight into how accurate it is. house reportere talking about this new piece. we will get your thoughts and questions in a minute. let's take the second part of this. they did it goes unchecked. what do you mean? guest: we love to see what the responses are -- what the national government has made to these. it has been detected. fewe have been a legislative proposals. probably the most notable comes from senator rockefeller, the head of the commerce committee, who is retiring this year. he put out a report about data

brokers selling these profilers with distress, and things along those lines. pushing legislation that would regulate the industry. a popular idea in washington. most republicans are generally opposed to putting any new burdens on the private sector, unless there is an extraordinary reason to do so. democrats are caught in an interesting device here. crackation would be to down on some practices. some of the big companies at the center of the industry, you're talking about the titans of silicon valley and the internet world very googling yahoo!, they are not necessarily the data brokers that sell profiles to people, but they're heavily involved in the online and trying business to segment their audience so reach the people

they are most interested in. you may have heard in the last week or two, snapshot was hit with an enforcement action. in the ability to regulate this area is murky. they have the right to go after unfair or deceptive practices. the company arguably tricks you into thinking the privacy policy

is one thing and then changes it midstream without telling you. of anould be the subject enforcement action. it is not clear what the authority is if the company did not make promises to you about privacy. >> connecticut, democratic caller. you are up first. >> thank you. i first want to make the comment that when the media and government let institutions get away with lying, encourages other institutions to also lie and take advantage to other -- of other americans. why has the media not informed aboutblic of the evidence building seven on 9/11? host: we are not talking about that issue. this morning, it is about private companies and the collection of data they are doing. we will go to paul in georgia, democratic caller. hello. caller: i was just wondering, do

you think the nsa has ticked up on the future city thing? the city leadership group, and hillary -- the development in brazil to be in charge of our country by 2030. national geographic says they want to take latinos and put them in the cities like detroit and keep them -- from driving or anything. host: how is this related to our topic? caller: i was just wondering if the nsa has picked up on the spot by hillary and others -- host: where did you hear this? most in 2012 also c-span. you all took down three of the videos, but we picked them up before you all took them down. host: all right.

let's go to j.crew in washington, maryland, democratic caller. caller: good morning. to comment on the main issue here. in 2007, i work for an agency and this was my private, personal information. they came and showed me where i live. i was just wondering how in the world we are getting so up riled about something that has been going on ever since 2000? it seems as if we just lay the blame game and put all this on the administration. i am not trying to tear anything in half. withjust -- people call in all of this rhetoric and all these decisions and opinions about the administration. this has been something in existence for the last decade.

>> that is generally true if we are talking about nsa surveillance here there is no question it has been banned from the bush era to the obama era. pretty much, the president was just calling it the way he sees it, regardless whether there was a legal basis to do that. what has happened is not really a question of whether obama or bush fell down on the job. the power of these databases, as i said, in the beginning, it has become more and more intense. it is easier and easier to use a to crunchuter enormous amounts of data. 10 years ago, it would not have been possible to develop a database for millions of cars -- parking lots around the country over a several year time. it would have been impossible to store all the data the nsa stores in a meaningful way. with the strength of computers,

we talked about the notion of the internet of things, like your refrigerator, your thermostat. google just bought a company that has wi-fi connected thermostats. very useful if you want to change the temperature in your house or turn the heat on. possibilities others could either change against her will, or, track what you're doing in that area. your electric company can monitor your consumption throughout the day. of privacya form invasion. there have been many cases of people growing marijuana at home that have been covered through discovering unusual amounts of energy at different points of the day. there is so much information, the way the internet has exploded, that allows the challenge to privacy to really

be more significant than a decade ago. khosla do you mean when you say big data? what do you mean when you say big data? guest: billions of pieces of information that can be easily crunched and linked. there is also an increasing ability to combine patterns. there are sets of data, for example, the folks who collect license plate information. platesay, just license and numbers. we are not using people's names or faces or home addresses or what have you. once somebodyible gets that information to use other databases to go back and re-identify. you may think, for example, information from a medical clinical trial, they may say, we have stripped out all the personal information. information,w there might be zip codes in their and there are various studies showing it is possible to take that data for people who claim it is anonymous and

discover who these people are. you may not give your name, but people can narrow down significantly who a lot of those are. host: how are these companies able to sort through the information they get? guest: the power they have. there is no regulation in controlling the data. you have to affirmatively give information. there are limits on how much time -- personal for michigan be kept. you can only use it if a person gave it to you for that purpose. for medical appointment or by a certain product, you cannot thatsarily sell information or use it down the road for a different purpose. this information is sort of a wild west situation. that they lied to you about what

they will do the information, you can go through the fcc. if the fine print says we can use this for anything, there is no rule that says they cannot. host: what are other countries doing and which? primarily it has been the european union most aggressive on the front. a different approach there. traditionally, the u.s. has taken the view that if you do business with a they lied to yot company, the information the company gets about you but lost to the company. in europe, the view primarily has been your personal information, street address, phone number, that information belongs to you even if it is included in a broader database. they have regulations for more than a decade, data protection and so forth, that prevent that information from being shared outside of certain rules, and also give people a right to recourse if they think information about them is inaccurate. you have the right with federal government. there are laws like the privacy act that allow you to mend certain records.

no mandatoryly requirement for anybody in the private sector to fix information. if you were to end up on one of these lists about people who suffer from a specific illness, and you do not, or you do not think the information should be there, it is difficult to force the company to take you off of that. host: on twitter -- guest: to some extent, it does allow for these odd marketing techniques. i do think there is also a possibility of personal privacy notsion, even if people are concerned about marketing. if there are no rules whatsoever for the databases come a there is no reason why a stock or cannot put in your license plate number and by a surge of the databases for someone and find out what places you are most or where hang out at pictures ofeuropeans are kind oy trying to do on actual

collection of data. we are so far down the road now it is hard to even focus on any one issue, but this is what i would say. isple, when polled, think it so to conan that they think it is already easy, except it is not and they don't understand that. that is the creep factor. the information collected on you today, you have to worry about what can be done with the technology in 5, 10, 15 years from now. what can you actually do on the state legislative level? the last refuge of privacy is paying for cash at a store. but with facial recognition and license plates, as he has been talking about here, they can't tell who you are anyway and what whobought -- they can tell you are anyway and what you bought. ofhings -- state departments motor vehicles routinely sell

to license plate databases data aggregators. it is considered to be public record. pass a law that says you can't do that. if the cops need to know who you are, they can, but nobody else can. drivers license databases are authenticated identities with a face that can be used to produce facial recognition. they can't make a wall on the state level, but they can't sell the license plate databases to data aggregators. host: so, linda, that is your solution. can we go back to your -- solution. is not my it is a tiny, tiny bit of a million things. host: let me go back to what you initially set, you were part of -- were you part of the agency? caller: ha, the agency. no, i went to school at ucla. ucla was arpanet and hence,

internet 90. i know people who built these things, a lot of them, and people think the internet is relatively new, but it was there and 1970's, a government agency, extremely tightly controlled. it was decided in 1993, which i think was a good decision, today go public -- to let it go public. it is what happened next that went all wrong. host: let's get information from josh gerstein. guest: i think the comments are interesting. when she mentioned that the opt situation, that is what we are seeing with the europeans. europeans have largely gone for an opt-in model. one of the things you are likely to see come even on a news ussite, is "do you accept putting a cookie on your computer?"

you only really see it european sites, you don't see it on u.s. sites -- host: you have to opt in for that. guest: right. you may not know what that means and you may click to thdo it. in the u.s. it is presumed you have consented. it is basically on you to do it. in europe it is something where they have to get your affirmative consent. as far as the driver's license information and so forth to my think some of that is actually currently regulated. there was a law passed more than a decade ago called the driver privacy protection act that stalking andock -- murder of an actress in california. the federal government put restrictions on drivers license information that made it harder to sell or distribute it without illegitimate is this purpose to do that -- without a legitimate business purpose to do that. some of that may be outside a lot with registrations and so

forth, but it is a tricky challenge. even though it sounds relatively simple, you can bump into somebody's car and they may not be there and you have to figure out who the car belongs to and suddenly that is a legitimate reason, although a minor case of property damage. some of the questions have to do with do we change our laws because we are scaling things up from one to 10 to one million? it is legitimate for me to take a picture of your license plate while it is parked in the street. it is affected by the first amendment. news organizations take those pictures all the time. photoashington post" archive is clearly protected by the first amendment. but what if i want to take 5 million pictures of license plates? are the rules suddenly different? host: remind us of arpa. guest: arpanet is the precursor to the internet. it is a sort of an in-house think tank for the federal

government that did a lot of the technology work. the internet to was a military communications system that was designed to route around failures. it has taken on proportions that the inventors could never have imagined. host: 2 quick treats. -- tweets. as i mentioned before, anything the private sector has the government can get fairly easily. there are obviously subscriptions -- these large companies that are in the data brokering business. axiom, for is called example. situations to those kinds of information --subscriptions to that kind of information. there are those who betray this is an ogre that is invading privacy and never provide benefits. it is clear that even in the marketing area there are people

who are happy to see products they are interested in and ultimately that is why businesses are marketing to people, because they think they have something you might want to purchase, presumably voluntarily. but some people get nervous when they see that we are trying to find people who are in financial distress and pressure subprime loan or some kind of payday loan or something that will get them into an even worse state. the danger a lot of people see in these practices is mainly that they are so effective. host: this if you are on twitter wants to know -- this viewer on whater wants to know - happens if they get inaccurate information. guest: you could get lists of someone who is in financial distress -- when people apply for jobs for example, a lot of people run credit checks on those people and if you get a bad credit score, they may not hire you. you have aot care if

bad credit score and it may be based on inaccurate information. would've companies necessarily tell you that the credit score affected your hiring? they are supposed to do that but i don't know if they actually would. and wild and wonderful guest: some people do. there are questions about how effective it is from which is why people pay at a lower rate still to advertise on the internet than they do on magazines or newspapers, for example. but it does seem to be effective. i don't think companies would be paying the amount of money they do to advertise on the internet now and to follow people around on the internet. if you are looking for a specific product, it can be valuable information.

for example, women who are pregnant -- there are companies who are very eager to pay a lot of money to get your name and e-mail address to get that kind of information, because it is viewed as a very significant market opportunity. host: let's go to robert in brooklyn, new york will stop republican caller. caller: good morning. whatever public and so democrats decide to use information -- what if publicans are democrats decide to use this information to undermine the other party? number two, alabama, and kentucky, states that used to have segregated schools, democratic governor, and yet the school systems -- [indiscernible] answer those 2 questions for me, please? host: josh gerstein, did you

understand those -- the second one was difficult to understand. caller: new york is more segregated. and that has taken place under a democratic mayor and democrat governor. it shows that everything that is going on was preplanned. host: ok, sounds like it is not related -- guest: not directly related. i am not an extra on why schools have become resegregated. i think it has to do with where people are choosing to live and people opting to take their kids out of the school system. a the first question he asked was about democrats and republicans, and this is pretty understand -- pretty interesting. i cover the white house and for a long time i think the obama white house looked at this data as a boon. they were basically trying to harness the big data revolution to get jobs and economic development out of it, various states around the country set up

incubators with the big data companies there to set them up as cutting-edge research projects, because we saw a lot of jobs and positive potential of medical research and information that could come out of this data technology. the privacy danger was kind of hell that they -- was kind of held at bay, or at least the 2 groups were separated. you obama campaign is known for its micro-targeting, using these same commercially available databases to drill down on voter registration, exactly where they live, what magazines they subscribed to, and come up with particularized pitches that remind them to vote. everybody regards the obama cap and the most sophisticated users of that technology, and you wonder if that mindset took over at the white house until the nsa hit and people realize that there are significant privacy concerns to wrestle with.

host: is it allowed for a party to use a government database for their own political purposes? guest: well, some of the information is public. no, government databases, you cannot just go and convert them unless they are available to the public to purchase will stop in many states, voter registration information is available with your name and address, maybe your birth year, how old you are. it is easy to take that information and match it with commercially available information to build a bigger profile on voters and link it to, as i mentioned, magazine subscriptions. if you get what websites they visit and come up with a very targeted kinds of pitches. no, they are not supposed to use nsa information in marketing and they are not supposed to convert government databases for use of political parties. but some of this information is basically considered public record, and a lot of states, not only your voter registration, what party you are registered to, and how many times you voted. the obama campaign was

successful in using that to find people who agreed with them on issues that supported president voters,t were irregular did not show up all the time, and lean on them to turnout in the 2012 election. host: a legal question here. guest: it is possible, and the supreme court is only beginning to struggle with this. they changed their mind and the last couple years, for example, on gps tracking. the government made the argument that it is no different than following a car around. we have always been able to follow a car around and what is the difference if we just put a little module under bumper and yourntracte on -- on bumper and we can track it? court said there

is a big difference. you could follow their car for years. the government, if it had no checks whatsoever, my do that a lot. whereas putting a team of fbi agents to follow you around is extraordinarily expensive to do on a regular basis. there are basic limits on it, and the supreme court has started to recognize some of these things, and as i mentioned, it will be interesting. within a matter of a few years the supreme court will see a case talking about the first amendment right to photograph you in a public place, does that mean that therefore i have the right to build a database of one million, 10 million, 100 million such autographs that include 20%, 30% of the u.s. population? is that protected by the first amendment just like it is for a newspaper or tv crew to go out on the street outside the studio and take pictures of people as they walk by? host: hi, sally, you are on the air. caller: thank you, greta. i appreciate being able to call c-span. i've been a listener for 15 years and i appreciate brian and

"q&a" and everything that goes on. anyway, i just wanted to ask need to getat we the big money out of our government, and that is by amending our constitution also so please visit move toamend.com. i wonder what you think about these corporations who have made all these rules or allowed all this information to be collected, because our politicians are bought by the corporations. guest: i think, as i mentioned before, the fact that washington has an active very aggressively in this area is in part due to actedfluence -- hasn't very aggressively in this area is in part due to the influence that people in the technology world have in washington. some of that is derived from campaign convolutions on lobbying, but even if those 2 things didn't, these are sort of america's cutting-edge

companies. what is the u.s. best exporting at the moment? we are still good editor tim and an expert in hollywood and so forth -- good at hollywood and exporting entertainment and so people overseas feel that their communications have been compromised. i do think that somebody issues of money and politics probably play into why that hasn't been more regulation here. i think washington would have been somewhat slow on the sushi even if those factors weren't in lay -- slow on this issue even if those factors weren't in play. thank you for taking my call. invasions of privacy have become so absurd that nobody is safe anymore. privacy as we understand it has come to a hault. is there a way out of this mess,

and can the government accurately regulate it? host: josh gerstein? guest: i think there are some questions about what the limit of government power is. the internet is a global phenomenon. even if the government were to set up rules about what websites can or can't do, what information can or can't be stored, it will be very difficult to enforce those outside the united states. we have fights between the european union and the united states over these issues, because there are different policies in place. could probably be done to set rules for the largest players in these industries. at in the specific case it will be difficult to do -- but in the specific case it would be difficult to do. there was a case in the court about the right to be forgotten where an individual wanted information taken off of google. if different countries have different rules about how that will be handled, we have a very messy situation very quickly.

i think there are, at the margins from some practical considerations that will make it difficult to say there will never be privacy challenges. host: was that a big decision for the tech companies out of the eu? guest: i think it is a potentially big decision. i don't know how interested people are in going online and taking things down, but it is a different approach and i don't think that would fly at all here in the united states and it is, frankly, one that makes media companies, a lot of reporters nervous,lf a little because i spent all day writing articles that are about people. are they suggesting that those articles could be taken down if people don't like what they say? could they be taken down in a 5 years or 10 years of the people think at that point they are not newsworthy anymore or whatever important? -- isn't important? traditionally those things have been available forever and you just have to look at them at a library on microfiche or microfilm or something like that.

all of that information is available at the click of button, so there are new privacy challenges there. host: josh gerstein with politico. the stories "who watches the watchers?" congress congressman pete sessions chairs the committee.

>> the rules committee will come to order, i want to welcome everyone back from a >> the committee will come to order. can see, we have a stack of work ready for us, ready to go this week. it is heavy lifting. this afternoon, the rules committee will meet to consider two important pieces of legislation. first, the committee will hear information about hr 4660, the commerce justice state and related agencies, appropriations act for fiscal year 2015. this represents the third appropriations bill this year, and highlights house republican commitment to an open and transparent process. this legislation provides a1.2 billion for law enforcement and public safety efforts, directed to job creation and economic growth. i want to thank frank wolf, a

very dear friend of mine from virginia. and ranking member chaka fattah. it's an important year in your life and the life of this congress, i want to thank you for your service to this great institution and your hard work throughout the years of me being in congress, knowing the work you do, and i want to thank you right up front for that service. the committee will begin consideration on hr-44355 for fiscal year 2015. urination's military has the resources necessary to fulfill its mission, that is to protect the united states of america, its citizens at home and abroad to make sure our friends around the world are well taken care of also.

i'm pride of this year's work, the work that will entour adequate levels of troop readiness, reduces bureaucracy and fulfills our promise to support our soldiers and their families. in a few minutes, the gentleman buck mckeon will be here before the committee, and i want to thank them for their incredible work, the work they do together. to make sure that this work is not only timely, but close to the mark so that the polly of the united states congress is properly taken care of, i want to thank chairman mckeon for his years of service as i previously said about the gentleman, mr. wolf. their years of service, not just to this institution, but really, people who love freedom and who expect the congress to have professional attributes at it. i want to let everyone know that

today's hearing will be limited to general -- the rules committee will meet tomorrow for consideration of amendments. with that said, i want to thank my colleagues nor joining us today. obviously chairman wolf and mr. fatah are at the witness table and prepared today. i want to give the same opportunity to the ranking member of the committee, mrs. slaughter for any opening statements she may have. you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand that cjs is going to be open rule. it's going to ask for an open rule, are you not? which is wonderful and we're happy to hear that, i have no discussion on that part of it, i do want to take this opportunity to tell mr. wolf, who i've served with since i first got here, he's made a wonderful difference here, mr. wolf. the things that you champions, and the things you do, and you

will be sorely missed. the kind of advocacy you do is unfortunately not universal. thank you for standing up for the good people all these years. >> i'm delighted that both of you are here, and a few minutes ago, i spoke with you about how important your testimony is before the rules committee, both of you represent not just $51 billion worth of american taxpayer spending but really the opportunity to -- for you to bring your hard work -- your work that you have done together to this committee presented in such a way that we can understand it, understand the priorities and those things in which you believe the rules committee should be attuned to. i admit that today is a comeback day a week after a work period that we have many members who are arriving late this evening. and so normally you come before

a full rules committee, i am delighted both of you are here without objection. anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. i would like to acknowledge and yield time to the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf. [ [ inaudible ] >> if you could pull that a little closer to you, you're on tv, and we want to make sure that we can hear everything about you, thank you very much. >> approximately 1% below the current fiscal year budget bill for priority closings. $69 million the prior year. restores damages kept opposing

the -- also for the department of commerce, the recommendation aging -- for the national weather service and satellites that provide data throughout the country. we're also investigating manufacturing and employee task force to incentivize u.s. companies to bring back their manufacturing to the united states. for the department of justice, 7.8 billion including increased funding for the fbi to continue counter terrorism programs and to prevents and investigate cyber intrusion. funding for state and local justice grand programs is reduced overall, but high

priority programs continue burn justice assistance grants in state alien assistance programs. better known as scap. the funding is approved above the level for violence against women programs. and for addressing dea testing backlogs at crime labs and law enforcement agencies nationwide. for science, basic scientific research and science education, innovative and competitiveness and contribute to long term economic growth. the science foundation sets the groundwork for new technologies. for nasa's bill, includes 17.9 billion. an increase of 100 million also, for erin oughtics research. also supports the upcoming

flight for orion vehicle. proposed cuts to nasa's science missions. including missions to mars. i also want to thank mr. fattah. we have worked very closely together on all of these issues, and i want to thank him for the great close working relationship and also the entire staff on both sides of the aisle for their work, and with that i yeel back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i'm delighted that you're here and welcome. >> i'm honored to be here before the resumes committee, both you mr. chairman and the ranking member, but i'm even more honored to sit beside chairman wolf, for these many years as she's she we he's shepherded this bill through the process.

we've never had a bill that wasn't bipartisan. he's just provided extraordinary leadership, from human trafficking, which he has championed a major effort throughout the country on. and a number of other items where he mentioned the indictments today in terms of hacking. i think it's safe to say that none of this would have happened without his assistance over many years, around this issue, when others were not paying any attention to it, frank wolf was in the lead. i know it's unusual around here, when we're talking about the member of an opposite party. but frank wolf has been an american first, and every single instance. even though he may be on the other team. he's been a leader for our can't on cyber, on human trafficking, on human rights. the bill today is 51.2 billion. there are significant numbers in

here that are important to our country. i want to spend a minute just talk about the law enforcement justice department investments, because it's important. attorney general holder did a report on the work we've done. it's lifted a three-year hiring freeze, and been able to make sure that each of these agencies throughout doj, that vacancies can be filled. and that the needs of the country in terms of law enforcement can be met. again, chairman wolf has been the strongest advocate. the fbi, the dea and all of the other law enforcement entities, the alcohol, tobacco and firearms, to make sure that these fte's were fill ed and soi think that's important. of particular importance to me has been inside the doj, the

boys and girls clubs of america. a chairman, something you've been quite interested in and supportive of. for the boys and girls clubs and all the other youth mentoring groups, because they've been able to build out these programs over the years, and including this one, above the president's request, this -- the chairman's mark makes and investment in the country's future. i think it should be noted. and working together we've launched the first ever high priority neuroscience industry that has already produced very important objectives in terms of bringing some 20 federal agencies together, have them lay out a disruptive path forward in terms of breaking in -- breaking the code on some of the 600 plus diseases and disorders of the brain. on manufacturing, the chairman has helped lead the way, in

terms of repatriating some of the jobs that have been lost to other places around the world back home, through programs due to the department of commerce. select usa has gotten the support. i will rest my case on just the nasa investments, in space technology, from 600 plus billion investment here, commercial crew. the science accounts and education accounts. so very important, i want to thank the chairman. these are allocations are tough. but we have put together a bill that i think that as we go to the floor of the house, we'll be proud to support. in terms of the investments that are being made in education, and in science. and, of course, with national weather service also getting a major support here to both the satellite program as the chairman mentioned but to their other weather forecasting activity.

it's been a pleasure to work with frank wolf as chairman. i learned a lot. we're going to move this bill through conclusion this year, and knowing that even though it's his last bill, it's not the last we're going to hear of frank wolf on the critical issues of the day. >> thank you very much. >> i'd like to ask a question to the gentleman, mr. wolf, your you're closing out your career. you've helped us in other efforts. in particular, with this cjs, you have put your hand on that, your colleague has said, great job. one of the things i need to know, to be looking forward to, so that next year, whoever is here, we can ask them, and know and follow the tracking that you've started, for instance trafficking employment, that is not a new issue, but an issue you have excelled in among

others. if you can take just a minute and give me my prescriptive viewpoint so is i'm able to follow this through. >> i'm sure whoever takes that spot will do. i think the area of the fbi, cyber, if you go out. you can go to a location in this area, whereby you can look and see the names of every company that's being hit every major american company. the weather service. mr. nunnally came up to him and said, had the funding not been there, it saved lives in mississippi and in other places. also, the human trafficking, the very thought, just in northern virginia alone, we had a group called poe harris look to see how many places young women were sexually trafficked in northern virginia. 81 places.

i had a group come by to see me from my church asking me to go on a bill to deal with sexual traffic it in thailand, but i stead, it's in tyson's corners, it's in annandale, it's all over. so in the whole area of sexual traffic, lastly in the area of manufacturing and repatriation and bringing jobs back. now the chinese government is fragile, environmental issues are big problems. the chinese people want freedom in 20 years, china will probably be the largest christian nation in the world. they're ready to kind of change this government, so it's time to bring business back into