paradoxically, maybe no president could have used 9/11 to infuse the country with a sense of national purpose. it created wars fought by .5% of the country, by three million people. when my father went to war in 1941, there were 130 million in the united states. 16 million put on a uniform. i this is why i think we have to be very wary of wishing for crises in order to create great presidents. 9/11 quickly evaporated as a national consciousness-raising exercise. there was not an effort on the part of the previous administration to create a sense of national service of some kind, energy independence.

greater understanding of the conflicts of challenges we face in the middle east. i understand the logic. we were told to hug our kids and defy the terrorists, to go out and shop. i understand all of that was a necessary response to the trauma of the moment. but it was a crisis that i suspect escaped real purpose. and we find ourselves, 14 years later, it seems to me, in many respects, still adrift. host: pat joining us on the republican line. caller: my question is, the country is grown up. the west has opened. everything is done. i have seen more with clinton, clinton was the first person, but i have seen it with other modern presidents that tried to create a legacy. why aren't they focused on preserving our freedom as a nation? guest: i think they are.

the greatest responsibility of any american president is securing the security of the people. if you look at the last two presidents, that is the single greatest challenge. legacy is an issue of the moment. both george w. bush, we could argue all day long about the wisdom of iraq -- iraq and afghanistan -- but both george w. bush and barack obama were intensely focused on keeping the nation secure. we have not been attacked again directly by foreign terrorist organizations. there have been attacks inspired, but not directed. that is a testament, in large part, to the focus of both of those presidents on the most important issue facing the country. presidential legacies are important to individuals. you see it now with president obama. i think it is natural and

understandable for two-term presidents, the last years are not focused on history. not their own parties, necessarily, or even public opinion. i think it is inevitable that presidents will want to look beyond their terms, at a certain point in those terms, to shape history. and posterity will look at the presidencies. host: recommendations from our guest aaron david miller include the following, read more presidential history. think transaction, not transformational. as he has indicated earlier, think good, not great. wilbert from louisiana. welcome to the program. caller: i would like to know what he thinks about a president that was losing 800 jobs a

month, 800,000 jobs a month, he restructured general motors, chrysler, restructured the major banks of america. saved fannie mae and freddie mac. got health care for everyone. and not considered his program of being a great president? host: barack obama? guest: i think he may well be judged consequentially in time for what he has done. but a deeply polarizing figure. reelected to a second term. clearly not that polarizing a figure. the problem with president obama, frankly, is that he created a sense of expectations and a frame of reference that was extremely difficult to meet. and i think -- i call him at one point "disappointer in chief."

not in an effort to attack him. but to suggest that when he came into office, i think he believed genuinely that these circumstances were ripe for transformation. the public needed fundamental and profound transformation both at home and abroad. he very much fashioned himself after lincoln at the inaugural lunch in january of 2009. that lunch really re-created the lunch that abraham lincoln had, being served on replicas of mary todd lincoln's china. he stepped into one of the most partisan and shark-infested environments in recent history. he set a bar that was extremely tough to match. frankly, if the economy continues to recover and if we

are not attacked again here in a consequential way, plus if health care end up expanding services, cutting costs, and providing quality care, and if a republican is not elected in 2016, i think his legacy could actually be quite a significant one. host: among the questions in the book, how important are individuals in the broader current of history and how much do they matter in comparison to the broader forces that shape their times? guest: the great debate between what is more important, circumstances or the individual. karl marx argued that men make history, but rarely as they please. one of the points i'm trying to get across is that character is important and individuals are critically important. but you must anchor the individuals in circumstances in

which they find themselves. great presidents can not simply create transformative change without the right set of circumstances. host: you asked what if adolf hitler was not born. guest: would the circumstances that germany confronted in the 30's produced a hitler like figure? i raise the issue with franklin roosevelt. february of 1933, roosevelt went on a cruise. this was in the middle of the great depression. on the way back, he stopped at miami bayside park to give a speech. while chatting with the mayor of chicago, anton cermack, and on employed bricklayer stood up on a chair, he had purchased a handgun that morning, and fired five shots. cermack was hit and later died.

had roosevelt been killed that day, what would the implications have been for his policies with respect to the great depression, world war ii? the country was already established. but hadn't washington died of what they think is an anthrax infection in 1789, had lincoln been assassinated as he walked through richmond as he did, virtually unprotected, in 1865, if you took the individual out of the story, out of the american story, these three, lincoln, washington, and fdr, would the story have been altered for the worse? i think so. individuals count, but they must be altered in the circumstances at the moment as well. host: the end of greatness. robert from northington, north carolina. caller: mr. miller, my question

is, in your research for your book, did you find that presidents before eisenhower, where they attacked as viciously as presidents have been since by hecklers and things of that sort? guest: it is fascinating. i would say we have not come quite full circle, but the viciousness that characterized late 18th century american politics, the competitiveness, the slander, they took their arguments out on the streets. alexander hamilton probably never could have become president. but he was shot and killed in a dual with aaron burr. the reality is the kind of rhetoric that was hurled at presidents, andrew jackson's wife, rachel, was called a

whore. one of fdr's wealthy friends vowed to go to the bahamas and never come back until the end of the fdr presidency. he was so angry at the type of policies that fdr was going to pursue. lincoln was called a gorilla. these sorts of comments reflected politics that were much nastier than the ones we experience today. the difference is that the media ends up driving the argument. when the president of the united states has to respond to the comments of a pastor in florida who threatened to burn the quaran, the president of the united states identified this individual and responded to his craziness. that is an extraordinary example of how the media really does not

only intrude but create a kind of willful frame of reference for american presidents. culture is tough these days, but not nearly as tough as it was back in the day. host: gabriel is joining us from phoenix, arizona. republican line. if you could turn the volume down. caller: absolutely. it is done. host: we can hear you. caller: i am interested in your views about calvin coolidge. guest: coolidge presided over one of the longest periods of prosperity in american history. one of the debates against the whole presidential rating game is that it has been hijacked by democrats, or republicans in the

service of a narrow partisan agenda. was coolidge a great president? no. did he not get sufficient credit for his compliments? perhaps. republicans would argue that one of the reasons is that the presidential rating game, over the years, had been dominated by liberal progressive professors at university. i think that point, even though it is somewhat exaggerated, there is a fair amount of truth in the perceptions of who rates the president and how they are perceived over time. it has become a partisan game. calvin coolidge, to some extent, was a victim to it. host: politics has been much nastier than it has been today compared to history. guest: president brooks nearly

caned charles sumner to death on the senate floor in 1864. on the floor of the u.s. senate. sumner would return to work, but he was nearly killed. host: richard joining us from trenton, new jersey. caller: yes. i just want to say greatness talking about president bush running for president. when uss cole was struck, that's when he took a stand and started taking it to the terrorists in america, having to protect america. if it wasn't for bush, right now today and barack obama, also, barack obama, bush and barack obama took out every terrorist

from the top leaders today, talk about greatness. how can -- who decides who is greatness? one man decide this, or does a country decide this? host: thank you. guest: it's the actions of a president and how they are view viewed and appreciated over time by historians and the public. i mentioned earlier, george w.bush and barack obama deserve enormous credit for keeping the country secure and free. last year, the state department reported there were 17,891 global fatalities to terror. 17,891 people were killed in this world as a result of terrorist attacks. sixteen of those last year, 2013, were american citizens. more people, 33 people were killed in this country in lightning strikes last year. that's double the number of americans that died. so, i think that is the first and foremost obligation of the

president, to keep the country safe and secure. and despite the flaws and imperfections, in reality, an attack could occur here any day. our presidents have done, i think, at least the last two, quite an extraordinary job in this regard. host: richard, good morning. caller: yes. my comment or my question or whatever is how anybody could put wilson anywhere near the top of this list. the reason -- i guess i've got several reasons for saying this. first of all, starting with the most important, i would say it was his performance at the paris peace conference in 1919. lloyd george made a complete fool out of this man. for example, there is nothing in

wilson's 14 points about reparations. and they conned him in to that. the reason they were successful in doing that is they held this -- they sort of blackmailed him. they yelled the fact that wilson wanted the league of nations charter to be included in the conference. and so lloyd george and clemenseaux said, well, it will do this if you will allow the reparations and so forth. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: wilson won his war, which all great american presidents have to do, but stumbled, i think, badly, as you point out, in the post-war period. his own ideological rigidity, his refusal to compromise with the senate and even include republicans on the delegation to versaille, his illness, his

stroke and incapacitation. i put wilson there in large part for his domestic agenda. he was probably one of the most progressive and willful american presidents willing to work with congress and extremely successful during his tenure. and i think he really does emerge as a consequential president. i argue in the book that i hesitate and i don't put wilson in the great category anyway. i put him in the consequential, close but no cigar category in part for the reasons that you mention. host: david on the democrats' line, dayton, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is how can we have a great president when he is limited by his terms? for instance, president obama will start to be a one-term president and he was lame duck the first year. so he's even more lame duck in his second term.

so the 22nd amendment should be amended or repealed. thank you. host: thank you, david. guest: you know, that argument is an intriguing one. the 22nd amendment was passed in 1951 in large points because the republicans wanted to get even with franklin roosevelt. no president should ever again have the opportunity to be elected. roosevelt almost served out four terms. he died of a cerebral hemorrhage. it was the republican revenge but what they failed to understand is that in passing the 22nd amendment, they basically or virtually insured he would be in a class of his own. no american president would ever again have an opportunities to serve more than two. washington could have had he not made an extraordinary decision to return to mount vernon to give up power. i am not sure that you are going to ends up with a constitutional amendment to that effect. i think -- i point out in my book

that we are stuck with a political system that we basically have inherited. the constitution has been amended 27 times in 240 years. ten of those amendments came in the bill of rights. so, i am not sure you are going to get an amendment to lengthen a president's term. and i am not entirely persuaded it's a good idea. i know all of the limitations. eight years in this job takes such a toll and the country actually needs to be invigorated with change. i think eight years, two terms, and i think the founders in many respects had this right, as imperfect as it may be is the term that we are left with, and i suspect it's going to -- it will endure in the future. host: this is one of those speculation questions. bear with me. do you think if that was not in place, the bill clinton would have ran and potentially could have won, in 2000, a third term?

guest: maybe. i think you have a situation in which when the economy is good and the president is perceived to be a brilliant politician, capable of intuiting and understanding and reflecting what people need, good reputation and loves the game, sure. host: matt, republican line with aaron david miller. good morning. caller: good morning. my comments is about presidents today as opposed to world war ii, before. it's hard to judge then and compare then to the presidents of the past because of the nature of warfare today. it's not as conventional than fighting terrorist groups and small cells that, you know, aren't necessarily state-sponsored. host: thank you. guest: i can't it reflects the unforgiving world in which presidents have to operate.

look: f.d.r., the last good war, justification for entry was undeniable. the japanese attacked us at pearl harbor. the evil that was nazism and fascism, comprehensive and final. it was the only war that left this country -- the only one that left the country stronger at home and with more influence abroad. not since the end of that war have we seen another conflict which belongs in that category and can claim that. and that's why you need presidents with real judgment, who are wise and prudent and understand that getting in to conflicts is much easier than getting out of them. and that kind of judgment is critically important. not acting. until many respects when the temptation to act is important precisely for the reasons you have identified in the nature of these asymmetrical conflicts. host: richard from florida.

are you with us? try one more time for richard. going to have to move on to jose joining us from miami. good morning. caller: good morning. do you think that president obama will get to make any more supreme court appointees? if so, what direction would they take and what role would the senate have ultimately and how contentious could they be? what are the limitations? could there be -- just your thoughts on that. guest: i try to take hypotheticals. could you see another appointee on the court? sure. would the president love an opportunity to find another justice that shares his views?

absolutely. will he get that opportunity? i don't know. it's in some respects very difficult, very difficult to speculate. host: you could argue the george w bush legacy lives on in the court today. guest: it does. that's true of many other administrations. those judicial appointments are critically important because they talk about legacy. it really does, in a way, when you think about it. it becomes, in some respects, the most critical pieces of a president's legacy. host: as f.d.r. found out in the 1930s. murray from florida, democrats line. good morning. caller: yeah. quite obviously, do presidents always make statements that really most people know are not true like that your medicare is not going to -- or your health

program is not going to change, or the latest one was when he said only two or 3,000 jobs are going to be created by this pipeline. obviously, everybody else said it was going to be 30,000 jobs. have other presidents made such blatant statements? guest: presidents operate within a set of parameters. they clearly don't want to willfully mislead, or certainly not create, their own set of facts. but they also argue within parameters that want to create the right kind of angle and the right kind of spin. other presidents throughout history have played exactly the same game. but i would argue at no time in our history do we have a greater obligation or responsibility to fact check.

"washington post" glen klesessler is the fact checker, giving pinnochios, his nose goes up in response to statements that after research, kessler finds to be exaggerations or willful distortions. read the fact checker. it really is an excellent column because what it shows is your point is absolutely right, that presidents do, in fact, play very loosely with the facts. in part, because they have points to make. and in part because some of these issues really are open to interpretation. but we, as citizens, now have a greater obligation and a greater means, i think, to at least to a certain degree hold them accountable. host: one final tweet from the rick. who says talk radio bashes the president. >> there is no question that the

argue culture in which we live -- host: the argue culture. i haven't heard that before. guest: i may have stolen it from someone else. i apologize to whoever coined the word. i think it is a fair concept for understanding just how partisan the nation has become. i have friends who will only listen to msnbc and others who only listen to fox. i do a lot of middle east analysis. i will go on both networks because it's critically important, i think. and you cannot get your information from one source. host: we are glad all of you are watching on c-span. holly, our last call from port stockton, republican line with aaron david miller. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i will try to keep it short and

keep my temper under control. i take issue that president obama has done everything he can to guard our borders. texas has an unprotected border. our militia law enforcement and national guard are down there protecting the border. and when he came to texas, he refused to go and see what the situation was, himself. and a lot of people think that we are safe. we are not. they caught six isis soldiers trying to cross at juarez, mexico. there was -- there is an unknown number of isis soldiers down there. facebook had a picture circulating, an isis soldier was seen at a jason's deli in houston. and so, the other issue

is that with obama care, there is 20-plus taxes and fees hidden in it. host: holly, i will stop you on that point. guest: we are safer. i would be the last person to suggest that somehow, any president has the capacity to hermetically seal the borders against the attacks. i would argue border security is an issue, a serious issue. it's part of the larger package, if you could actually negotiate one between the r's and the d's for a serious set of reforms on immigration. clearly is not going to happen. i am not entirely persuaded, though, on the isis issue. i urge you to look into the isis factor to see actually whether or not that, in fact, those reports are truly accurate. host: the book, "the end of greatness: why america can't have and doesn't want another great president," by author aaron david miller, thank you very much for being with us.

guest: thank you. along the shore discusses the future of the keystone xl pipeline in a republican-led congress. rezen talked about his book, the invisible front. youill take your calls and can join the conversation via facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] tomorrow on primetime, former obama administration officials got another book. it leon panetta on his book, worthy fight. robert gates talks about his book, duty. timothy geithner talked about his book, stress test. that begins at 8:30 p.m. eastern

on c-span two. here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span networks. holiday festivities start at 10:00 eastern on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree. followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama. and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. just after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activists talk about the causes. bushsamuel alito and jeb on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. eastern,2 at 10 a.m. venture into the article writing with steve pinker. then see the feminist side of a leporero as jill searches the history of wonder woman. on american history tv on c-span3 at 8 a.m. eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with footage of president george bush

and bob dole with speeches from john kennedy and robert reagan -- ronald reagan. theyon choices and how represented the styles of the times in which they live. at 10:00, tom brokaw on his more than 50 years of reporting on world events. that is christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. this month is the 10th anniversary of our sunday primetime program, q and day. we are featuring an encore presentation from each year, highlighting film makers, and reducing -- leading public policy makers. 2006, lonnie bunt on the importance of the african-american experience to u.s. history. from 2007, robert novak on reporting in washington.

trunk 2008, when new couture, on the value of education american. from 2009, sc called. a decade of compelling conversations. december 22 through the 26th. at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> massachusetts senator elizabeth warren talking about economic policy and actions by wall street at an event hope that's hosted by the group americans for financial reform. she also talked about her opposition to antonio wise to be treasury undersecretary for domestic henan. she talked about international bank dealings as a reason he would not be right for the job. toore she was elected congress, senator warren previously served as special advisor for the consumer protection bureau from 2010 to 2011. this is 25 minutes three.

[applause] >> ok. good afternoon, everyone. i am lisa donner, the executive of americans for financial reform. i want to thank you for coming on behalf of americans for financial and the economic holocene subdued and the roosevelt institute, with whom we are jointly sponsoring today's event. i'm going to quickly say something about you this afternoon then introduce senator warren so we can spend time listening to the senator before she needs to go. especially after the recent stronger job to it, next week's meeting of the market committee will be the occasion for a bunch of argument about whether the head should increase short-term interest rates and head off

risk-taking in the world of finances. jobthat is likely to hurt growth and throw a damper on economic recovery, which is already coming slowly too many people hit by the financial crisis and its aftermath. what if there are alternatives to dealing with bubbles and speculative dangers with regulatory tools targeted towards specific risks? what if using financial regulation effectively could allow the fed stimulate the economy in ways that deliver more benefits to working people and are less likely to further overburden the financial strength -- sector? janet yellen has talked about the importance of regulatory tools to deal with financial stability and has worked with the fed to put these in place. we think they are important questions and more attention. we want to dig in further. for many of us, putting these together is part of our continuing focus on deepening

our understanding and public recognition of the fundamentally important relationships between the financial system, financial regulation, and how the real economy works or fails to work for everyday americans. our first panel immediately after the senator speaks will focus on the downsides of relying on monetary policy for a the of stabilization and extent to which the fed should pull back and support for economic recovery to keep inflationary pressure in check. there will be a second keynote, and the panel will examine the regulatory tools available and determined to what extent they can be used to control financial risk. now for senator warren. we are fortunate to have the senator with us today and more fortunate to have her in the senate every day. we enjoy her leadership standing up to excessive economic power and political influence wall street. insisting that things need to be and can be different. and that regulators can make

different choices to get us there. we have been lucky enough to work with the senator on the creation of the new financial protection bureau. for a remarkable difference the approach can make. we are so glad to continue the conversation about continuing his pencils. senator warren? [applause] >> thank you. thank you for the kind introduction. thank you for this chance to join all of you here today. event focuses on how the federal reserve can use its monetary tools to promote itsomic growth and regulatory and supervisory tools to reign in our financial system. the fed has always had dual responsibility. regulatorylicy and and supervisory policy. in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, congress gave the fed even more regulatory and

supervisory authority than it had before. the new chair of the fact, janet yellen, recently acknowledged the board's supervisory responsibilities are just as as its better-known obligation to set interest rates and conduct monetary policy. i think the lapses that led to the 2008 crisis drove that point home with searing intensity. the fed is now our first line of defense against another crisis. we make progress through the dodd frank act, even so, the risk of another crisis remains unacceptably high. take just one example. fdicsummer, the fed and determined that 11 of the country's biggest banks had no credible plan for being resolved in bankruptcy.

if any one oft them takes on too much risk and starts to fail, the taxpayers would have to bail it out to prevent another crash. fed toall relying on the stop that from happening, which means we are all relying on the fed to get tough in regulating the biggest banks. the question is whether the bank regulators can do the job we need them to do. an issue about the influence of wall street on financial regulation and economic policy. it is an issue that affects not also the othert banking regulators, the treasury department, and our government's entire economic policymaking structure. so let's look at some facts. fact one. wall street spends a lot of time and money influencing congress. foric citizen and senator

responsive politics found in the run-up to dodd frank, the financial services sector former employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, including 73 former members of congress. a report by the institute of america's future, by 2010, the six biggest banks and their trade associations -- 243 lobbyist from the federal government, including chiefs of staff and 54 who had worked as staffers for the banking oversight committees in the senate and house. that is a lot of former government employees and congressman pounding on congress to make sure that the big banks get heard.

no surprise that the financial -- industry spent more than $1 million a day lobbying congress on financial reform. and a lot of that money went to a -- former elected officials and government employees. fact two. wall street dedicates in norma's amount of time and money to influencing regulatory policies. the sunlight foundation, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization took a look at the meeting logs from 2010 to 2012 of the treasury department, the commodities future trading commission, and the fed. they found those three agencies reported meetings with one of the 20 big banks or banking associations a combined 12.5 times per week. that is about five times as often as reform-oriented groups combined. that works out to nearly 1300

meetings over to years. jpmorgan met with those agencies at least 175 times or nearly twice per week, every week on average. keep in mind that is the count at three of the seven major regulators. fact three. haveratic administrations filled an enormous number of senior economic policy positions with people who have close ties to wall street. starting with robert rubin, a former citigroup ceo, three of the last four treasury secretaries under democratic presidents have had citigroup affiliations before or after their treasury service. the fourth was offered that declined. citigroup's ceo position. the new vice chairman of the

federal reserve, stanley fischer, was a citigroup executive. members of the economic council, the office of management and budget, our current trade representative, and senior officials at the trade department have also had citigroup ties. that is the record for just one single bank. senior officials in recent administrations have had ties to goldman, jpmorgan, bank of america, morgan stanley, or other major wall street firms. still more officials, including two recent appointees to the trading commissions, were lawyers who spent huge portions of their careers representing wall street institutions. this is the revolving door. it is most dangerous. virtually every economic policy discussion held in washington, the point of view of wall street banks is well represented.

so well represented, in fact, they often crowd out other points of view. that is the context for thinking about the nomination of antonio weiss. years atthe last 20 the investment bank, and he has been named to be undersecretary for domestic finance at the treasury department. he is focused on international corporate mergers, companies buying and selling each other. interesting, challenging work, but it does not sufficiently qualify him for overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the treasury department. in addition to his lack of basic qualifications, mr. weiss was part of the burger king in version deal that moved the u.s. company to canada as part of a merger that would cut down on its tax obligations. also note that mr. weiss'

friends at was art are giving him a golden parachute valued at about $20 million as he goes into government service. just one span of the revolving door too many. enough is enough. the response to these concerns has been let's say, loud. his supporters say,, on. he is an investment banker. he should be qualified to oversee collocated financial work at treasury. showns defenders have not that his actual experience qualifies him for this job at treasury. professor adam levinsohn, a law professor who teaches at georgetown, wrote a really good piece about this last week. he looked at each of the functions of the undersecretary

it,tion and, as he put almost none of that relates to the work of an investment banker doing international m&a. professor simon johnson, former chief economist at the imf, now teaches at m.i.t., agrees. he noted last week that this third most the senior official in the executive branch with regard to fiscal decision-making. , it is goes on to say hard to think of any senior fiscal official from a serious country with qualifications as weak as those of mr. weiss. professor leviton and professor johnson are right. i worked at treasury, and i know how critical this position is to financial regulation issues. despite what some of weiss'

supporters have said, the job is not to peddle u.s. treasuries to foreign investors. is aif it were, weiss corporate dealmaker, not a bond trader. professor leviton makes another good point about this. quoting professor leviton, the shock of mr. weiss' supporter that anyone would dare question his suitability reflects an unspoken assumption that anyone from wall street is, of course, expert in all things financial. oey. is ho we do not scratch our heads if ae president nominated theoretical physicist to be the surgeon general just because she had a background in science. it is no less puzzling for the president to nominate an international merger specialist to handle largely domestic economic issues at treasury

because he has a background in finance. weiss supporters say that burger king is not a classic in version deal. moved toer king canada, in a deal that would lower its taxes, i guess it was an on classic inversion. got it. but let's be clear, in august and september of this year, more than 2600 news stories mentioned are lurking in the context of tax inversions. there has been some debate over the details. people disagree about what the exact and locations will be for burger king and whether their taxes will go down a little or go down a lot. matter how many burger king executives line up in the newspapers to say that they had other motives, this is an inversion deal. mr. weiss was right in the middle of it.

now, this matters because at the end of the day, the administration undercut its own opposition to this practice by nominating someone to a high who was involved in a high profile cross-border conversion. made $15by the way, million in the last two years working for lazard, a firm that did three of the four major announced inversions. lazard is not an american company anymore either. it already moved to bermuda to cut its taxes. third, and maybe you can help me understand this argument. people say opposition to mr. weiss is unreasonable because -- wait for it -- he likes poetry. [laughter] >> i am actually not kidding on this one.

supposedly, because he helps publish a literary magazine called the paris review, we should trust he will zealously review financial reform. i do not read many literary magazines. but really? if you like monster truck racing, with that show that he supported wall street bailouts? i do not get what his hobby has to do with overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the treasury department. so what does this -- what is this really all about? why call out the cavalry for a guy whose experience does not match the job he has been nominated on? why circle the wagons around a guy who is picking up $20 million to take on a public service job? it is all about the revolving door. that well oiled mechanism that wall street executives to

make policies with the government and sans government policymakers straight back to wall street. weiss defenders are loudly door and the revolving telling america how lucky we aren't that wall street is willing to run the economy and the government. weiss supporters even defend golden parachutes like the $20 million payment that weiss will receive, lazard to take his government job. why? they say it is an important tool in making sure that wall street executives will continue to be willing to run government policymaking. now, if that sounds ridiculous to you, you are not alone. , a republican, and former head of the fdic, responded that only in the wonderland of wall street logic could one argue that this looks like anything other than a bribe.

, we want people entering public service because they want to serve the public. frankly, if they need a $20 million incentive, i would rather they stay away. why does the revolving door matter? well, because it means that too much of the time, the wind blows from the same direction. ,ime after time in government the wall street view prevails. and time after time, conflicting views are crowded out. consider the deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980's and 1990's, followed by the no strings attached bank bailout in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. and most recently, the anemic efforts to help homeowners who had been systematically cheated by financial giants. the wind always blows in the same direction.

the impact of the revolving door can sometimes be subtle. formerg phone calls from colleagues. no one likes to events policies that could shoot -- her future employers. relationships matter. anyone who doubts that wall street's outsized influence in washington has watered down our government approach towards to still big to fail banks has their eyes closed. take one example. brown kaufman was a proposed frank actto the dodd which would have broken up the nation's largest financial institutions. that amendment might have ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between wall streeters in government and wall streeters still on wall street. the hand in hand executives and officials on this was not subtle.

a senior treasury official publicly acknowledged it at the time. the revolving door rips the heart out of public service. jobs basedople get on who they know, not what they know. who might have brought a different perspective get crowded out. know there are experienced and innovative people in the financial industry who are qualified for top economic positions in government. setup the new consumer financial protection bureau, i interview, i hired, and i worked alongside many people with wall street experience. i was glad to do so. in the senate, i have voted for plenty of nominees with wall street experience. but we need a balance. not every person who swoops in through the revolving door

should be offered a top job without some serious cross-examination. qualifications matter. weiss does not have them. this is about building counter pressure on the wall street bankers. members of the congress, their staff, and regulatory agencies are going to hear the wall street perspective loud and clear. each and every minute of each and every day. that is not going to change. but we need a real mix of people in the room when decisions are made. when the president has an decide who will be at the financial decision-making table, he should think about who knows the of job creation, about community banks and access to financing for small business. about who has the skills and determination to make sure that the biggest banks cannot take down our economy again.

haveitans of wall street succeeded in pushing government policies that made megabanks rich beyond imagination while leaving working families to struggle from payday to payday. so long as the revolving door keeps spinning, government favor will continue to wall street over main street. i hope you will join me in saying enough is enough. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator warren. i think we are ready for our first --

>> monday night on c-span, national institutes francis collins talked about promising results and challenges facing cancer research today. it was part of the conference was by the aspen institute. here's a preview. >> it is amazing to see the inside>>. they are coming out of all sorts of technology we did not have before. the things we can do with imaging are phenomenal. the genomics revolution, giving us insight into how cells work and how things go wrong sometimes. the effort to understand the advents of electronic health records. all of these things coming together in a way i would not imagine would happen in my lifetime. we are not nurturing that engine of discovery the way that we could be. in a statistic that i think is particularly troubling and often times really discouraging to

young scientists who are thinking about getting into this field is the following -- what is your chance, if you have a great idea about cancer research , and it is preclinical, not something you are working at a company. you are working at an academic institution. where are you going to get funded? the nih. what is your chance? about one in six. traditionally, over matt -- the last 50 years, it has been one in three. the cancer institute, i think it is one in 10. even lower. >> you can watch all of the discussion with francis collins tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. tomorrow on book tv primetime, former obama administration officials talk about their book. defenseia director and secretary leon panetta on his book, worthy fight. robert gates talked about duty. and former treasury secretary

timothy. geithner talks about his book, stress test that begins at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two. here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas day on the c-span network. holiday festivities start at 10:00 eastern on c-span with the lighting of the national christmas tree, followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. just after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activists talk about their causes. then at 8:00, samuel alito and former governor jeb bush on the bill of rights and the founding fathers. on c-span2 at 10 a.m. eastern, venture into the art of good writing with deep thinker s --teve pinker. pamela paul talked about their reading habits.

on american history tv on c-span3 at 8:00 eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with outage of president george bush and bob dole. with speeches from john kennedy ronald reagan. at noon, fashion experts on first lady fashion choices and how they represented the styles of the time in which they lived. on his morem brokaw than 50 years of reporting on world events. that is christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. >> coming up tonight, q&a with katie back which. that is followed by british prime minister david cameron taking questions from the house of commons. the european parliament debates the release of the >> to mark a decade of

conversations on "q&a," we are featuring a discussion from each year. >> this week on "q&a," our guest is conservative commentator and author katie pavlich, the news editor of townhall.com. she talks about current issues and her new book. >> katie pavlich, a couple of weeks ago, the president of turkey said the following -- "you cannot put women and men on an equal footing. it is ns