hungry today, we know we will have a problem down the line. if we solve the problem and make sure children have access to healthy meals, whether that is at home, school, somewhere else along the way, we know they will be more productive members of our society. that is exactly what we need. to make sure that our economy continues to grow and that our next generation is as strong as possible moving forward. host: can a person on a federal program receive food from the state level as well? guest: the state and federal level work together very well. we see partnership there. the school-based programs we haven't talking about, those are federal nutrition programs. different states have different programs. caller: good morning.

caller: >> all over all of t people are migrating. they have no way to make an income. >> this is about food insecurity and food assistance programs. what questions do you have for that? caller: if they weren't in prison they would be able toe feed their children. host: move on to patricia, minneapolis, minnesota, republican line, hi. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the anecdotal evidence she provided that one child telling the teacher that he hadn't eaten all weekend. well, that would be an issue of child negligent -- neglect.

do you report these kids when they say things like they haven't eaten all weekend? the problem is with the family, with the mothers not cooking, whatever. i don't see how you could listen to a child say they hadn't eaten all weekend and leave it at that. guest: thanks for raising that issue. certainly i can clarify a little bit there. i think what this really goes back to is, again, as we look at the new numbers coming out this year that the issue of hunger is affecting families across the contry. this may be something as simple as a family didn't have any more money to spend on food an they didn't know how they were going to be able to go to the grocery store to provide food for their kids over that weekend. i think by and large parents want to do the right thing. they want to be able to feed their kids and make sure their kids are growing up healthy, but we know these are families that are living in poverty.

that may be working two or three jobs just to try to scape by. or that may be looking for jobs and out of work and trying to do best by their children. again it's important that that's why we have these safety net programs, but we do have a childhood hunger crisis in our country today and we need to make sure we are looking at solutions to that problem and making sure that both parents and children have access to these programs that will help them collectively become stronger. host: carol from carlsbad, new mexico. democrats line, hi. caller: first of all to the oman who called from virginia, it's not neglect. it's lack of. what i wanted to address is food banks. new mexico's high poverty, so our town has several food banks. here's the problem. my neighbors bring home food from the food bank, and it's usually five or six cakes, four

packages of doughnuts. a plethora of canned beans and canned enchilada sauces. the vegetables and fruits genuinely most are to the stage where they have to be thrown away. now, i know that food banks can only give what they get, and i'm wondering if there might be some sort of government address as to what -- >> live now to that discussion on pope francis' upcoming visit and view of capitalism, poverty, and inequality. hosted by the cato institute 8 -- just getting under way. >> welcome to the cato

institute. inaudible] >> throughout the world. as such leader of -- his pronouncements are clearly worthy of discussion and analysis. oday two issues. state of humanity and role of capitalism in bringing that state of humanity about. the comprehension is that the ope is troubled by both. that the majority of our

contemporaries are living from ay to day. inequality is increasingly evident. he's also repeatedly criticized unbridled ceived pursuit of money. our panel will help us understand -- truly believe that the world is becoming worse and capitalism is to blame or whether his views can be misinterpreted. before introducing the panel, of you mayat -- some be familiar with human progress which at the cato institute website where we try to ascertain the state of humanity by using or looking at different statistics. so let's consider four issues which are of importance to the pope.

wealth, health, poverty, and inequality. this graph shows you the evolution of income per capita around the worrell since the birth of jesus until 2010. as you can see between year one and about 1800s incomes per stagnant. roughly doubling for about $3 per capita per day to about $5 per capita per day by 1800. then in 1800 to 2010, income per capita rise tenfold to about $50 per day. in part of the industrial revolution and trade. now, together with the increasing incomes has come about the fold in absolute poverty. in 198050% of humanity lived in

absolute poverty. by 2010, that number has declined to about 14%. by 2030 it is expected absolute poverty will have been radicated. with the rise of asia, primarily two of the world's most poverty china and india. following china in 1978 incomes has grown 13 fold. india in 1992 incomes have risen threefold. and the rise of china is connected to the issue of inequality. during communism in china, there was a very high degree of equality of income, but also high degree of poverty when people didn't have any incentive to work because they couldn't keep the money they earned, they didn't produce very much.

t because of liberalization, income equality has grown. that's been the case for many countries in the world. now, on the other hand inequality between people, which is to say between individuals in the world, has actually declined. that is because many poor countries, including china, are increasingly catching up with the global efforts. lastly, we could be talking about declines in infant mortality or child mortality. we could be talking about vance in the war against cancer. but the best approximate measure of health around the world still remains life expectiancy. for most of our species, from about 200,000 years ago until

about 100 years ago, the life expectancy around the world was about 25 years. in 1900 in the richest countries in the world, europe and north america, life expectancy rose only 15 years. t in 2010, and global life expectiancy 71 years. so how do we reconcile some of the data? i want to welcome our panel today. john var garvey, our first speaker is president of the cathyick university of america. he was the dean of boston ollege law school from 1999 to 2010. and 2008 he was the president of the association of american law schools. he has practiced law with the firm of marches den in san francisco.

taught at notre dame, michigan, and kentucky. co-author of numerous books including religion and the constitution and sexuality and the u.s. catholic church. from 1981 to 1984, he was the assistant to the solicitor general of the united states and he was elected to the american law institute in 1982. please welcome john. [applause] john: thank you very much. thanks for having me down here. i have never been to the cato institute. i'm surprised. i have so many friends who work here. so let me begin with a little quiz. i want you to answer mentally the following three questions. who said this? first, you're not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man but you you are giving him back what is his? the earth belongs to everyone not to the rich. his was pope paul the sixth.

equally worrying is the ecological question, man consumes the earth, he's embarked upon a senseless destruction of the natural environment. his is st. john paul ii. last, how can we quen winly teach the importance of concern troubled humanings if we fail to protect the human embryo even when it's presence is uncomfortable. this is pope francis. much of what pope francis says is new and shocking because he has a colorful style. he's associated with a long tradition of social teachings. the differences the media like to draw between him and his predecessors, especially the immediate ones, are maybe often storylines that we bring to the material rather than genuine changes in church teaching as francis himself said and

proposed his beliefs about and teachings about marriage and contraception and abortion, i'm a son of the church. i want to talk about poverty and what he might mean by it and the authoritativeness of church teachings. let me again with the poor. care for the poor has been a major theme of the pope's teaching when you chose the name francis it was in part, he said, because st. francis is the man of poverty. the emphasis isn't surprising. he's the first pope from latin america, where the rates of extreme poverty are much higher than those we see in the united states. yet his idea that we who have more have a responsibility to people who have less, sometimes called the preferential option for the poor, isn't an original idea with him. francis, the pope, quotes st. john chrisies tomorrow, lived in the fourth century from 350 to the early 400s.

his homily on lazarus and the rich man here's what he said. not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and and takeway their livelihood. it's not the own goods we hold but theirs. that we have a duty to share our wealth in turn to rise from a couple of other very catholic ideas, the first is the notion that each of us has an inherent dignity because we are children of god. not just catholics. the book of genesis says every man and woman is created in god's image and likeness out of love. the other is the notion that we are made to live in community and god gives us creation not to serve just our own individual goods but the common good. and the way we use property. here's leo the 13th, pope in the 19th century quoting st. thomas aquinas. man should not consider his

material possessions as his own but as common to all so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. the thing is the mistake we all make in hearing stuff like that is thinking that the pope is making a political argument. the idea that we ought to share our wealth isn't a plank from the socialist party platform, it's a spiritual counsel. if you want to inherit eternal life, jesus told the rich young men, go and sell what you have and give to the poor. this is the message the pope delivered when he made a trip to korea in 2014. he said to the young people there, that they needed to combat the materialism that stifles authentic spiritual and cultural values and the spirit of unbridled competition, which generates selfishness and trife. -- l, in writings like evan

in the speeches and homily, pope francis has pretty harsh words for free market capitalism. he calls the economy an economy of exclusion and inequality, an economy that kills. he criticizes trickle-down theories of economics and the economic changes he calls for seem more revolutionary than reformatory. these are strong words for a system that seems both necessary and beneficial. you just heard some interesting data about the effect that free market capitalism has had. i recently read in arthur brooks' new book, the conservative heart, the expansion of free market capitalism is responsible for a great reduction in world poverty. the number he says living in starvation level of poverty, which he defines, declined by 80% between 1970 and 2010. and he says the institutions that deserve credit for this

decline are globalization and free trade and property rights and the rule of law and entrepreneurship. so what's up with the compared to brooks the pope seems like a crip toe socialist with a little confidence in free market capitalism and little understanding of the benefit of growing the economy. so who's right? it isn't quite that simple. in the first place the pope believes that work is important even holy. he says in -- that it is a noble vocation. for this reason he says we don't want a comprehensive welfare state. welfare should be a provisional solution not a permanent one. our goal ought to be to provide a dignified life for everybody through work. and businesses and markets are an essential part of this task. the second place it's true that francis understands the importance of growing the economy to provide jobs.

he recently spoke to -- in pair way the following of every culture needs economic growth and the creation of wealth. what he asks of businesspeople is that they not only increase the goods of this world but also make them more accessible to everybody. so why the seeming condemnation of the market? the central point of his teaching, i think, is that the market is a tool that's subordinate to the good of human beings. it mustant be the measure of human goods or the ends to which we bend other things. when that happens the problem is even human beings themselves are considered consumer goods to be used and then disguarded. the summer he gave a speech at the world meeting of popular movements in bolivia and spoke words very much like this. he described the global economy as a system that imposes the mentality of profit at any price. -- he was in pair gay he

paragay he said, on the altar of money and profit. it would be tempting to dismiss the pope's words as inflammatory rhetoric if they weren't literally true. today as the pope has highlighted on many occasions we throw away children more than 40 million a year through abortion. the great majority from the developing world. this summer the center for medical progress released a series of videos about planned parenthood selling the limbs and organs of aborted children as commodities to medical researchers. limbs that god had together in the womb that saum 139 says has become line items on an invoice. a human being made and known by god is deemed more valuable dead than alive. francis also points out we throw away the elderly in nursing homes and poor in slums and young people who are struggling to find work.

the unemployment rate for young people in italy is north of 40%. and the pope's goal goal in speaking so often about the poor is to bring them to our attention. he decries the fact that poverty has become so commonplace it's acceptable. he asks, how can it be that it's not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure? but it is news when the stock market loses two points? this is a case of exclusion. can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? this is a case of inequality. almost without being aware of it, he says, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor. so i said i wanted to talk about the poor, the environment, and then about the authoritativeness about his teaching. a word or two about the environment. the most surprising thing about this encyclical is how little

space francis actually devotes to the thing we usually talk about when we focus on the environment of the in the first chapter he spends a lot of time talking about pollution and global warming and a loss of bio diversity, the standard fare of ecological talks. he's just as worried about a deterioration in what he calls human ecology. he finds symptoms of that in almost every aspect of human life. he talks about the loss of green spaces in the cities, about an increase in violence, about social exclusion, about the rise of drug trafficking. even has bad words to say about the internet. he says that there's a deterioration of interpersonal communication when we talk to one another on phones and devices that shield us from direct contact with the pain, pier -- fears, and joys of others. these are all symptoms of the same disease. francis condemns what he calls a techno contractic paradigm in modern society. a tendency to treat it as open

manipulation for us to master and transform. it's not. nature is god's art. it's impressed on things. and living beings, not just people, have a value of their own which we should respect. we have, we might say, rightly, a moral relationship with the earth itself in all of this he sounds sometimes like peter of the sierra club. he goes on to say man, too, is god's gift to man. we are part of creation. our own relation was one another, he says, are an ecological issue, and he, unlike the usual proponents of the environmental movement, condemns the idea that we should have a reduction in the birth rate, especially in the developing world, as a solution to climate change. he stresses the inconsistency of those who would protect endangered species while promoting abortion. even says our own bodies are combod's gift and we must accept our own femininity and

masculinity as part of his ecological program. this encyclical got a lot of criticism more from the right than from the left before its publication. some people pointed out shades of galileo that the church has no expertise in science and shouldn't attempt to settle scientific matters. and he acknowledges this. he says on many concrete questions the church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion. but he is concerned that the lack of clarity should become an excuse for our doing nothing. we have to choose to treat the environment one way or another. and we have to make those decisions with the best information available and when we do act, our actions should be guided by the same principles that he invokes to govern the economy. he says that environmental action can't come at the expense of the poor or of future generations. his most significant point, i think, is that environmental debate is not a scientific

prerogative. scientists should measure temperatures and shorelines and predict trends and so on, but when we act on this information, we need a moral perspective. that's what he says the church ought to offer. let me close with a few words, too, about the authority of these statements that he's making. the first of the two words i want to offer is that we should all, especially catholics, pay respectful attention to what he's saying. some conservative catholics responding to the pope's comments on the economy and the environment sound like nancy pelosi responding to church teaching about abortion and marriage, they say that the pope ought to leave science to scientists, economics to businesspeople and stick to theology. but this has not been the church's understanding of her responsibility. faith is not a spiritual hobby. it affects every aspect of life and there is a long tradition of popes on economics. i might quote again pope leo the

13th, founder of the catholic university of america, who wrote about the interconstitution of private property and the right of laborists to unionize and bargain collectively. that's the first point. he does have something to say and worth listening to. second, i do want to adjust a note of care or caution maybe because i'm a lawyer but attentive to these kinds of things. cath can licks are expected to teach -- catholics are expected to teach church teaching as author at this tifment but this authority is a complex thing. not every statement a pope makes, for example, is to be treated as infallible. the doctrine of papeable infality is something like the clear statement rule that courts use in interpreting statutes. a pope speaks only when he, quote, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. the phrase definitive act here

means that he must make perfectly clear his intention to speak infallibly and otherwise it's not that keend of statement. now, not to say we can cast aside the rest of them, below the level of infallible statements, there are many documents with different weights of authority. for example there was a big rash of news stories last week about changes in the annulment process for failed marriages. in may the pope published an encyclical, one on the environment. this carries more weight than what's called an apostolic exhortation. 's len still are the homilies that the pope gives on scripture readings at mass. beneath that, far beneath that are the chats he has on irplanes with reporters. francis makes clear his recommendations are not intended to have infallible force. here's what he says. neither the pope nor the church

has a mon no pli on the interpretation of social realities or solutions to contemporary problems, it is difficult for us to put forward a solution which has universal validity. this is not our ambition nor is it our mission. it is up to christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own contry. we, americans, are the most -- country. we, americans, are the most intellectually imperialistic of cultures. we imagine the pope is speaking to us. forget t we are a all fraction of the church's population around the world. there are other countries that need tos listen more than we do. let me add one last thing about authoritativeness. of papal teachings also varies with the subject matter, this, too, is an idea a familiar one to lawyers. that the united states supreme court has ultimate authority to interpret the federal constitution, but as every first year law student knows, erie railroad holds the court has no

such authority in matters of state law. it is with the church whose jurisdiction is limited to matters of faith and morals. now, not to say that the environment, economy, don't have implications for those, but the pope's teaching on astronomy rightly deserve less respect than galileo's. within the domain of faith and morals there is a spectrum of issues. don't mean to say we should cast this a aside. there are things revealed in the gospel message as the cannon --ianon lawyers say. say. yon -- canon lawyers there are things which have been taught, always and everywhere, like the evil of certain sins. you know what they are. then there's a range of other things to which the church speaks with diminishing degrees of authority recognition. the cannonization of saints and

so on. i don't mean to say we need to discount all of this. only that this is a really complex matter in the ways that many moral and legal questions are. don't put too much stock in what you hear the pope said on an airplane. joe. thanks very much. [applause] joe: thank you very much. our next speaker is michael winters who writes an award winning blue dog, distinctly catholic, at the national catholic reporter a daily commentary in politics, religion, and culture. he's also the u.s. correspondent for the tablet, the london based international catholic weekly. he worked as a speechwriter on clark's and the author of "left at the affletar" how democrats lost the catholics and how catholics can save the democrats. he is a visiting fellow at the catholic university's institute for policy research and catholic

studies. please help me welcome mr. winters. [applause] michael: i also have never been to cato before. don't often get to start a talk with latin, but i thought i would do so with perhaps his ost famous line. which usually shorten, cathage must be destroyed. if we replace the word carthage with the case free market ideology, we can imagine pope francis using the most famous of cato's lines. popes don't usually use such language as the verb to destroy. perhaps we could say pope francis could say that free market ideology needs to be repealed and replaced. i heard that phrase in the last few years. but in any event we don't have to speculate about what he has said. we can look at what he has said. i'll borrow on some of the same

quotes that president garvey did. this economy kills. some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth encouraged by a free market will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. this opinion which has never been confirmed by the facts expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the zachery liesed workings of the prevailing economic system. he has preetedly condemned the idolatry of the market. he has said in the speech to which president garvey referred to, when capital becomes an idol, you get pain, death, and destruction and the stench of what basil of seize rea called the dung of the devil. these are strong words. i would like to make the case that the pope's critique of premarket ideology is traditional, systemic, ethical,

and finally anthropological. it is supremely traditional, pope benedict xvi said the position of the economy must be awe tonnist. must be fielded from influences of moral cake templet led man to view the process in a destructive way. pope john paul ii said the state of inequality between individuals and nations not only stills, it is increasing. it is obvious that a fundamental defect or series of defects, indeed a defective machinery, is at the root of contemporary economics and materialistic civilization which does not allow the human family to break free from such situations. john paul ii also said in speaking of the poor and disadvantaged, a question of not only alleviating the most serious and urgent needs through individual actions here and there, but uncovering the roots of evil and proposing initiatives to make social, political, and economic structures more just and

fraternal. pope paul 6th condemn autonomy. a phrase i see professor steve here the directoff of catholic university's institute for policy research, we ran a symposium last year called erroneous autonomy, the catholic case against libertarianism. we had a follow-up conference in june on faith and solidarity. again using erroneous autonomy as highlighting the differences between libertarian thought and catholic social thought. one of my favorite quotes is from pius the 11th who wrote, just as the unity of of human society cannot be found on opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to free competition of forces. for from this source as from a poisoned spring have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic thinking. we could go back even further to the gospel in which the blessed

virgin mary says, he has filled the hungry with good things and the rich he has sent away empty. so what is the difference with pope francis? i would submit that it is he is quite blunt and you can't spin him. john paul ii and benedict xvi were often interpreted by conservative voices to an american audience. they brought a distorting lens to what both those two great popes had to say. with pope francis there is no need to interpret him. it's funny one of the early criticisms of pope francis, he's very confusing. there's nothing confusing about him. you can talk to some immigrant workers who work picking the tomatos that will help with our salad at lunch, they are not confused by the pope. the people leveling that charge don't like what he has to say. the critique is systemic. the change that pope francis calls for is not merely the individual capitalist become more virtuous. he's in favor of virtue and

opposed to advice, it's deeper than that. if that was the case, only a matter of people behave more virtuously, any system would dofment madison saying if men were angels, there would be no need of government. the pope's critique of the free market system has two tracks. one based on facts on the ground. the other at the level of theory. in both he's not only condemning excesses, he's condemning the system itself. as a theory, free market ideology opposes almost all government and intervention in the market. but pope francis and catholic social teaching do not share this horror of government. government an expression of the common good. government is called upon to enact justice. 2 n ball 2 said -- john paul said quote it's not directed against the market but demands the market be appropriately controlled. you could compare this liberty is always he freedom from the government. as ben -- benedict xvi markets

out, it provides no room for gratuitous us in. pope francis would add mercy. the mosaic law which provides for tithes to the poor. the biggest problem i think was self-interest vs. the universal destination of goods. self-interest is a sin and can't be wiggled into a virtue by reference to its socially creative consequences. as david schindler has pointed you out, christians mean something very different by creativity from what capitalists mean. pope francis when he deals with on of these issues pulling -- schindler pulls, the overlap is obvious. primary foundation for social teaching is the universal destination of goods. which means all the goods of the world are to be distributed so everyone has enough to live and to participate in society.

this claim is prior to property rights. classic to mystic theory holds that private property rights can be recognized but only as a consequence of the fall. the original sin. another point of divergence that comes up all the time is premarket ideologues always seem to have it in for organized labor. going back the church's explicitly enforced the -- endorsed the right of workers to unionize and never drawn a distinction between public and private sector workers and their right to organize. turning to the lived reality i think this is even more important for pope francis. he has said on several occasions reality is more important than ideas. it is oftenar serted with some basis in fact as marian pointed out at the beginning that capitalism and others have lifted millions out of poverty, but if at the same time it excludes others, it is an unjust system and unworthy of the human

person. inadequate as an economic system. with a look at the transpacific trade deal which seems to be stalled but if it goes through, one of the things we can anticipate is certain jobs in factories in the nations currently subject to the cafta accords in central america will go to vietnam and malaysia. these trade accords, they invite a race to the bottom with wages. we could look at the issue of debt crises. austerity which harms the poor, why is that always the first option? i was pleased to see last month that the puerto rican bishops and other religious leaders have called for a different approach to the crisis that puerto rico is facing where it's an odd situation in puerto rico. they fall between the stool of -- they are not a sovereign nation, they can't work with the i.m.f. they are not a city or state so they can't go into bankruptcy. they have asked for the fed to help them restructure the debt and start not with mandating

austerity but giving a haircut to the hedge funds. i'm for that. that's a good idea. we can look at the 2008 economic meltdown here and around the world. even alan greenspan, who i'm sure as devoted to free market adecember as anyone in public life in the laugh 50 years admitted the crisis forced him to rethink his assumptions. at the microlevel we can point to, again this attack on unions. we saw scott walker roll out an attack on that. i will stand with leo the 13th who defended unions. we can consider the circumstance of a shop owner who wishes to provide a living wage. the phrase living wage entered the american lexicon in 1906. john a. ryan's dissertation at catholic university. based on leo's writings. catholic belief is every person is entitled to a living wage. but if this shop owner who is a good catholic and wants to live by his faith, extends a living wage and his competition across

the street doesn't, what in the market rewards the good guy? it was observed in the book unintended reformation, commenting on the transformation to a capitalist system, outside the price protection agorded by gilds, capitalsist practices compel competitors to act as if they were driven by desires even if they were not. it was described the shift from the good society to the goods society. which raises an additional problem with capitalism. it is married to consumerism. i suppose in some theo rhettical construction that was not necessary but that's how it's played out. i think you can say we capitalists in the west have succeeded where the communists failed. making a culture that is thoroughly materialistic. instead of one big party we have many idols in our department stores. i think of the war on christmas every year when fox news gets

worked up because this department store, chain, has dropped merry christmas in favor of happy holidays. if you walkthrough a department store between thanksgiving and christmas, and you think the choice of happy holidays is the problem with what modern consumer capitalism has done to christmas, i would suggest you have missed the point. they have taken a holiday about god becoming poor in human flesh and turned it into a chance to teach young children how to be greedy. that's what christmases has become in this country. i turn now to the ethical considerations and difficulties. there is some debate in free market circles about whether or not the free market ideology even contains a moral sense. milton freeman said economic freedom is an end in itself. freedom has nothing to say about what an individual does with his freedom. more on the issue of freedom in a bit. hiatt compared free market to a game which there is no sense in calling the result just or unjust, close quote. in this view the market is a

mere tool that can be used well or badly with efficiency as the only rell van criteria. i think this is wrong. tools always imply results can be efficient and unjust at the same time. pope francis warned about using efficiency and technology as the only criteria for evaluating economic and other social activity in his encyclical on the environment. i would argue there is a very obvious ethics at the heart of market ideology by posing a few questions. what values does the market celebrate? who are its heroes and comparing these with the catholic view? the market celebrates the self-made man. not the man who evidences solidarity. it celebrates thrift and frugality, not gratuitousness or generosity or simplicity which has a different flavor from frugality. the market demands self-assertion not self-surrender.

the market celebrates success and pope francis like all catholics worships a crucified god. the market runs on competition not cooperation. need i go on? american capitalism was celebrated in a show called "lifestyles of the rich and famous." pope francis has ministered in the name of christ to the poor and forgotten. the christian ethical vision has been clouded in u.s. culture. we have tended to confuse fortune with blessing. pope francis reminds us that the good news of the gospel is brought to the poor. or if i may quote that great ethical wit, dorothy parker, if you want to know what god thinks of money, look at the people he ave it to. [laughter] finally we'll turn to the an throw poe lonlical difference. i'm not talking about excavating for tools from 500 years ago. the church means something very rich and specific when it refers

to the human person. and that is a social meaning not autonomous understanding. i think these examples will highlight this difference. critics of government entitlement programs complain that they create a culture of dependency. in a pedestrian sense this criticism is valid. programs should not -- should create on ramps to participate fully in society not create disincentives to work or form a family. but at a deeper level a culture of entitlement and dependency is precisely what free market ideology cannot different but what the christian vision demands. people really are entitled to a living wage. they are entitled to a roof over their heads. to a secure retirement. they are entitled to access to health care. and for christians, the human person is radically dependent. first on god every time we say grace, from thy bounty. and secondly on one another. the bond of dependence is called

solidarity or neighborliness. i'm reminded it was said we would gain, quote, from not treating one another as neighbors, close quote. jesus said we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. the christian vision requires a focus on the holy other god and on the face of the other our fellow men and women. indeed, for the christians a disposition to generosity and human retions always takes priority. david schindler said selfishness becomes mutual is not yet mutual generosity. another point of difference the anthropological level is this word freedom. a deeply ambiguous word made to carry far too much weight in a variety of political discussions. negative freedoms that we have at the basis of our constitutional system and that the freed men in hiatt quotes referred to earlier, this is not the freedom of the children of god. the catholic church cannot

accept negative freedom from conception as a freedom as adequate. we saw this in the debate over the decree of religious liberty. everyone focuses on the big debate between the advocates of religious freedom versus its opponents. but the more interesting debate was among the murrayites who did embrace the kind of american constitutional, very rigid concept of freedom, and the intelligence who saw the problems . when asked about this because that document like many documents was a consensus document, a year later it was said this was an issue we have to skate around. as we have seen in the issues surrounding the h.h.s. contraception mandate, and i would argue here on these issues of economic liberty, we can no longer skate around. the ice is gone far too thin. the catholic faith teaches that we humans are called to communeon to solidarity with god

and with -- communeon to solidarity with god and one another. everything the church teaches about human relations including economics flows from our belief the human person is created in the image and likeness of god. our most foundational belief about god is the trinity that god is himself a communeon of persons it is in this imang we are created. -- image we are created. to denounce or demean solidarity, to celebrate an autonomous self and build and economic theory around that is to challenge the christian's basic belief who god is. in this great free contry of ours we are all free to stand, i'm much happyier to stand with pope francis. [applause] >> thank you very much. our last speaker is j.w. richards, a research professor in the school of business and economics at the catholic university of america.

he's an executive editor of the stream and senior fellow at the discovery institute. richards is author of many books, including the nork sometimes' best-selling books infiltrated in 2013, and indivisible in 2012. he's also the author of money, greed, and god which won the 2010 templeton enterprise award. his articles have been published in harvard business review, "wall street journal," "washington post," and many other prestigious venues. with that please welcome welcome j.w. richards. [applause] >> it's fun to you with you and here for these subjects. since i went last i realized many of things i was going to say are things that president garvey has said or michael said. i'm going to change my plans a little bit. i do want to address this question about how we understand pope francis because most -- unless you are a full-time pope

follower, you write for a catholic publication or each at a public university, virtually everything you know or think you know about any pope except this one is coming second or third hand from the media. very often what he actually says is something different from what he says. michael quoted his statement about the dung of the devil. you quoted the actual statement that pope francis said. if you google that, what you'll see is pope francis called capitalism the dung of the devil. though in the speech he doesn't use the word capitalism. that's what odd about many of the things that pope francis says. he very rarely actually uses the word capitalism. that perhaps is deliberate. my favorite example, though, is media distortion has nothing do with these topics. last year pope francis spoke to the upon tiskal academies of science and was talking about how the catholic and catholic theology understands god. it was reported in the english speaking press the pope said to these scientist that is god is

not a divine being. let that sink in. the pope said that god is not a divine being. so when i saw this if i could make money just finding media distortions i would try to monetize it. this can't possibly be right the pope would say this. i went to the vatican news site, look at the english translation there. it was there. that's where the meeta had gotten it. so i went to the original speech which had a been did -- was in italian, what he said is god is not a dimier. a technical term that essentially says god is not just the top member of the universe. he's a tran sendent creator over everything. straight forward christian catholic thee ol gy. once translated like a game of telephone internationally, had the pope saying god is not a divine being. when ever you are tempted to think i know for sure what the pope is saying, remember that. that's how bad it can get. what we are going to talk about

here for a few minutes today and much of what i wanted to say has been said, is this idea of capitalism through the eyes of pope francis. that's really what i want to focus on. i mention pope francis very rarely actual uses the word capitalism. until yesterday i hadn't been able to find an example of him using the term at all. it turns out if the story is to be trusted a year ago or two years in 2013, he gave a talk to a soup kitchen in rome in which he referred to something called savage capitalism. i thought ok, perfect. here we go. when you look to see what he meant, the way he defined this term savage capitalism, was the logic of profit at any cost. that's a very specific idea we can debate that a fair interpretation of capitalism as it's normally defend. it's clear to see that's what he had in mind. as president garvey said, many of the things the pope writes,

including in this most sent -- recent encyclical, he doesn't say a lot about these particular things. in fact, in his apostolic letter, if i'm correct it was only about eight pages in which he discusses economic topics at all. he does say this from pages 53 to 60. he says we must say no -- this is a direct quote. to an economy of exclusion. we must say no to the new idolatry of money. we must say no to a financial system that rules rather than serves. and we must say no to the inequality which spawns violence. so if you're a defender of the free market, ask yourself the question, do you disagree with that? anything that he said here? would you say no to an economy of exclusion or idolatry of money or to an inequality that spawns violence? e does, however, say, he

specifically condemns what he calls the absolute autonomy of markets. this is a term he's used several times. as michael said pope francis and benedict also used the term like that. the same document, i want to reiterate these things even though you have heard them once, he says first of those who continue to defend trickle-down theories which assumes that economic growth encouraged by free market will inevitably succeed in bringing about great justice and inclusiveness of the world. such a view, he writes, which has never been confirmed by the facts, express as crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power in the workings of the prevailing economic system. we can no longer trust in the unseen forces and in the invisible hand of the market. i think it would be fair to say, i'd love to try to spin this and some people try to do, this especially those of us who think of the alternatives that economic freedom is the best

thing to go, like to spin this away. i do think at least pope francis -- let me fix on this year. michael was telling me beforehand this is the reason he doesn't use power points. there you go. you have another reason. stick with the yellow pad. i do think it's fair to say that his view of capitalism at least as he understands it is generally not positive. he does have positive things to say about business and its role in creating wealth and jobs. i think that's the best that we could say. taking together so his apostolic letter in his most recent encyclical, i think the better thing to do is focus on what pope francis primarily is saying. what he's intending to say and what he does say because he says

many things over and over. i think we can take these and sort of recurring teams in his own thought on this subject. he speaks frequently about what he calls speculation. he used it last week speaking in italy, believe, to a cooperative bank association. actually in rome. he talks about economic ideologies that deny human dignity. that embrace selfishness and greed. talks again a lot about the idolatry of money and ideologies. a lot about greed. comes up again and again. michael said a lot about inequality. this doesn't distinguish him from virtually any other pope in the 20th or now the 21st century. he does invoke, as you heard a minute ago, the idea of the invisible hand. to paraphrase, you can no longer trust in the sort of guidance of this invisible hand which is the term that adam smith came up with. interestingly smith, so far as i can tell, never used the term

twice, that's what most people around what he said. behind all this, i think this is a crucial point, whenever pope francis is talking about these things, invariably he has one subject in mind. poverty. poverty is precisely the thing that motivates everything that he says about these. if you tend to be very zeptical of the things francis says about the economy, at least understand this. that the things he says he says not simply because of some kind of ideological predilection, he's profoundly concerned about the poor and has president garvey said, the reason he took the name francis is because of his concern about the poor. nevertheless, i think it's fair to say someone -- my twitter handle incidentally is free marketjay, so you know where i'm coming from. some of the thing he says deals sometimes like a caricature. that's not anything i would ever defend. it's not anything that any of the people i admire would defend.

the question is where does he specifically get the ideas that he has about what free market capitalism or entrepreneurial capitalism are? i think actually a fairly clear reason for that. it requires us to make the useful distinction. many of the things he says about the global financial system, about the financial crisis, as marian said i wrote a book in 2013 on the financial crisis. this is an abiding interest of mine. many of the things he says about the financial system ring true. when talking about that. it's just when i read him on that they ring true to me not as a critique of free market capitalism but as a critique of something we might call cronyism or corporatism. insofar as you understand what he talks about and what he's saying, in that light, if you ay ok, what he is could he noting or denoting, what he's referring to is, not the views of smith but the corporatism and cronyism that often stands in for those things. some degree in the united states

but certainly in many countries in south america. this i think is really important because pope francis as an arbegin teen has experienced for his entire life a particularly brutal form of what i would call sort of hard corporatism, if you want to call it that. many of you may not know much argentina,in tina -- there are a lot of things to realize about his experience and things he says when he speaks about things like the socioeconomic system in terms like this that he uses fairly vaguely. in 1900 arbegin tina -- arbegin continuea was one of the world's 10 wealthiest nations. because of this there was massive immigration from northern europe. you don't think of it this way anymore. it's largely the result of juan peron and his wife who came into power in an ideology that's very

difficult to describe and left, right american spectrum. you sort of think of it as a populous leftism which is many aristocratic contempt for the commerce class and highly populist rhetoric which appeals to the common people. implements political programs essentially a form of cronyism in which large economic actors work in clution with the -- collusion with the state to enrich themselves not the common people. if you think about what pope francis is saying in that light, think about his experience of cronyism in argentina, much of what he says makes sense. i don't want to say he clearly makes the distinction. he does not distinguish between the type of cronyism that's rife in arbegin tina -- argentina and the free economy you you have in

a place like south korea. he doesn't make these distinctions and i would like to see him make those. it's absolutely important in reading what he says to understand his experience. what about argentina is an economic basket case. the most recent index comes in 169th out of 178 countries on the planet in terms of economic freedom. . if you're in south america and the caribbean, the only countries that do worse are venezuela and cuba. so whatever you want to say about argentina, this is not a b.a.s.s.ian of free market capitalism. it's a very powerful overbearing state, several large presumably private economic actors in which massive amounts of inequality, not the kind of benign inequality that defines

everyone in this room and let's say bill gates. he form of inequality of peasantry living in shan'ty towns. now, that is your picture of capitalism of the global economy, then what pope francis says absolutely makes sense. so here's the question. what to do? imagine, for instance, you're a catholic philosopher or an economist and looked at these things, looked at the impurecal details, you have no delusions that any economic system is going to bring about heaven on earth. you have no sense that there's a etaupia. nevertheless you saw on impurecal grounds that economic systems and economic freedoms that seems to be defended in terms of rule of law, low levels of corruption, a minimally populist is the best of the economic opportunities for lifting large numbers of people out of absolute poverty.

that is if you're aware, for instance, of the many things you can see at humanprogress.org, if you follow it on twitter every single day, these are impurecal facts. e are not in position to compete different ideologies. we're asking an impurecal question. what mix of structures and institutions and economic structures is most conducive to human flourishing and most condeucing to lifting large numbers of people out of poverty? what if you're a faithful catholic, an orthodox catholic and convinced it's free economic systems to do this? what are you to do? this is the sort of dilemma. to understand what one needs to do you have to actually understand a few things about the way in which authority works in the catholic church and the authority of the imagine steerian. and you have to make distinction. so everyone -- at least

everyone that's not catholic, all of my evangelical friends, , it sked them to study says that everything the pope says is infallable. you can discuss this in about five minutes with a really good google search. that tends to be people's impression how it works. there is a detailed sort of historical body of text that have come to be called catholic social teaching by convention the popes applying to particular themes, both from catholic theology but also from natural law to the sort of current abiding questions of economic and politics. and i would sort of refer to the central abiding -- and i would say infallable core of these things as the principles that you see articulated and presupposed in these documents of catholic social teaching.

at the same time i think it's a mistake to think that catholic social teaching equals some detailed catholic political policy. it's not as if it articulates in detail the precise details, for instance, of how a tax system should be put together or how immigration policy should be put together in a way that's both just and prudent. it provides a set of principles that i would argue actually write a wonderful lens and a clarifying lens through thinking through these issues. this is not the catholic political position and that's why catholics of good faith can nevertheless differ and disagree on particular political topics. while nevertheless adhering to the principles of catholic social teaching. here's how pope john paul ii put it and i don't think it's anything idiosyncratic on this thinking. so this is not a third way of liberal capitalism and maxxism. not --

it doesn't mean that it's ortog national. it is sealed from economic concerns. that would be the fundamental mistake. what it means they provide a set of moral and philosophical categories by which if you're a faithful catholic you ought to reflect on these things. for instance, the intrinsic dignity of the human person, the universal destination of good, solidarity, subsidiarity, the common good, these are categories you must and ought to bring to all of these questions. that's not going to answer every single question about, say, what level the minimum wage ought to be set. that's a prudential question based upon your sort of analysis and conclusions based on the sort of the impurecal details as far as you understand them. benedict xvi, so pope francis' immediate predecessor actually put it very nicely this way before he was pope when he was

the head of the congregation of the doctrine of faith. here's how he put it. he was talking about morality and economics and how these things should interact. i take this to be, yes, catholic social teaching is not a third way. it's not a full completely filled out political system but neither is it irrelevant to moral questions. here's how he puts it. and then he goes on to put it exactly the other way. he says an economics that believes it can dispense with moral knowledge and more rinciples is not economics but econmitchell. we need a maximum of moral reflection so when they these things come together we have a whole that's much greater than the sum of their parts. that's the task at least for the phatful catholic who is a

faithful son or daughter of the church who's also appreciative of the good that economic freedom brings to human beings. that would -- i would say, ought to be our goal. it would not to sort of separate these things. not say that catholic teaching is one thing but economics just involves is sort of impurecal questions. it's rather is this. it's distinguishing the economic ideologies that pope francis talks about, that michael talked about. from the impurecal result and discoveries and the theoretical insights of economics and integrating those things with the perennial principles of catholic social teaching. would argue if that's done properly, they can be an advocate of economic freedom. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will now open it to q&a. please wait to be called upon.

that's for the benefit of our viewers. microphone will come to you. and would you please be so kind to make your question really short and in a form of a question so we can get through as many of them as possible. so are there any questions in the audience? the gentleman over here. >> wonderful talks by everyone. my name is steven shore. i have a question that -- of a dog that didn't bark. a classic distinction between accidents and substance, and when the holy father talks about the capitalism, is he clear as to whether he's attacking unfortunate accidents r the very substance itself? >> so far as i can tell he tends not to make that distinction.

pope john paul did make that to capitalism. i'd frankly love them to make the difference but pope john paul ii, st. john paul ii said if by capitalism we mean this then no. if by capitalism means this then yes. but let's call it something else. and very often i think not just catholics but many people, many critics of free market economics don't distinguish mean the met physical assumptions and the ideologies that might be the package of someone making the case for economic freedom and the real system itself or simply the question, just the impurecal question. if we look at the types of systems and institutions that societies have, in which do societies tend to do better off or not? and frankly i did this as a college student is i confused

ay, the moral assumptions with the case for economic freedom. but the catholic doesn't need rand. there's plenty of ways to make the case for economic without that. i would argue we don't want to do that. if you want to be a catholic that is sort of in this area is use authentically catholic resources and develop the case for economic freedom based upon our impurecal knowledge and key insights that are not dependent on ideologies. division of labor, these sorts of things. subjective theory of value versus the labor theory value, these are insights drawn from economic study but they're not dependent on any particular deology. marian: in the back. >> yes. i would -- marian: just one second. >> the man with the baby.

>> i was bond wondering how you would define economic freedom and if that concepts exists anywhere in the papal and yclicals and formal documents? jay: is this for anyone? >> no. jay: the passage i referred to in a 2005 incyclical by benedict xvi, the only case there is a reference so far as i know in a papal and cyclical to the role of -- i forget if he uses the market or freedom, lifting billions out of poverty which may be a bit of an exaggeration. it's one sentence. there's a reference thatess a aware of the fact that india and china they've lifted people out of poverty. there's not a lot of reference to that. there's reference to freedom. the freedom that's discussed in catholic teaching is not a merely sort of negative freedom

from. it's a freedom for, what i would call freedom for excellence and developing our purpose and the end to which we are designed for. >> yeah. i think this is my problem with jay's comments is i don't think you can't just say rand, we can dispose of this but keep that as if the one did not flow from the other. and i think this is where the rubber hits the road. all the way do you to the prudential judgments. this idea that somehow we have these theories but then we have these prudential judgments where we can all disagree. michael: there's something to that obviously, and we all have different experiences that we bring to our judgments of given situations. but prudential judgment is not a get out of jail free card. there are still things. what was just forced on greece, what is about to be forced on puerto rico is not just and therefore it is not acceptable and the economic system that makes those things necessary is

itself implicated and indicted as unjust as well. and i -- we can talk all we want it's all so rosey and wonderful and this, it's not. i don't think we can benefit from, you know, -- the only other thing i just have to object to is oh, the idea pope rancis the poor benigned argentinan because he knows crony capitalism. no. it's walk and you gone on to that, cronyism. it's like walking into a burning house and complaining about the color of the curtains. i don't think that's the problem. i find it insulting because i don't think anyone saying of pope den dict, he came from this snow globe village. he's capable of speaking of the universal pastor of the catholic church. he's an argentine and -- i think that's nonsense.

jay: it's grotesque reference to what i said. i didn't say that. what i said, read pope francis and look at argentina and see if that helps you understand why he's saying what he says and if that's shaping what he's saying. i of course didn't say he must be relevant or device because he's from argentina which of course would be a ridiculous thing to say. arian: that side over there. hi. my name is nona, a card-carrying economist. nd i'm also probably disappointed catholic. i was -- i was really put off .y the handouts marian: can we ask the question. forgive me. the time. i guess i want to say, even

the question if you believe in capitalism the pope is saying we can do better and my childhood that is what we called liberation theology, which my irish mother -- marian: ok. thank you, thank you very much. can we do better and what about liberation of theology? >> i take can we do better part because that's certainly an easy one. sure, we can. , like both jay and michael sean, there is a danger in flattening what the pope has to say in the same way as political writers in the united states or members of political parties in the united states tend to flatten things for public consumption. john: i think what the pope has to say about this is enormously complicated and sophisticated and i think it should be understood in the same way and

not flattened. let me just give one example. when we talk about the economic recession that we went through in the united states in 2008 and affected much of the western world then and then has traveled around the globe to the other side, there's a tendency to say on the one hand, this is the fall of the bankers who were gouging people and just concerned with the profit motive and repackages mortgages and deceiving people. that's one theory, popular on the left. there is another theory, popular on the right, that it's the fault of barney frank and fannie and freddie which forced the banks to give loans to those who really shouldn't be getting them. when the pope talks about this thing, he talks about both of those sides and a third side which is the kind of materialism or the consumerism

of the borrowers. he said, look, you're all guilty of the same sin which is a lust for consumption and for acquiring things. the bankers want to make more money, the government can't be trusted because they're human beings like the bankers and given to their own prestigious and desires and the consumers who take out loans for 100% of their property value which they can't repay, they, too, are guilty of the same kind of materialism and consumerism. so we can all do better but we have to begin with ourselves. so in this kind of world, there sn't a solution that says that unregulated free market capitalism will be the right way to go. he says we need the government to tame the excesses of capitalism, but we shouldn't trust the government either, and he knows that better than nybody having lived in

fernandez. this is a personal message as much as it is a message of political reform. marian: anyone wants to comment on the liberation theology, does it have a place in the catholic teaching today? chael sean: the condemnation was not -- there are other liberal theologians that wasn't condemned. it is the condemnation, the understanding of the human person that certain theologians put forward and certainly materialistic reductionism in understanding of the person. i would argue you could cut, copy and paste that condemnation of certain liberation theologians and apply it to, say, the -- one institute today. you would have to change some direct objects. but they make the exact same mistakes in their effort to

defend or to baptize free market capitalism which is a -- which is something that cannot be done and at the level of -- at that theoretical level which is the differences i quoted in my remarks, these are directly in contradiction with one another. so i think -- but the night he was elected, i spoke to a friend and i had to go on their tv show and talk about him. i didn't know much about him. a lot of us didn't. the thing to remember -- we knew that he was opposed to -- he said the latin american bishops never stopped asking the question -- what does it mean to exercise a preferential option for the poor? even after this condemnation. this gets to earlier the discussion of the levels of authority that, you know, the pope obviously when he's speaking on the plane, it's a different level when he's writing in an incyclical.

the level of authority could not be higher even on the plane because he's speaking straight from the gospel and there is no higher authority in the catholic faith than the gospel of jesus christ. this is where some of us -- oh, we can part this level of theory. we are suspicious of that. and we americans don't always like to hear that. jay: i think michael is right. i would object to certain aspects of liberation theology on impurecal grounds, again. just to give one example. an idea from an argentina person which held the southern hemisphere, at least south america and central america was poor because north was rich. the fundamental theme in the prominent liberation theologian gustavo gutierrez, if you read his entire argument, it hinges

on this dependency, the poverty of the south is a causal relationship between the poverty of the south and the wealth of the north. even gustavo gutierrez in later editions of theology liberation based on the impurecal details of economics actually abandon it. that's why i think impurecal questions are very, very important here. there are many questions we are talking about economics that are not merely theoretical, not merely philosophical. there is data on it. it's important, sort of respect the catholic has on science. to take a look at these kinds of things. >> i'm not an economist but i was a lawyer and i was 15 years on the staff on the senate banking committee. so i want to read something here from the actually incyclical itself where the pope says the principle of

profits frequently isolated from other considerations reflect a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. now, you can have different types of capitalism, in my view. in the united states, from world war ii until about 1985 or so, we can stakeholder theory of capitalism that you had responsibility out -- marian: could you please ask a question. >> the idea that capitalism has responsibility to its workers, to its community and others and then we shifted into this shareholder capitalism where the only responsibility is to your shareholders and the c.e.o.'s who did tie to shareholder value, that's quite a different capitalism from what we used to have in this country 30 years ago. i think that's the important thing to understand. you can have different types of capitalism. it's not capitalism as such but whether capitalism can be moderated to produce benefits for the whole society.

jay: i think you are talking about particular business models in which, for instance, managers are rewarded, according to short-term sort of monitoring of profits or something like that. i think it's a very bad business model. i think there's a lot of evidence to that. on economic grounds you can make the case that it's immoral to treat profits as the only end of a business. i think the opposite of profit is loss. if it's not one-year indicator you'll probably be in trouble. nobody will have a job. the short-term indication, the incentive structures that encourages managers and c.e.o.'s to work for short-term profits but long-term destruction are very bad business models. i totally agree. >> given pope francis' views, what are his perspectives on taxation and more broadly, what are his views on what the state

hould do to battle inequality? >> i think i can answer your question in a different way. michael sean: there was a photograph in "the washington post" about three weeks ago when they were having the horrible wildfires in washington state. there is a man whose home was saved. he had on a t-shirt that said lower taxes, less government equals more freedom. [laughter] now, that firefighter was not only a government employee but i can guarantee you he was a union member and this guy whose house had just been saved was probably a tea partier because they make those t-shirts. that is the problem. now perhaps they should have let it burn and he would be not concerned about all the possessions. the man was on -- it was like the people who are opposed to obamacare when they first passed it and keep the government's hands off my

medicare. what? again, the government -- the catholic church has never had this kind of hostile view which goes all the way back to before the american revolution. this hostile view of government. as, you know, the leviathan. that's not how catholic culture and theology ever reviewed it. i think that's -- to answer your question, we wouldn't view taxes as repatience. when i ran a business, i remember the owner saying, unless there's 100% tax, you always still have an incentive to make more money. we forgot that since the reagan years, haven't we? this idea that oh, if you raise the taxes, people will lose their incentives. they got to put their money in something. i never bought that. marian: one question over there in the back. a gentleman. >> yes. this is for all of you because you are all in higher

education. where do you see sort of the practical implementation of francis' vision coming from within higher ed outside of sort of professional ethics courses? john: i couldn't quite -- >> where you can see an implementation of francis' position? jay: well, to plug in catholic u, what we're trying to do is bring together economics and economics as science but economics was originally part of course of essentially ethics, of ethical philosophy. the business school of catholic u is trying to bring together an integration of catholic social teaching with economics and philosophy. it's at least one place that's being done. i'm not saying it's the only catholic institution trying to do that but it's the mission of the school in trying to do that. john: i second that point.

one of the interesting points that francis' predecessor make, universities are called universities because they spire to a universal view of human knowledge that we should not segregate disciplines into economics and political theory and ethics and philosophy that these disciplines ought to be talking to one another. one of the aspirations of our university is to do that very thing. economics divorced from ethics brings about the kind of problems that the pope is worrying about. michael sean: in our little institute of catholic u, i shouldn't say we have 50 fellows but we will keep going on our erroneous autonomy theories. we'll do another one next june. we are at the beginning levels of trying to put that together and it focuses on these issues very, very clearly and we keep waving the pope francis flag.

marian: that's all we have time for. i'm deeply grateful to the panel for this discussion. thank you so much for coming. lunch is upstairs. please come again. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> and the vatican is highlighting its support for the nuclear deal with iran days before pope francis' historic visit to the u.s. "the hill" has this story. in a statement presented before the international atomic energy agency on monday, the catholic church's foreign minister offered his strongest support yet behind the agreement. in a region where there are already too many conflicts to reach an agreement on the sensitive issue is an important step that will promote dialogue and cooperation on other issues. archbishop ol paul gallagher, the secretary for relations with states, told the agency. the vatican had previously said

that it sees the iran deal in a positive light, but gallagher's new comments shed additional light on the church's perspective. they are also likely to preview remarks that pope francis will give when he delivers a landmark speech before a joint session of congress next week. again, that is from "the hill" today. and by the way, the c-span networks will provide coverage of the pope's visit to washington, d.c., including a speech to a joint meeting of congress next thursday morning. the pope will also say mass on the steps on the national shrine of the emack late conception right next to catholic university campus. members of congress face an interesting dilemma. "the hill" spells it out. lawmakers are expecting in the coming days to receive protocol guidance ahead of pope francis' september 24 address to a joint session of congress. that guidance comes the first-ever papal to the u.s. could spark a state of the union-like atmosphere given the

pontiff's officer where one half stands to cheer on the pope while the other sits on their hands grim faced. congress, quote, will be on its very best behavior on this occasion, said congressman charlie dent of pennsylvania. you can read more about this in thehill.com. the chair and ranking member of the house intelligence committee, representative devin nunes and adam schiff will talk about national security issues and the operation of their committee. you can see their remarks at a national security conference tonight starting at 8:00 eastern. also tonight at 8:30 eastern on c-span2, the house oversight committee holds a hearing on the security of the u.s.-mexico border. here's chairman jason chaffetz n border violence.

mr. chaffetz: good morning. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we have a very important hearing today. appreciate you joining us. title of this hearing "violence on the border: keeping the u.s. personnel safe." the united states is mexico's largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. mexico is the united states' third largest trading partner african da and china, and is this country's second largest foreign supplier of petroleum. we have a lot of familial ties. we have people who have loved ones there. it's a great place to travel. it's one of the more beautiful places on the planet. a lot of recreation. a lot of reasons, good reasons to interact with the good people of mexico and to enjoy one of the most amazing countries that is on the border of the united states of america. it is one of the busiest and most economically important borders in the world with nearly one million legitimate travelers and nearly $1 billion

of goods legally crossing the border each day. but mexico is also a dangerous place. i would argue it's one of the most dangerous places on the planet. to understand how dangerous it is, we don't have to look further than the state department's own warnings about travel to mexico. specifically, the state department warns, and i quote, gun battles between rival criminal organizations or with mexican authorities have occurred in broad daylight in streets. criminal organizations have created roadblocks to prevent the military and police from responding to criminal activity. car jacking and highway robbery are serious problems in many parts of the border regions and many citizens have been murdered in such incidents. you -- according to the united states department of state's bureau of diplomatic authority, knew aveo laredo's chief of police was suspended among allegations of large-scale corruption. gomez, who had been mayor of

knew aveo laredo, disappeared in 2014 near his house along with businessman miguel angel ortiz. galvin was kidnapped in nuevo laredo and dumped to monterey near nuevo leon. their bodies were found in the truck of a car on march 1, 2014, according to press reports. in june, 2015, a bomb exploded killing one bike stander. a month before, cartels left decapitated bodies in front of guzman.l by ell chapo it accused galvin working with the zetis. in february, 2013, the police ief of nuevo laredo were found dead. just yesterday, i happen to be a member of the church of jesus

christ of latter day saints. l.d.s. to the south, an mission president going down to serve a religious mission who was -- who was shot during a robbery in mexico. it is a violent place, a dangerous place. the lawlessness is the direct result of drug cartels operating in mexico, evolving into massive criminal organizations. these cartels have expanded their operations in the kidnapping, extortion and murder. unfortunately this is not new news. it's been going on for sometime. according to the national border patrol councils, the official death toll from cartel violence in mexico is 60,000. however, the unofficial death toll in mexico is over 120,000 killed and another 27,000 missing or presumed dead, end quote. mexico ranked 103 out of 175 countries in transparency

international corruption perception index which ranks countries and terrorists based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. it's in company of algeria, china, bolivia, muldova and niger. according to the institute for economics and peace ranking of countries from least to most iolent, mexico is 144 out of 162 countries surveyed in terms of violence in 2015. today, the department still operates nine consulates and an embassy in mexico city. two of those consulates just south of the united states border are of particular interest. month more oast and nuevo laredo, both they operate from the rio grande river despite occurs ng, violence along the border, end of quote.

to improve safety in the consulates, they're set to build new consulates in montamoros and nuevo laredo. both these facilities are being constructed under the department's design excellence initiative. designed excellence takes longer than the standard embassy design which had been used successfully by state in previous years. several independent studies have gone and shown they build them faster and less expensive. unfortunately, the state department under president obama and secretary clinton changed the way we do this. they're now more expensive, consequently and we put people in danger for longer periods of time. it seems building these facilities should be a priority, yet it has been a fiasco. construction will not be completed until november, 2017 2017 o laredo and until

. state department entered into a contract in mexico city to rfect from pal mollive a piece of land to build a new embassy. we have paid roughly half of col $60 million to ait-palmolive. they need -- but the place that they decided to buy, and we have documentation of this, was a brown field. it was dirty. it was toxic. it was not ready to be built on. they thought they could clean it up but they continue to be so dirty today that the mexican government will not approve it because it's so toxic. so we have an older facility that's not adequately

fortified. we have massive growth, massive growth in the number of personnel that they want to go into this embassy and the construction costs have jumped 38% to $763 million. part of the increase that's happening there is the number of desks. the number of desks was going to be 891. now it's 1,335. why the increase number of desks? in large part because of the security problems in mexico. yes, we do increase the amount of trade, but we need more security personnel to do the assessments from all the various agencies. this puts the total at roughly $706,000 per desk. now, the original embassy in mexico city was scheduled to be

completed in february of 2019 but we're looking at least of middle of 2020 if not further. it is still, still to this day not been approved by the mexican government. the money has been paid but we're not able to move into that new facility and it's totally unacceptable. the state department also recently indicated plans to take away danger pay, allocations for personnel who had been receiving it in mexico. it's provided to state department employees who are willing to work in a particularly dangerous area. it's warns americans about the high risk of danger -- high risk of danger and travel into mexico but to end danger pay. they say, oh, don't worry about it. they'll be taken care of. having traveled to mexico a couple times now and talking to state department personnel, it's right at the top of their plate. right at the top of their issue don't take away our danger pay. you have people who work in the consulate in nuevo laredo

directly across the boreder who have literally a couple square moves which they can move. i talked to a state department personnel who can't shop or go to a movie or do anything other than stay on that compound because of the extreme violence and danger. and yet the state department wants to take away that danger pay. we have people who are shaking their heads saying that's silly, that's ridiculous. you know what, how ironic that the house republicans are fighting to help keep the danger pay for the state department employees. and they want to change that in mexico. and that doesn't make sense to us. we'll explore it. crime in northern mexico already impacts u.s. assets in the country. on june 7, a truck leaving the united states consulate was hijacked. they stole more than 11,500 border crossing cards which are visas that can be used to enter the united states.

nearly a dozen passport cards are missing. the hijacking of this truck should come to no surprise to the state department. the travel warning saying no highway through the state which are des montemoros considered safe, in quote. members of the cart del were shot at a customs and border patrol helicopter hitting to twice and forcing it to land near laredo, texas. i saw that helicopter. i talked to the pilot. i talked to the gentleman who was on the united states. they were on the united states side of the border but taking fire from the mexican side of the border, a pretty brazen attack on a u.s. helicopter doing patrol in the united states side of the border. previous to that, there were attacks on mexican helicopters from drug cartel members that took down a helicopter. the cartels have no reservations about expanding

the scope of their violence on the american side of the border. danger and violence in mexico is apparently not much of a priority for this administration. secretary kerry, i understand he's got a busy job. but here we have one of the most important partners. the most important relationships that we have in the world is with mexico and in the 29 months that secretary kerry has been the secretary of state, how many times has he visited mexico? one time. it's not a priority for this administration. instead, they're take taking away danger pay. they say it's safe, everything's good here. d.s. t i have an l. president being shot yet edd. i have people who know there are violence by the tens of thousands of people being killed on that side of the border and we as the united states of america need to do better. we have a to do better. they're our next door neighbors. there's over 100 million people there. that demands more attention to

the secretary than one quick visit down there. it makes me wonder whether they want americans to think things are fine and safe for america and it's hard to understand why so little diplomatic effort had been there. we have a lot to discuss today. very frustrated with the state department and the request made on july 15. we sent a letter. it barely goes on to the second page. we have four asks, and on friday before this hearing going into labor day hearing, they dumped on our desk 110,000 documents. couldn't do a rolling production. couldn't allow the staff to pour this. this is how they act with the oversight and government reform. to dump 110,000 documents on us friday right before labor day, we're coming into this hearing, you all knew we had this. come on. really? you expect that to go unnoticed? unacceptable. unacceptable. my question for the panel today, do we have all the

documents? i want you to certify and tell me that i have everything i asked for and i yield now to the gentleman, our ranking member, mr. cummings from maryland for his opening statement. mr. cummings: thank you very uch, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for holding this hearing today. i think you raised some legitimate concerns and i'm hoping that they will address them. i also want to thank congressman vela, the ranking member of the subcommittee on border and maritime security for being a leader on this issue and for promoting aggressive action to protect united states and our diplomatic corps overseas. drug cartel violence in mexico threatens american and mexican citizens and their families on both sides, on both sides of the border.

it also negatively impacts our important bilateral trade relationship with mexico. combating the violence and stabilizing this region needs o be a top priority for both countries. congressman vela's position is that the consulates should remain open to support american citizens and economic interests on both sides of the border. and i agree with him and i find his argument quite persuasive. closing u.s. consulates in mexico will simply destabilize the region, making our borders less safe. consulates in mexico play a ritical role in implementing the initiative which is our nation's $2.5 billion investment in disrupting organized groups, institutionalizing the rule of law and building stronger

communities. many of our u.s. consulates also house our federal law enforcement efforts to combat the drug trade and strengthen border security. in addition, many u.s. companies, including dupont, tyco and general electric have significant business interests in mexico. these other businesses provide the 165 jobs in matamoros, consulate district alone, and they depend on the support provided by u.s. consulates. u.s. cons lates also provide crucial services to u.s. citizens residing in and visiting mexico. our diplomatic relationship with mexico is a critical tool for stabilizing the region. we need to strengthen this diplomatic relationship, especially in regions that need

it most. not damage it by closing these consulates, as some have suggested. i believe mexico should do more to enhance security in the region, but the united states also has a role to play. ch as stemming the flow of guns. congressman vela suggested establishing secure economic zones in northern mexico similar to those that have already been implemented in southern mexico. these zones would include joint economic plan that would provide more opportunities for communities on both sides of the border. these ideas deserve serious consideration. we must ensure that mexico is doing everything it can to root out the corruption that plagues law enforcement and civil institutions in order to effectively combat drug cartels.

greater stability will encourage more economic investment. on our side of the border, the united states must do more to stem the flow of guns into mexico. in march, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms reported that more than 100,000, more than 100,000 guns were recovered in mexico and submitted for tracing from 2009 to 2014. of hose 100,000 guns, 70% them originated in the united states. guns that are entering mexico are being trafficked from the united states. in is one reason i'm proud to co-sponsor with my good friend congresswoman maloney the gun trafficking prevention act, reintroduced

today by our colleague, ms. maloney. if we can -- mrs. maloney. if we can stem illegal drug trafficking in the united states, there's no doubt the positive effects will be seen by our neighbors to the south. finally, let me say this. the united states must fake all appropriate -- take all appropriate steps to ensure that our diplomats are fairly compensated. i agree with you, mr. chairman, that they -- that that must happen. this includes building modern, secure diplomatic facilities. construction plans are under y in mexico, matamoros and nuevo laredo that will house marine barracks, to ensure even greater protection of our personnel. i understand that the state department is changing how it pays employees serving in dangerous and difficult environments. i appreciate the department's

efforts to use resources effectively and consistent with the law. but i believe no employees who serve on the front lines abroad should face reductions in pay. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how to further improve the safety of u.s. personnel while promoting our long-standing and mutually beneficial relationship with mexico. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i would like to associate myself with your comments about some of our colleagues, mr. vela, as well as mr. cuellar, who is here and joining us on the stand. my understanding is that congressman vela would also like to participate today. even though these two gentlemen are not our our committee, we had a tradition of allowing and asking unanimous consent to allow these people to sit on our hearings.

so i ask unanimous consent that congressman vela and congressman henry square yar to participate in these hearings. without objection, so ordered. we appreciate the respect from these two gentlemen. they live in great proximity to the issues of the things we are going to be talking about today and they have been invaluable to me and providing a good, i think, balanced effective and i appreciate their passion on this issue and the care for their loved ones that are there in that area and appreciate their perspective. will now recognize our first panel of witnesses but i'd like to tell members that i will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. we're pleased to be joined for the assistant secretary for mosar of -- ambassador s at the united states

department of state. we appreciate you joining us today. sarneo is the department assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs at the united states department of state. mr. robert harris is the director of the joint task force west at the united states customs and border protection. and mr. brandon judd is the president of the national border patrol council at the american federation of government employees. we thank you all for being here. pursuant to all committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify so if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth and not be the truth. thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, we'd appreciate limiting your verbal testimony to five minutes, your entire

written statement will be made part of the record. mr. starr, we'll start with you and go through you and get to he question portion of the hearing. mr. starr: thank you for your invitation to appear today to talk about the conflicts at the u.s. conlates in mexico. we share your concerns and i look forward to discussing this issue with you today. our national interests often require us to serve in dangerous places around the world. however, it is clear that the u.s. embassy and consulates in mexico are icks anticipationally important platforms for engagement to advance our national interests. i was in mexico a few weeks ago and i can bear witness to the hard work of u.s. personnel serving on both sides of the border. i also saw the challenging circumstances in which many of our people operate.

environments such as mexico involved constantly shifting threats that require comprehensive planning, agile decisionmaking and diplomacy. they require us to be present, fully engaged and 100% committed to the security of our people and our facilities. in mexico, we engage with and seek support from a host government that recognizes mexican and american vital interests are linked and that bilateral cooperation is required to counter the threats posed by transnational criminals. in every incident, threat and attack in mexico this only underscores the importance of the strong bilateral relations and the comprehensive security cooperation. our embassy and consulates in mexico play a critical role in providing services to american citizens, issuing visas and implementing key foreign policy objectives. i work closely with our colleagues in the overseas operations as they build in

mexico to increase safety and security. these new facilities are vital platforms for diplomacy, all of which will meet the rigorous overseas security policy board standards for safety and security. during my recent visit to some of the border consulates, i walked with a principal officers and regional security officers to view the additional security measures taken and augmented host country security presence protecting our facilities. these protective features allow us to operate necessary programs that strengthen mexico police capacity, reinforce critical law enforcement cooperation and improve security along our southern border. these consulates also aid the expansive bilateral trade that supports both countries totaling $5 billion annually. but it's not enough to improve physical security. we are also training foreign service -- the foreign service community on how to better respond to these environments. l officers in monterey are

required to take fact which teaches them hard security skills. as a result, personnel in our missions are better prepared for operating -- and working toward making fact training universal to all foreign serviceperson ell at our posts overseas regardless of the threat levels. i recognize the hardships that our people and the families endure in such environments. it is a testament to their courage, their commitment and the important work that they are accomplishing abroad. having served over 30 years in the foreign service, i understand wholeheartedly the sacrifices our people make. it is simply woven into the fabric of what uniquely defines the foreign service community. knowing the challenges ahead, they willingly and courageously step up to fill the important positions that we have in mexico and throughout the world. i look forward to working with congress to ensure our personnel are serving abroad safely and they continue to have safe platforms for

advancing our national interests. i want to thank congress for the resources and support that you have provided over the years and we look forward to your conditioning support in years ahead. thank you and i'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. mr. chaffetz: thank you. ambassador moser, you are now rked for five minutes. mr. moser: good morning, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the committee. and thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the committee today to discuss the u.s. consulates in northern mexico. security is a top priority for the dooro of overseas building operations. since the enactment of the secure embassy construction and counterterrorism act of 1999, o.c.o. has completed 122 more secure facilities and have an additional 39 in design or under construction. these facilities provide more than 35,000 people with a safer workplace. constructing secure diplomatic facilities in mexico

underscores our commitment to strengthening our bilateral relationship and reflects increased u.s.-mexican commitments to issues such as migration, counternarcotics, trade and border security. over the last seven years, o.b.o. has constructed new consulate facilities in ciudad juarez, tijuana and most recently in monterrey. they provide safer workplace for over 177 staff. our work continues in northern mexico in nuevo laredo under construction and expected to be completed in 2017. this new consulate will provide work space for approximately 150 staff. another u.s. consulate general in matamoros is in design and is expected to be rewarded construction this fall and completed in 2019.

this new consulate general is planned to accommodate approximately 197 staff. we have an active and aggressive site search under way in mexico to meet our commitments. we are under contract for new consulate general sites in nogalas. gad lahara and anticipate closing on these sites in 2015 and 2016. we are also in the process of evaluating sites in merida to replace the existing facilities. additionally, a new u.s. embassy in mexico city is currently in design, and includes office space for over 1,300 staff members, a u.s. marine security guard residence and a consular area with over 75 windows. o.b.o. works closely with diplomatic security every step of the way on all of our projects. o.b.o. and diplomatic security,

physical, technical and industrial security specialists are involved in project development from early site selection, planning, design, construction and through occupancy. all u.s. diplomatic facilities built by o.b.o. meet the department standards for security and life safety. . by 2020 we will have broken ground on over nine diplomatic offices in mexico and fulfill foreign policy objectives for many years to come and i'm happy to answer your questions at any time. mr. chaffetz: ms. saarnio, you are recognized for five minutes. ms. saarnio: thank you for the opportunity to testify