♪ host: the loss of silicon valle

bank and svb has missed question about federal regulation, rising interest rates, investment policies, and bonuses. to svb officials. even though the ftse rushed in to bactop back deposits, images of long linesf depositors queued up outside branches rattled the confidence of the most secure institutions. it is "washington journal" for march 16, 2023. we are going to ask you about your confidence in the u.s. banking system? you have confidence in the system? if your answer is yes, the line is 202-748-8000. if no, 202-748-81. if you are i'm sure, -- if you are unsure, 202-748-8002.

you can also text us on 202-748-8003. you can post your answers on facebook and send us a tweet. you can take part in the poll on twitter. in terms of that confidence in the u.s. banking system, has it or will it change your habits and your confidence in financial markets period. we will get to your calls momentarily. we will also take a look back at the 2018 law passed by congress and signed by president trump that rolled back some of the 2010 dodd-frank regulations passed by congress in 2010. we will hear from members of congress on potential regulation. this is outlooks on the front page of the "wall street journal."

banquo street markets, lenders failures, market jitters, bets on dosit in interest rate increases. they writes that the more investors anticipate the federal reserve's ratincreases cycle could be over because of broader turmoil from the failure of two regional banks in the last week, investors in the futures saw it we present a chance fed officials work increase rates at the march 21 meeting. that would leave the federal fundraiser between 4.5% and 4.75%. officials have raised rates each of the past eight policy meetings spending 12 months in what has smart the most rapid incrsince the early 10's to combat inflation that last year touched a 40 year high. our question for you this

morning is about your confidence in the u.s. banking system. are you confident in the system? 202-748-8000 is the line to call. 202-748-8001 if you are not confident. if you are unsure, it is 202-748-8002. silicon valley bank failure renews focus on 2018 regulationaw. they wte that the collapse of silicon valley bank and signaturbank over the weekend have renewed interest in a 2018 bill that rolled back several bankin regulations that were put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. the bill scaled-down requirements imposed under the 2010 dodd-frank law and reclassified the size of banks that would have to undergo increased regulatory scrutiny, raising the threshold for some from 50 billion in assets to 250

billion. since silicon valley bank has 209 billion, it was exempt from the more stringent regulations. lawmakers who voted for the easing of requirements in 2018 are standing by their position, even as it threatens to resurface as a divide between a liberal and more moderate democrats. with the republican-lent house -- republican-led house, there is a dire to -- the provisions for small and midsize banks. going back to 2018 on the side of that law with president trump at the white house, here is what he said about that law which changed and eliminated some of the provisions othe dodd frank bill. [video clip] deregulation -- >> the radio -- the regulation

absent today rolls back the dodd-frank laws. they were such trouble. those rules don't work and community banks and credit unns should be regulated this amway. dish regulated -- regulated the same way. should be regulated as in the past. they should not be regulated in same way as the large complex financial institutions. that is what happened and they were being put out of business one by one. and they were not lending. since its passage and it doesn't 10, dodd-frank -- since its passage in 2010, dodd-frank has given a blow to community banking. all of the people with me are

keeping that commitment. host: a quickweet from a congressman on that 2018 lock, heays this, "democrats blang partisan legislation from 2018 for the failure of svb are defecting from the real cause. spending for the aarp and ira, passed without a sgle gop vote leading to a four ar high inflation." our question for you in the wake of the clapse of svb andhe signature bank, do you have confidence in the u.s. banking system? if yes, 202-748-8001. if -- if yes, 202-748-8000. if no, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. let's go to patrick on the no line.

why, patrick? caller: we live a rigged system, a rate economy to serve billionaires over everyo else. we are witnessing a tsunami of lies where the system which is supposed to be guaranteeing up to $250,000 is instead giving these sycophants. the ch sector, it is obscene. it is shameful on eve level. host: what have you done personally to protect yourself from the types of things? caller: buy gold and silver. i invest in crypto. they destroyed crypto. they have done more damage to the economy of america's financial instruments. we are like something out of some clarity novel with the way our -- some tom clancy novel now

with the way our dystopian currency is strictly designed to surveilled the american people and use our banking system as arbiters of free speech. you are witnessing the end of the united states. host: turay also on the no line. caller: i am. no -- i am full stop no. you need someone on the outside because the endgame of a corporation's profit. the second reason i should share with you is because i have been distrustful of banks. i bank with bank of america so i have been contemplating

withdrawing my savings and checking account even though i know the ftse will ensure the money i have -- the fbi see -- fdic will ensure the money i have. you think about payday loans, most of these loans are propped up by wells fargo and bank of america. they challenge -- they charge an inner miss you survey. these are our trational, regional, and national banks. they have already been engaged in these corrupt immoral practices. host: in terms of bank of america and your desire to leave it, have you looked at options? for example, credit unions were things where you may not face those charges? caller: i have been looking at

credit unions. the only problem is that they are so sparsely located. i live in the state of maryland. the other issue is getting a safe. i have been considering both of those for a couple of years. banks are unethical and if we expect them to do good by their citizens, they are not because they are chasing profit. host: we will go to john in brooklyn. you have confidence in the u.s. banking system? john says yes. caller: i have confidence in it as long as you can check those rules that trump rolled back. you should check the other rules and regulations, like exposing hazardous material.

it is confidence in the banking system as long as you govern them. host: the line if you say yes is 202-748-8000. if you say no, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. the dodd frank act, the bill was signed into law in 2010. what does that do? it dealt with the volker rule, it created the consumer protection bureau, it had capital quidity requirements, each created the financial stability oversight council. there were derivatives regulations in there and set up too big to fail stress tests on banks under dodd-frank, passed in 2010. the law passed in 2018 signed by president trump rolled back some of those provisions.

president biden is critical of the rollback and calling for more regulation. here's the headline from the wall street journal on the president's travels. they rated this, "president biden visited the battleground state of nevada to raise campaign cash and tout his economic message as the democratic party completes a tumultuous leadership change." the president speaking about the svb collapse and the call on congress to create more regulations. [video clip] pres. biden: all customers who had deposits in these banks can rest assured they are protected and they will have access to their money as of today. that includes small businesses across the country who need to make payroll and pay for their business. no losses will be borne by the

taxpayers. the money will come from the fees the banks play into the third person -- did deposit insurance fund. every american should feel confident their deposits will be there if and when they need them. second the management of these banks will be fired. if there is taken over by fdic, the people running there should not work there anymore. third, investors in the banks will not be protected. they knowingly took a risk and where the risk did not pay off, investors lose their money. that is how capitalism works. there are questions of how this banks got into the circumstae in the first place. we must get the full accounting of how it happened and why those responsible should be held accountable.

in my administration, no one is above the law. we must reduce the risk of this happening again. during the obama-biden administration, we put in tough restrictions on banks like silicon valley bank and signature ba, including the dodd frank law to make sure the crisis of 2008 wouldot happen again. the last administration rollback these requirements. i'm going to ask congress to strengthen the rules for banks to make it less likely this kind of flure would happen again and protect american jobs and small businesses. host: president bid at the whe house on monday. we are asking you about your confidence in the u.s. banking system. this confidence -- th article from usa today has the headline, "is my money safe in the bank right now."

online searches asking that question have jumped as emergence where their bank can be next to fail. consums say there is no reason to worry about banksovered by the federal deposit insurance corporation, especially the limit on the iurance. let's hear from melvin in grade. , texas who is confident in the system -- in grand prairie, texas who is confident in the system. caller: i was calling to give my support for the banking system. thank you. host: will go to duke in may. he says he is not confident in u.s. banking. caller: no, i am not really. it is very shaky. i look at what this cntry owes

in debt and it scares me to death. the fdic is backed by the government. if the government should go to the airport something, what good is the fdic? i know president biden is trying to calm theaters. i want to believe him, but things are so shaky finanally in this country. host: do you think the fdic is going above and beyond in guaranteeing all of the deposits , even above the $250,000 limit? caller: i think they are. i think they want to make people feel confident they are going to be there. i don't see how they can. it is a scary. makes me wonder. i hope i am wrong, but i d't

trust the whole system. host: let's hear from ali in istow, virginia. caller: can you hear me? host: yes we can. go ahead. caller: i do not trust these banks. they sent their bottom line is profit. i have four checks sent to my bank. one for my mortgage and three, $10 and maybe $40. they charged me $29 each. i accept it is my fault because i did not apply for overdraft protection. thank you for taking my call. host: we will hear from anthony

in detroit, alsoot confident in the banking system. caller: not very at all. i have only had credit union accounts. that being said, they are pretty similar. the banks influence the politicians e so much with their contribution. our central bank really runs the show and that comes down to the question of the value of the dollar. if you want to talk about creditor confidence, if you are venezuela, our country stole their gold. we should not have confidence in them. we still have afghanistan assets and russia's assets. the canadaruckers, look at the people who supported them. host: we are asking you, do you have confidence in the u.s. banking system? if you say yes, it is 202-748-8000.

if you say no, it is 202-748-8001. for the who aren't sure, 202-748-8002. a couple of comments on social media and text, marion says i have confidence in the fdic. i weigh each bank individually based on the integri of his management. the system is intertwined with the world banking system. if our banking system fails, almost every country in the road will fall into recession. i am worried about all of this. we used to have confidence in our monetary and banking system, now i don't trust it because i don't trust the deities to be fair to all. small community banks needs to be commuted -- need to be treated different than large institutions. we need oversight of all large banks. i do not trust what we are being told is the truthsays joan. jim is in crystal river, florida

who does not have confidence in the banking system. guest: -- caller: good morning. zero confidence. the fdic can do a backstop, but with $31 trillion in debt and therere $9 trillion held by the federal reserve which they are in the process of running off $90 billion a month. when the federal reserve about these treasuries, they were boing a prophet. now as you sell a bond which they probably bought a 91 to 2% range, you will design probably $50 billion -- you are losing probably $50 billion a month. nobody knows this.

they are not aware when you sell a bond, yields last into a higher yield you are losing. we backed obama-biden. once we double the debt of our presidents combined, we are past the point of no return. i still remember ross perot saying i don't mind fortunate dollars if this was utopia, but this is no utopia. we are in trouble. i work 22 years with my wife -- i worked 42 years with my wife and we are well-off. i worried my real money will become worthless. you all better think about that. you have to balance the budget. we need to cut the military cause we spend 10 times the amount of the next 10 nations.

we have to cut everything or our savings would become worthless. host: another view from grover in virginia who does have confidence in the banking system. caller: good morning. i think with the rules and regulations being enforced, that is the problem. they don't enforce them. so many billionaires and millionaires. we have got a problem. the people feel like because there are millionaires and billionaires they are above the law -- because they are millionaires and billionaires they are above the law. they wanted to pay no taxes. the only thing they want to do is fill their pockets with money.

[indiscernible] host: yesterday on capitol hill, senators continue to comment about the svb failure, the administration's response and the fdic's response. this is steve daines talking about putting the blame on president biden and democrats. [video clip] >> we have been watching president biden and the democrats' policies. we are seeing crisis after crisis and now the chickens are coming home to roost. wasteful spending has led to the highest inflation rat we have seen in the u.s. in 40 years. now these are bank bailouts are going to put montana banks and montana families on the hook for this -- for the mismanagement of a bay area bank. why is it that well-managed and

the sound montana banks that did not fail are going to be on the hook to pay for a mismanaged bay area bank that did? host: a couple of other members weighing in by twitter. katie porter saying, "i have news for my colleagues who voted to deregulate banks in 2018, there is nothing pro-business about a bank failure. -- bank failure." senator hawley said, "my legislation will exempt responsible mmunity banks from the specialties to bailout the california billionaire." a comment from ralph norman who said that, "the svb bank made terrible decisions but it was triggered by quickly rising interest rates which happened because of bidenflation which

wacaused by liberal spending." in the wake of the svb collapse and the adminiration response and other bank flures, weill read about credit suisse in a mome, did u have confidence in the u.s. banking system? if you say yes, e line is 20748-8000. if it is no, 202-748-8001. for those w are unsure, y can use 202-748-8002. in ohio, jean. good morning. caller i would like to invite the c-an ideaso look up two of those banks we are saving. the first o is a signature bank. if you g to thehill.com or bloomberg, you will find out 25% of signatu bank deposits are associat with crypto.

two or three weeks ago, signature bank is loing at an investigation and possible find -- possibl fine for laundering cryptocurren through their bank. now we are saving them. silicon valley bank, roku had 485 million there -- $5 million in there unprotected. mark cuban had $20 million and more. now wshouldave the peop? medire is going bankrupt in 2028. i watched thmedicare hearings a couple of weeks ago. five years left on medare. they had better print over $200 billion fo medicare. st: yesterday on the senate

floor, senator elizabeth warren talked about a bill she is introducing responding to the crisis. here is part of that. [video clip] sen. warren: i want right here from the senate floor that "washington is about to make it easier for the banks to run up risk, easier to put our constituents at risk, make it easier to put american families in danger so the ceos of these banks can get a new corporate jet and add another floor to their corporate headquarters." i wish i had been wrong. st week, the fdic was forced to take over two feeling banks, silicon valley bank and signature bank, and then take a short reactions to protect those banks' customers and prevented the contingenfrom spreading throughout the -- the contagion

from spreading throughout the economy. they suffer from a toxic mixture of poor management and weak supervision. if congress had not rolled back key provisions of dodd-frank, these banks would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to help withstand financial shocks. they would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses. they would have had more aggressive regulators standing at their shoulder looking more closely at every part of the bank's business. because those requirements were taken out of dodd-frank, when any old-fashioned bank run hit svb, there bank could not withstand the pressure. signature bank collapsed shortly after that. to fight back the risk of contagion and protect the banking system, the federal

government was called upon to take extraordinary measures, the kind of measures dodd-frank was supposed to protect us against. these threats should have never been allowed to materialize. and now we must prevent them from occurring again by reversing the interests bank deregulation of the trump era. host: our question for you, do you have confidence in the u.s. banking system? we would love to hear from you on thehones. you can participate through twitter and our poll this rning. the same question we are asking here on the store -- on the show. 49.2% say they are not confident in the u.s. banking system. the yes is over 37% and more are

unsure. there is time for you to weigh in on that. more questions on twitter and from text. this one says "i have high confidence in u.s. banking until bush's corrupt baiut. i hope it was in the isolated abuse of power. without abiding's regulation of dvb -- potus has no interest in following rules. banks should not be allowed to be too big to fail and investment and commercial banks should not be allowed to converge. dodd-frank was the right thing." daven orlando, "i do not trust the management of some banks cause of the constant unethical practices that keep happening. mo protective relations are needederiod." let's hear from alice calling from new york city on the no

line. caller: good morng. i'm callinin reference to our assignment. she was dealing with bbnt bank. they took all of her money, let everybody user account - everybody useer account. i never t an account of w much she had in the bank. they prey the elderly. bbnt and -- they still every penny, she had over $100,000 in the account. i am now 80 years old. i did not get one pny. host: she had over $100,000?

call: over $10000. i was to by a rker athe bankhat she saw erything but she was afraid she wou lose her job. i still have her name and evything. yo jt don't kn how i feel about at happened. host: do you think mo of th money went missing becau of- caller: s had alzheimer's. did noknow afirst i was on the account. e nevetold m bb&t, i have a l of information. i wish somee would contact me and help me. i am 80 years old now. my mom did not hava penny. i ok care of here in new yor host: i hope you doind

somebo to help you out with that issue i am sorry to hear abo that. syracuse, new yk, teddy is up next. ller: thank you for taking my call. i wi be brief. the deregulation things ronald reagan did a then donald tmp came alo. just to be steful obama, a lot of the things oma and bideput into place, e dodd franbill espially,rump rolled some of tse regulations ck just to be spiteful tard obama. unfounately, lot of amerans don't pay attention. theyon't list in school, in class.

i remember kids laughing and joking when th wereeaching us how everything in this country works. whenhings were happening with ronald reagandministration and nald reagan was deregulatg and firing air traffic controllers and all these kinds ofhings, th is when i first started seeing the repubcan versus democrat -- republicans want troll it away into a limited. trp came along and did some of thatame stuff. when he rolled back the prisions of the dd frank bill and some of the other regulations put in pla, like what l to these railcars derailing. when you degulat, there are

tcomesnd isss thatome about i ere are reasons tre are regutions put into place. they wanted to do awayith ma. host: focusing on banking relations, in theftermath of this clapse and he will bk, s that -- and theollback, hathat chang your investme oranking habits? ller: n deposits are insed up t $250,000. a lot of aricans don't read and n't listeno this stuff. whenomeoneike trumpets up therand stts- rudy giuliani, e trutis the uth. trum alternate truth host: let me ask u the same

question i asked aearlier caller about the fc $250,000, they said th are gng to backstop cases above that- posits above tt in thcase of svb is tt fair? ller: president biden is trying to keep the wle tion's economy fm feelg. there was any officer saying they heardomeone on the elevator saying all of these banks are going to fail. these people don't pay attention d don't listen. ey don't read. ifnybody has ever seen the movie "it'a wondful life," the prise is the failure of a savings long -- savings loan.

that is what caused people to spend their money somewhere else. st: this is the headline from -- to investigate whether silicon valley bank investigation -- silicon valley bank executives broke any loss. we showed you senator warren calling for re regulation. john kennedy from louisiana has another view here's what senator kennedy said. sen. kaine: 80 -- [video clip] sen. kennedy: it executives of svb had known the difference between a banking textbook and an l.l. bean catalog, they would have never -- without hedging that risk. it is a very easy thing to do. it is banking 101.

if you buy securities to back your deposits which a very sensitive to interest rates, there are other securities you can buy to hedge that risk so you don't takehe risk. i am appalled. the bankers at silicon valley bank didn't do it. it was down to the marrow stupid. number two, silicon valley bank management didn't. was like a rock, only dumber. the regulators didn't catch it. there has been a talk about silicon valley bank wasn'being regulated because of a bill passed in 2018 and 2019. that is not true. silicon valley bank was heavily regulated. it had to follow regular reports with the federal banking

regulators. it was subject to stress tesng , subject to liquidity stress testing. all creditors had to do was read reports that the silicon valley bank was submitting. host: senator kennedy of louisiana on the floor of the u.s. senate. we are going to hear more about the administration's response to the svb and signature failures as the treasury secretary is testifying this morning on the president's budget request. we expect other estions on this issue. that is the senate finance committee today, 10:00 live on c-span. it will also be on c-span now and c-span.org. we are looki at issuefacing the aviation industry iluding retainment of emploes. you can watch that live on the

mobile app. it is also online and wi stream online at c-span.org. 20 more minutes for you to get in on our openin questiondo you have cfidence in the u.s. banking system? if youay yes, 202-748-8000. it is known, -- it is no, 202-8-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748002. a coup of commentby text, that is 202-748-80. dave in orlando, florida, "i do not trust e management of some banks because of the unethical practices. more regulations are needed period." randy in michigan, "i have confidence in our banking system, i don't have confidence in the republican party taking care of regulations to stop this disaster from happening. it never ends well when you reduce regulations.

hun nature will try to take advantage of every situaon." this one says "simplhuman behavior formula. you have high arts greed, and bad decisions made by people who wa to get richer. thanks and financial markets need to be regulated because there is a percent of the population who will act on behalf of themselves no matter the cost to others." in murfreesboro, north carolina, joe is on the line. call: good morning. you have heard the term behold the pale horse. there is a guy named william cooper, like three years back that predicted all of these things happening now. he was a cia agent. they ended up killing him.

the republicans want to break this coury. people don't see it. god gave us common sense but racism took over eight. that is what is going on today. if you were to know about william cooper, read his book, "behold the pale horse." host: burlington, north carolina. freddie, good morning. caller: it is all about liquidity. it doesn't have anything to do with rules and regulations. they waste money day after day. they give $70 million.

it is all the diversity and equity and stuff. they hire people unqualified to do the job. it is like the regulator that was supposed to regulate. as that of regulating, she was talking about mental health. that is all it is. you all read a bunch of propaganda. read dodd-frank. host: in cullman, michigan. go ahead. caller: i have zero faith in our banking industry. if i want to withdraw $10,000 to buy a car out of my bank, they have to figure o a way to get me the money. you cannot make large withdrawals from the bank of your own money. what bags our money up? we have a currency printed out of thin air.

our banking system is terribly fragile and bankers have way too much power in this country. that is what our country was not founded upon, private banks. that is what happened in 1913 when woodrow wilson signed the act that gave our countries power for making currency. that is why we are in the position we are in. we need to do ay with our government involvement in propping up banks. taxpayers do not need top banks. if they want to do stupid things with their banks and they fail, then they should fail. i think be too big to fail. -- nothing should be too big to fail. that causes too many problems. try to pull out $20,000 from your bank and see what happens. host: another story we will hear

about on capitol hill, the headline from th washington times, "the senate passes vote repeal regulations." they will repeal two iraq authorizations to reclaim congressional war powers 20 years after the last time u.s. troops invaded a nation. charles schumer on tuesday advanced bipartisan legislation to scrap the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force that paved the way for the gulf war under president george w.h.o. bush. a full vote is expected in the coming days. "americans are tired of endless war in the middle east and we are to them and veterans and their families to repeal the iraqar tim kae of virginia also weighed in on the resution. here what he had to say. [video clip]

sen. kaine: i was the lieutenant governor and i never had interest in being in the senate. at that time i had no idea my 12-year-old son would become a marine infantry officer. i listened to the debate about the iraq war and it infuriated me. it infuriated me it was being forced on congress before a midterm election. the invasion didn't start until march. there was nothing about that debate that was according to hoyle, it should not have been put in a midterm election context. it is so angry at me that when i got elected to the senate, i fought to get on the armed services and foreign relations committee to work with colleagues to get congress to take more seriously the grave responsibility in article one that we should not go to war without a foot of conference -- without a vote of congress.

iraq is no longer an enemy. secretary austen was there last week to talk about the work we are doing to battle against isis and other terrorist organizations, to check irani aggression, to promote stability. there is no reason to have more authorization against a nation that is a securely partner. it is time to repeal this and show congress can exercise that article one muscle. if we begin with this repeal and that hopefully with a good bipartisan vote send a message that can gain momentum in the house where we have bipartisan sponsorship. congress needs to take back this power, one we should jealously guard. host: our opening topic about your confidence and in the u.s. banking system. this is some reaction from folks on facebook, "-- fm folks on facebook.

kitty says this, "i am confident to the point. depositors create fear with their actions. no businesses should be able to run without a significant regulati. every time there is deregulation, they cheat and abuse the system until they e caught or create a disaster. they have shown they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. leon twitter says "the failure of the banks a in 1930's show this -- proves dirsity is nothing to do at this. white men were running the banks in the 1930's and they crashed." from a mic facebook, "typical u.s. overreaction. one bank fails and not the entire system is at risk? wh about the banks that didn't fail." -- didn't fail?" 202-748-8000 for those who say

th have nfidence in the banking system. 202-748-8001 if it is no. 202-748-8002 if you are unsure. arthur is on the no line. call: i read years ago tt there were -- tt national bankers plotd to - to the final minute. my grandfather lost everything head in the bank in 1929. here i the point, have regulato that know what they are doing. you don't hire a pern to mow your yard that doesn't knowhat a lawnmower is. you hire somebody who knows what

they are doing. host: you feel like these banks did not know wt they were doing? caller: i am afraid there were people within the system who may not realize what th is doing. s. st: thanks fothe cal this is any opiniopiece from earlier this week from the wall street journal, the headline "the silicon valley bank bailout." in that editorial, the writers fothe wall street journal say this, "this is a defective bailout of the banking system, even as regulators and biting officials have been telling us -- and joe biden officials have beenelng us the economy is t. the truth is that svb's failure is the bill coming due for years of monetary and tory

mistakes. as bp exec made mistakes and they will pay for them but they were encouraged by easy money and misguided regulation as the fed flooded the world with t dollar liquidity, money flowed into venture startups. the banks -- there's -- the bank's depositexceeded far above what it could handle." michael on the no line. good morning. caller: my comments are that when banks complain, especially smaller banks, that regulation was too expensive for them, we are talking about the capitalized at $50 billion up to $250 billion. if you cannot spena few million dollars to comply, you probably should not be in banking.

those regulations were there to keep even small banks from making the kind of mistakes svb made. i agree with almost everyone who was called in on the no line. my other comment is that the kind of regulation that was necessary at the time was to force even small banks to keep a fairly moderate position in short-term treasuries instead of the gamble svb made in long-term treasues expecting interest rates to not go against them. anybody who trades pds orders and things about bonds knows that duratn is always a factor in what you are doing. they basically took a risk, a

big one, and got caught. my larger point would be that almost all of our big crises in this country have come from the banking center. we are all familiar with 27 and 28 and then there was the banking -- the asian banking crisis of the 1990's. i really don't know. i am a republican. host: to those crazies seem to be happening with more frequency in your view? caller: it was 13 or 14 years ago when we h the banking crisis and it was 13 or 14 years before when we had the asian

banking crisis. that was basically u.s. banks loaning dollars to the asian nations and where the dollar began to decline in value, it bankrupted a lot of big firms in asia and put those people who had borrowed on the hook. before that, there was the homeowner crisis -- the home loan crisis in the 1980's. i don't know if they come faster but they keep coming. host: we will go to robert in florida who is confident in the banking system. robert, you are in -- you are on the air. caller: i am upset that you don't correct these ignorant democrats that are calling and

have crazy things they are saying, blaming trump, blaming reagan for what has happened in e last few years. the banking system is fine. it is the regulators who have screwed up. the bankers have sewed up. who invests in long-term bonds in an and visionary period? you know well that interest rates are going to be going up. the value of your bonds are going to drop. host: to chattanooga. marvin is on the no line. caller: good morning. i will agree to the lastaller, it is thindividuals. i agree with individuals who

said donald trump had a significant input in the silicon valley breakup. the thing i am more concerned about is why did andrew jackson in 1805 withdraw from the world bank? if we don't understand why he did withdraw, we will understand why it is being repeated. this pandemic created an invitation for bank fraud. the attention was taken away from so many things going on. regardless of what the cause is, the fallout was trickle-down to the poorest of americans. that is what concerns me. anytime the federal government starts making money out of the thin air by borrowing om the federal reserve and raising interest rates and bring young people -- and lowering -- and

luring young people into credit and they have to foreclose and manipulate in order to save for the future, know that saving has been depleted by inflation a the banking system is not going to do anything to help them recoup. the rich can always recoup. they learned how to recoup from 1929. host: a couple of comments on social media and by text. "do people realize trump has been gone two years? they had control two years and they could implement relations to make sureanks never fail." james is saying "if everyone had listened to elizabeth warren, none of this would be happening. like her, i don't trust any entity cannot be greedy and

stupidly given the opportunity. three words, regulate, regulate, regula." bill is in astoria, new york. caller: good morning. i have to comment on something an earlier caller said about how ha it is to take $20,000n cash outf the bank. if that is youbiggest problem, u have it pretty good. most americans are not having a problem taking money out of the bank. talk about out of touch with reality. if you are taking $20,000 out of the bank, of course they're going to be suspicious. if you try to buy a car with $20,000, they are good you think you are longer and mon. -- good bear going to think you are laundering money. host: more of your calls your head on "washington journal." next, our series on china continues.

we will take a look at china's investments under the u.s. a the potential national security concerns. that conversation with thomas feddo who let the team tasked with overseeing those foreign transactions. later, andrew ackerman will be with us to talk about the federal response to the bank failures we have been talking about. lots more ahead. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdy on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 3:15 p.m. eastern, the presidential foundation and the lead group,'s mark the centennial of calvin coolidge's

ascension to the office after president warren harden suddenly died. here abo his political development and economic policies and legacy with the keynote address by mike pence and at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, west virginia university professor talks about the formation of west virginia and its entry into the union during the civil war. exploring e ameran story, watch americ history tv saturday on c-span2 andind a full schon your program guide or watch online anytime at www.c-span.o/history. >> the name of america which belongs to you in your national capacity >> four score and seven years ago >> ask not what your country c do for you >> presidents have delivered

speeches during inaugurations and times of challenge and on saturday, watch our 10 part series, speeches that defined the presidency on american hiory tv. hear theords of george washington and abraham linco. we will feature ronald reagan's 1985 inaugural addresseclaring the government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.in 1984, on the 40th anniversary of d-day, president reagan spoke from normandy. >> behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the rage of daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs and before me are the men who put them there. these are the boys. >> watch our 10 part series, speeches that defined the presidency, saturday at 9:30 a.m. and p.m. eastern on erican history tv on c-span2.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: each morning this week and this hour, washington journal has been taking a closer look at china and its growing military, economic and geopolitical influence the world. joining us this morning to discuss security concerns about china's investments inside the u.s. is thomas fto. he's here to talk about chinese investments in u.s. national security. ur posion in the treasury department? you were assistant secretary for investment security, what did you do in that role? guest: that role was created from an overhaul by congrs in 2018 of a national security team that is vital to u.s. national security that screens foreign

investment for potential malicious foreign investment into our technology companies and their infrastructure that might compromise it. the assistant secretary was created by that statute to oversee the committee and its work. host: how does the treasury department screen a foreign investor whether in china or elwhere to invest in techlogy ithe u.s.? >> guest: the secretary of the treasury is the chair of the committee. it's made up of nine agencies total that come together and do due diligence together. it is largely a voluntary process. companies that are investing in the united states that might see there's a potential for the governmento have some concerns about the assets theyre buyg in the united states will submit of filg with the government

and treasury will share that th the rest of the voting members and tre is deliberati and a time frame to decide what to do th the transaction. can be cleed, it can be ohibit or the government can put conditions on it. host: it's worth nong that you were the first assistant secretary in this position for investment security. what prompted threation of that decision? gut: the committee has been around for almost 50 years. host: this is the committee on foreign investmentn the u.s.? guest: that's right and it's the cabinet level secretaries of nine agencies led by the treasury secretary, the department of justice, department of defense, department of homeland security, the state department and several others wl participate in this deliberation and scrutiny of

foreign investment into u.s. companies. in 2018, there was an ineasing concern that had grown over time about chinese foreign vestme in the united states and the attempt to misappropriate and steal technologyr compromise u.s. data. the congress came togeth with the administration overwhelmingly psed the foreign investment risk review modernization act. it was finally implemented. i oversaw the imementation of that law from 2018 through 2020. essentially what was happening is the tes of investments that pose national cured he risks were changing. they were becoming more complex. venture capital investments were potential areas of rk, investments in real estate near

u.s. military facilities were also a conce. in 2018, the congress anthe administration worked on essentially modernizing the committee and overhauling its jurisdicon. host: let's understand some of the risks you would typicly see. guest: one of the things that china isnterested in, the ccp, the chinese communist party, they have an approach, a philosophy, a strategy called civil military fion which is leraging everying for one goal for china tbecome a preeminent power in technology, manufacturing and the innovation osystem. leveraging the state and its companies to acquire and find technology around theorld for its own purpos and one of

those iso advance the preeminence of the chinese military. one of the things, one of the type of risks that we look at and not with just respect to china but any foreignnvestmt u.s. sinessould potentially crte a risk, is to look fhe risk of technology traner for t access to a u.s. person's data or t ability to influence ctical infrtructu in the united stat like the electric rid or pipelines or thenternet or telecommunicationsystems. those arthe thgs the mmittee is primarily focused . host this is just a graphic chart but i think it is dicative of the level of chinese investment in the u.s. foign direct investment from

china into the u.s.there a tef -- aoticeae upti in spendin begning i2015 throh 2020, what's behind that? guest: first of all, the bt place in theorld to invest is erica's oforeign investors see the ited states econo and businessnvironnt as an attractive place to invest their money. ited stes get the benit of jobsnd enomic growth an innovati from that forgn investment. that's been a philosophy of t united states from the very beginning. in the context of sythias, it's been told by congress to do its work in a focused way so that foreign iestment remains open. naturally, chinenvesto li many hers want to inves in the united states. some of is is driven by the

intentnd desire to acquire cuttinedge technology. it's only one piece of the strategy by the cc top fbi direct had talked about the number of chinesespionage investigations that the fbi has opened, over 2500. it's a multifaceted approach to acquire technology and leapfrogged the united states and other developed nations on the technology battlefield. host: we've been focusing all this week on different aspects of the u.s.-china relationship and we are focusing onhinese investments in the u.s.. our guest served in the easury department as assistant secretary for investment securities with the rubicam group now and regionally testified on capitol hill recently.

we want to hear from you. you testified beforthe hoe nancial services committee in bruary wh were they asking a what were you telling them? gut: it was a x hour long aring,t was the firs hearing of the financial servic committee in the 118 congress and it was l about china d ecomic and i was at one of a number of pels an the fact that the financial rvices committee nameshina the focus of its first hearing of this congress signals how important these ises areo makeure th the united states isn't taken vantage of, techlogy is not misappropriated and trade rules

e respted. much of my testimony related to whether or not we were doing our job and were effective in is nsideration of a new too to scen invtments, leaving the united states and flowing int china or other countries o concern. host: you allud to thi earlier and there been reports about the chinese buying land in thunited states, farmland in particular. there was a recent opinion piece by theeo of smithfielwhose and he defended the chinese ownership in aarticle in the wall street journal.

is there concern -- this is a large company so what's in it for china? guest: i'm not sure of the drive of the chinese acquirer. is was an investment by a chinese company back in 2013 and i believe it even underwent a review with the time. what i think folks are concerned about is the security of our food infrastructure, agriculture infrastrture and to the extent there are acquisitions by foreign investors or investments into u.s. businesses related to that industry, we looked at those and had the input of the agriculture department to consider whether our homeland security, our aggie infrastructure has been compromised or might be.

one thing to keep in mind with the issues related to agriculture, i think that article also mentions that chinese owners or investors in u.s. farmland, somewhere around 850 thousand acres as opposed to 350,000, as opposed to were compared to 900 million acres of farmland in the united states area while it poses a potential problem, it's important to keep it in perspective and make sure we keep an eye on it and tackle it in a precise way. host: the other related concern ishe purchasg of land near national security installations, particularly milary installations. guest: that's right and th is part of what motivated the overhaul of scythias.

the rules that we have as itten, it's a ce-by-case analysis of a particular transaction. it's not a polic tool of the united states, it's more of a precise naonal security tool. in the course of its work, the committee needs to he a u.s. business that's being invested in by a foreign enty. if there is no u.s. business like undeveloped land, then congress discovered th this was a national security gap. in 2018, they created real estate jurisdictions with respect to u.s. military installations and sensitive facilities and to the extent that a purchase occurred near one of these designated facilities, scthias could

consider that even though there was no u.s.usiness associated with that property. is is something that was paid close attention to in recent years. host: your out of the treasy now but is that up more frequent thing where we are seeing more attempts by the chinese to buy land near military installations? guest: it's been front burner in the newspapers, there has been rerts of a north dakota related purchase by a chinese foreign entity for corn processing plant near a grand forks air force base. it turns out that cynthia's did not have jurisdiction there because the pentagon had not indicated that was a facility that should be covered by the

committee's jurisdiction. that could be remedied immediately by adding it to th list host: lots of comments and questions from our viewers. let's go first on the independent line in albany, georgia. caller: yes, good morning and thanks very much for c-span being our link to world history with book reviews and authors and the capacity to avis a wonderl, esteemeduest as we have this morning. i would like to spk to the gentleman, as he plains that, the chese communist party has a philosophy, a strategy, he cas it. i wanted to bridge -- canse di and you please explain to us how it is that ou philosophy, our strategy that

allowed foreign investment, corporations. this is not a policy but a transactional philosophy. we as a country do not have a policy that takes care of this. we have multinational rporations that too jets to china 30 or 40 yes ago and they signed transactional coracts that gave that ccp the majority interest in a supply chain that now haseen disrupted and we now go to bat for. it's a philosophy but would you explain how we come a country that allows multitional corporationsn our own country to go out of this country and take the jobs, the preeminent technolo and innovation to

another countrthat requires them to sign an investment contract with a majority interest. also as it relates to tariffs. host: any comments? guest: there was a lot in there to unpack and i appreciate the perspective and the concern. scythias is focused on inbound transactions and it's only one tool in the toolbox that the united states has to protect its technology and to ensure that there are multiple economic stat tools to protect our national security. there are economic sanctis, export controls but i'm not intimately familiar with that transaction. it involved technology that should be protected that would be controlled under our commer department export control laws. we have a numberthe departmt

has rules a authorities t protect the defens industrial base when parts of it are acquired by foreign acquirers. all of that working to gather to ensure we protect our natial security withoutverly impacting global capital flows andnsuring our economy is as strong as possible. i's a challenging question in terms of its complexity. there are hearings and picy debates going on now but to what extent the u.s. government tools need to be amplified or modified to address some of these issues. host: we will hear from the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, i love c-span and you all do a great job. i've been calling for ove30 years and i want to say i made

trump -- a strong trump supporter and i'm very concerned about red china, china and the transfer of technology to china. i teach a leadership class and we have one of the top georgia conservatives on television every week speaking to our leadership class at the bbecue and i would like to invite you to come down sometime. we are very concerned about china and our company -- our country has given them the technical knowledge so we appreciate you checking in on that and we need tstop the transfer of our material. we are working with young people and educating them and i am a strong donald trump supporter and i'm working to reelect him as president of the united states. host: you have an interview to a barbecue. guest: i do love barbecue. one of the things i would like to amplify is it's not simply

technology we are worried about. we are worried about american data, supply chains and their resiliency, we are worried about if there is a foreign acquisition, it doesn't have to be necessarily from a chinese acquirer. it could be from virtually any acquirer. if scythias determines that the supply chain is jeopardized or there is a key part of the supply chain that could be limited by that acquisition, the committee has the ability to say no or to put conditions on the acquisition. it might be an investment on part of the company or promises to keep a facility in the united states producing those parts that may go into the joint strike fighter and are important to keep that production here.

the committee has a white area of tools to ensure supply chain resiliency, cybersecurity, any number of potential national security threats. that is the benefit of it not just being the treasury department but eight other agencies that have that subject matter expertise they can bring. host: i don't have the chart in front of me but the amount of china investment in th u.s., the volume of work that scythias is undertaking must be quite demanding. guest: it has grown and it's largely a voluntary process. the committee has the authority to ring and transactions that it's concerned about and it has a very active process to force them into a review if necessary. there is an interesting and brilliant process because it's voluntary, what motivateseople

to file is the promise of a safe harbor. they get throughscythias deal, th transaction and go forward and never be interrupted again by the government. there is this natural incentive for parties, if they think there might be u.s. government concern to bring it to the committee for review and get that safe harbor. thnumbers you are suggesting are typically 400 filingser year and that has grown, almost doubled in the last few years. out of thousands of crossorder transactionshat ocr every year. host: let's go to ffrey callg from.c., good morning. caller: good mning, i have a brief comment and i have a question. i work in the health-care industry, i a nur. i worked during the entire pandemic.

prior to the pandemic, we actually hadrobably abo 25% of our medications and supplies coming directly from cna. during the pandemic, that number has increased and i would venture to say about 80% of the medical supplies, i work in long-tm care, 80% of the medical supplies are coming from china. that's not to mentionedication coming directly from china. i kn we artalkinto vestment in real estatand tenologybut the are a number of other cricalreas of theountries day to day operations where we are literally indebtedo china and no one is paying attention. all of the gns, the gloves,

the masks at were used during the pandemic, if you research where they were sourced, most of themave come from china. so, i think maybe the government should look at the possibility of limiting actually what products of that nature we a allowed to import from china, whether it's 20%f the total usage for the country or whatever. at this point, 80% of tse itemsn longerm ca are literally coming from china. host: tha you for that persctive. guest: jeffrey brings up an important point. it's not necessarily s acythias issue because we are talking that acquisitionof u.s. companies but the trump adminiration and now the are very focused on biotec issues

and that industry and supply chains related to that area in that field. it's part of the purview of the committee to the extent it's biotech or a medical related business is bought by a foreign acquirer. there concern aut consolidation or jeopardizing part of a supply chain, that ght be a key link in the chain d the committee can look at those. as to where things are manufactured, i know the current administration is very focused on diversification of the supply chain. thatay be one of thereas that will be addressed over time. i thinkolicymakers are paying attention to this. it just may not be a scythias issue dending th the transaction is. host: oklahoma, democrats line.

caller: good morning. just a couple of things for your guest. since the trump administration added around $5.1 trillion to the debt and since the insurrectionist president also got impeached and added another $750 to his taxes that he didn't pay but he got that 750. this to time insurrectionist i an incompetent man and he is a humpty dumpty, you can't put them back together again. host: do you have a question on

the topic we are talking about, about china national security issues? caller: just that -- no, i don't have any more questions. ho: we will move on to ocean city, new jersey on the independent line. caller: yes, with china and all other nations, we need a new foreign policy, a quaker like foreign policy which treats china and all of their nations as friends and you would see it dramatic improvement in human rights in those nations. from the beginning of this nation, we have had a paranoid, jingoistic, chauvinistic mentality. we need to do with the quakers do and treat china and all of the nations as friends and it would work. host: any thoughts on that? guest: i'm not sure i appreciate

that philosophyr how that would work. we know that any number senior fallen policy national security officials have very cleay articulated the threat posed by the ccp and its intentions. it needs to be addressed in a thoughtful, his point about strategy is important. we need a coherent and thoughtful and tough strategy where we don't allow, for example in the context of scythias host: let me ask you about tiktok, it seems to be the leading edge with legislation through congress with the use of tiktok by federal officials. now a story in the "new york

times" the u.s. is pushing for tiktok to settle national security fears. the biden administration wants the chinese group to sell the app. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i have written about this recently. during the trump administration, they took action -- host: the parent company. caller: the chinese parent company of the app. i think there has been a lot of discussion recently by our policymakers and national security leaders about the threat from tiktok, which i completely agree with. i have proposed things like

banning -- suggesting the app stores take the app off the app stores. those are all well-intentioned. really what should be focused on is the order that president trump issued in august, 2020 with theevelopment or the sale of the u.s. business and the u.s. tiktok assets fm the chinese parent. that hasn't been effectuated yet. it is ready and waiting. it has not been revoked by the biden admistration. i suspect that what we are seeing here in the "new york times" and "wall street journal" suggesting the administration is preparing to enforce that order. i think that is a very good thing. host: what year did that order come out? caller: it was issued august, 2020. host: we are three years in and

it is potentially being put into effect if what you are saying is correct? caller: potentially. there continues toe focused from -- focus from capitol hill on the enforcement of that order or passing a ban. senators warner and senator thune rolled out a new piece of legislation to allow the biden administration or the executive branch to ban certain technology in apps like this. i'm not sure whether that will be successful or not. there is a lot of focus on these issues. this reporting is good news. host: we have james on the republican line in texas. you are on. caller: in september,og resources in tas sold our

mineral interests to mosque creek resources. i'm only one of 100eople that are growing mineral loyalties on a small 500 acre plot. first ofll, why didn erican company sell to a chinese company owned and operated? can u imagine the ramifitions if ts is going on all across e nati? how much of the income is being diverted to foreign interestsn the behalf of chinese oil and gas? host: with the change in

ownership there, have you seen any change in the payments you get for these mineral rights? james? caller: yes, sir? host: have you seen any change in the payments you get for the mineral rights for this new company? caller: no, sir. host: appreciate your question. guest: the committee took part of its risk analysis focused on income flows and economic flows so much as critical infrastructure or as we hav talked about, technology. the issue of foreign purchases of our mineral resources, in particular critical minerals is

something the committee and the government is very focused on. to the extent there is a chinese or foreign acquisition of critical minerals in the united states, that would something they are looking at with areat deal oattention. it is not awarof it, it is now. host: next up isay, in huon, florid yoare onhe air. caller: i just have two reall important sentences he. number one, the immigrant problem if i could talk about that for 30 secos is a problem we are not going to be ablto solve. basically, being aeteran and being drafted back in the 1970's, i did two years, one year in vietnam. i came back a much mate person.

it would be nice if we could figure o how to put these people ithe mility, 18 years old to 35 years old. get them off the streets. it is a major problem. a lot of them will probably come out as aetter person, mature person. host: appreciate your comments on that. a little off topic. do you want to comment on china and national security? caller: national security is obvious with the president right now. we have a lot of things going o that are very sca. i will be honest with you, my view of the secretary of defense and the joint chief chairman, they would be more nervous than biden. when i hear them speak, they blow everything off and go to a different subject. host: thank you for the call.

on the military, you mentioned the head of the agency, does the military itself has a presence? guest: they do through the civilian part of the peagon and the department of defense. they are representing and participating in every transaction. the bulk of the transactions reviewed involve a dod angle. many of these technologies that are cutting edge are innovative, being developed in the united states in our venture capital and startup ecosystem could implicate or impact cyber, space itself, submarine related technologies, aircraft, drones, autonomous vehicles. all of those things that are

being innervated by our private sector in silicon valley for example or by some of our bger companies. they have potential military applications. you could see how that drives this concept of civil military fusi. acquiring those technologies and allowing them to leapfrog and get ahead of the united states could have dire consequences. host: we have evidence the chinese military has been benefiting and improved from technology they have gained from the u.s. by whatever means? guest: i can't think of any examples off the topf my head. i think there are probably some pretty clear ones out there. host: this may have been a little out of your lane in treasury, this question from nelson asks could you please comment on the problem with the chinese owning so much of a large portion of our national

debt and its consequences? guest: i will defer on that question but ippreciate it. it is something that policymakers are focused on as well. host: let's go to joe in new york, democratic caller -- joan in new york, democratic caller. caller: i'm originally from the state of north carolina, my concern rerding china is the food industry. hello? the food industry. i visit north carolina on vacation normally once a year. was alarmed when i went home and found out china had not only bought smithfield but also i believe tyson chicken plants. they have a considerable amount of land down there, farmland.

the type of fertilizer being used in the land -- i'm ncerned about the food industry. the second thing i'm thinking about and concerned about is the fentynyl. my daughter unfortunately passed in 2020 of breascancer. i learned they were using patches for her pain that had fe ntynyl. being that you are on the watch for some of these foreign companies, i'm concerned about the food industry and the fact that these hospitals are using patches that contain fentynyl. host: thank youor theall, sorry for the ath of your daught. guest: w talke abo this earlier.

the food infrastructure inhe united stes is potentially a nation security issue. the committee has the ability to look at those transactions today and does regular. the smithfield transaction for example was reviewed by the sify us -- 10 years ago. policymakers are ping attention to these issues to the extent of foren compy or using fertizers at are prohibited or dangerous. the laws in the country or the states related to those sorts of regulations should be applied iformlin terms of t national security risk. they're loong at is this a critical part of theupply chain? is there too much consolidion in the ag industry? how much land is being bought?

does it have proximity to sensitive military installation host: earlier you talked about the amount of farmland bought by the chinese, around 350,000 acre that is comparedo hundreds of millio of faland aes in the united states. still a concern nonetheless on capitol hill. a headline from npr, china is buying up more u.sfarmla. some lawmars conder that a reat. i want to play you the commen by h.r. mcmaster. he was asked last month about the purchase ofand in the u.s. here is that exchange. >> i'm very concerned about that. the purchase of land and buildings next to sensitive sites. it is extordinary the degree the chinese party has pursued a massive campaign. that is one facet of it. the other aspect is the

dependency of chinese investment which teaches them coercive power. i describe in my written testimony, the three c's. co-opt to build on the chinese market. once you are in use that for the course of purposes. the commercial aspect of this is often tied to the united front work department, an arm of state security. this forms organizations that promote u.s.-china dialogue in economic discourse. agriculture in particular in the american heartland. those are organizations designed to advance the prc's agenda. to conceal all of this as normal business practices. i think you are qte right to be concerned. what you are doing, what the committee is doing to pull the

curtain back and shined the light on the behavior is an impoant first step. host: you and h.r. mcmaster served in the trump administration, what is your take away from his current views on china? guest: i didn't have the privilege of meeting him while i worked in the same administration. i ve an incredible amount of respect or him and his service. i couldn't disagree with anything he said. the issues he is highliting are incredibly important. he is spot on. my vw is whatever tools we use to address the ag and farmland purchase issues that weailor our response and tools to respon to away thats commensurate with the size and scope of the problem. at this point it is something that should be more closely looked at.

is point about buying farmland near a sentive military facility is exactly why it was reformed in 2018 to allow the committee tprevent those types of deals andurchases to happen. the most recengrand rks issue is an examplof why it needs to be on its toes and routinely update and work with th pentagon to make sure the right facilities are covered by rule. host: what did you think of his comment, he said something like american business depending on chinese instment, why is that a potential threat? guest: if there is some dependency on the investment, implication is there is potential for coercion or influence. if you need this money, if you need my support, in return i want access to sensitive information. i want access to intellectual property or know-how. that could impact the scope or

type of investment to be somewhat psuasive. host: we are talking about national security issues related to china. we have been focused all week and this hour on washington journal on u.s. policy with china. (202) 748-8001 is the republican line. (202) 748-8000 is the democratic line. for others it is (202) 748-800 2. we will go to george, thanks for waitg, go ahead. caller: thanks for putting me on. i would like task mr. feddo, back in the 60's and 1970's, the manufacturing facilities we did a lot of government work. a lot of the work was done -- at that time they were subsidizing different factories all ove.

the government was subsidizing them. some did good work and the parts went through and some didn't. in the end, it gave a lot of work in america. everything was good. we subsidid farme. we subsidizehe automotive somewhat. why codn't we get a program like that going again? we have laid off thousands of people in the coal mines. maybe we could get some of that work back in and start it back up. we subsidize really the whole world. why couldn't we do that strictly american? guest: subsidies and the motivation behind them are not necessarilmy sweet spot.

what i would say is we are seeing that. the administration, congress, how to respond to those issues. we have seen some of that with subsidizing and incentivizing the ilding of the semi conductor advanced semi conductor manufacturing in the united states. the committee has a scific tool among my national security tools to look at malicious or potentially malicious investment in u.s. businesses. host: i have a question for you from philadelphia, what u.s. entity looks at the long-term protection of essential supplies? how vulnerable is the u.s. regarding pharmaceutical manucturers?

wh do we do to ense the supply of medical can't be disrupted? guest: that is a greatuestion. that is something the executive branch, the president, the departnt of health and human services, and others are to doing a holistic analysis. perhaps they are. i am not familiar with all of that work. to asss whether sply chains are threened, wea how they could be improved. at the start of the biden admistration the president issued an executive order directing the different parts of the government to look at the supply chain resiliency issues. that was driven in part because of the impact of the pandemic on our supply chains. to consider whate need to do to strengthen those areas. host: dennis in iowa, you are on, republican caller.

call: good morning, guys. my concern is farmland that is being bought up by bill gates. he owns 270,000 acres here in the united states and has strong ties to type -- china. i was ndering if you had concerns about that? i thought i would call in and get your thoughts on that? caller: i don't have any it -- guest: i don't have any issue with bill gates owning farmland in the united states. host: there was a piece in the "washington examiner" a couple weeks ago, joe biden has left a leadership vacuum in china policy.

potential additional policy coming up, what was your point in this piece? guest: we talked early in this conversation about me being the first ever assistant secretary for investment security. that was created by the statutory overhaul that we discussed early in the program. that created my position. i wrote at because my position remained vacant for over a year, well over a year before the president nominated somebody for that role. thateeded to be remedied as soon as possible. the importance of its work, the importance of having that leadership role filled. especially becse congress specifically thought there needed to be that level of political accountability within the government. host: had that person -- they made the nomination, has that person been approved? guest: last year, that person's

name is paul rosen. then in the job since last summer. host: with the rubicon advisors, what sort of wk do you do in your private work? guest:hat is my company. i do advisory work on national security issues, geopolitical risks, sanctions, that sort of work for venture capital firms, investment banks, corporate entities throughout the united states. host: missoi, danny is onhe independent line. caller: thank you so much. maybe you could answer a couple of questions. china clipping around over in the middle east. we have military over there. what do you think about that? does china own any of our iraq

war debt? have a great day, goodbye. guest: appreciate the queson. i don't have an answer on the debt issue. the answer on china and its footprint around the world including the middle et is something tha the overa focused on, in addition to modernizing the committee and giving it more authority. directing it to enforce more of its conditions, more vigorously was a directive to work with our allies and parers so ey were as alert tthese issues of text compromise, critical infrastructure compromise. to encourage them to build similar screening mechanisms. we spent a great deal of time engaging with european countries and others to ensurehey were

alert to these issues. if the unid states is very good vesiphius and other too of squeezing on the balloon and preventing chinese investment in critical technologies. that pressure goes somewhere else. our partners have to be just as aware. host: were you surprised by the news that the chinese had bee part of the negotiation, brokered that deal between iran and saudi arabia? guest: i'm nosurprised. i think china desires to be a diplomatic leader aroundhe world. they see it as the overall plan to be the preeminent force diplomatically, economically around the world. host: going to larry virginia

beach on the republican line. caller: i had a question. fentynyl componts, if theare sourced from china, cod we add a tax or sanction that would make it so costly that they uld not put anything on a ship or plane to send it over here to kill our americans they have killed with the drug? if anybody has any information, i would be glad to know. host: do you have any information on that? guest: i don't. host: let me ask you about the end rult when an entity or business goes through the process and they say no, you cannot invest in the united states? guest: the way the law is built, the committee cannot say no.

they can only refer it to the president. the president of the united states is the only person who has the authority say no. the committee will deliberate, do its work, diligence, it is required under the law to do a risk-based analysis to ok at who the acquirer or the investor is. look at what vulnerability it presents to national security. to prepare a written analysis. to determine whether or not those risks can be mitigated or conditioned through what is called a national security agreement. the party can negotiate and ultimately allows the deal to go forward and oversees those conditions to make sure -- in some cas there is no way to condition the deal because the national security risk is so high. in those circumstances, the committee will tell the parties,

we don't think this can be conditioned or mitigated if you don't abandon the transaction we will refer it to the president for his decision. those referrals have only happened in the 50 year history, seven times. four during the trump administration. typically when the parties are put on notice that the committee thinks the deal needs to go to the president, they abandon the transaction and go the own way. host: i assume when it goes to the president the president follows the guidancend continues or sustains the idance to block that potentially? gues i have toe careful. what typically happens is there is a referral to the president. the president has 15 days to consider it. he works with his advisers,

national security staff, and white house counsel office to make a decision. as far as i'm aware, there has onlyeen those seven referrals to the president. each of those seven referrals have been a prohibition. host: one more call, we will go to rick in idaho on the republican line. caller: good morning-span, back in 1984 when i was in south korea i asked a marine what land was going for in japan, they said $10,000 per square foot. you have to be a japanese national. u have to have been born in that country to buy their land. same situation applies with thailand, china, south korea. e way i think china says we can't buy land in our country,

u shouldn't be able to buy land in our country. i'm taking the secretary of transportation, that is your hospitality, godless you, presidentrump. est: i certainly respect that perspective. that would be a decision for capitol hill and policy makers on what to allow and not to allow. host: thomas feddo with rubicon advisors, former assistant secretary, thank you so much for the hour spent here on "washington journal." guest: my pleasure. host: up next, us to talk about the federal response to the recent bank failures. we will take your calls on the issue. that is next. ♪

>> this ye's grand prize winns in c-span studentc video contest ohth graders at dr.artin luther king middle school in germantown, maryland, for their documentary where is my data. watch the grand prize at all leading documentaries online at studentcam.org. >> fridays at 8:00 eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed on their latest books. thiseek journalist kathleen maclachlan looks at how and why selling blood psma has turned into a $20 billion business in her book blood money.

watch afterwards every friday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> cpan's campaign 2024 coverage is your frt row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, speeches, and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 9:00 eastern the book towards

a more perfect union, where he argues american chilen are not being taught enou civics in schools. then journalist kathleen buckland -- kathleen maclachlan looks at how and why selling blood plasma has turned into a $20 million business. watch book tv every sundayn c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch anytime online at book tv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome andrew ackerman to washington journal. part of washington trip -- part of wall street journal's team, lots of coverage this week on the collapse of svb and signature bank in new york city. you have reported the fed is considering new rules for

midsized banks in the aftermath of what we sn the last week or so. what you think they are proposing? guest: the fit has been conducting a review ofll of its rules, and what happened last week causing them to reassess the riew and say we need to worry about banks of svb's size and we need toilter everything we want t do through what happened last wee, where we saw the clapse very large bank, the 16th largest in the country, followed by a second bank failure. we have to toughen the rules so there are on much stronger financia footing. caller: svb -- host: svb is the 16th largest bk in the country? guest: yes. host: but somehow they fel between the cracks of dodd-frank regution.

guest: dodd-frank basically said -- after t financial crisis congress passed a law that says nks over $50 billion in assets need to be subje to hyper standards, which means we save the toughest rules for the biggest banks. congressassed a law five years agthat raised that threshold $250 billion. what you saw was a focus from washinon policymakers on the very largestanks. less of a focus -- they are still large institutions but they are smaller institutions, like j.p. morgan or nk of america or citigroup or wells fargo. what policakers learned last week is that you can have systemic risk with smaller institutions if they fail as a group.

>> -- host: you say smaller institutions but there capitalization was not far below that $250 billion level, correct? guest: the argument you will see is the last five years have seen an easing of the rules on banks at that level. they have had less frequent and less stringent stress testing. there are certain capital requirements that were softened. congress passed a 2018 law. one way to see that is as a cultural shift. there was a direction from congress do not worry about the smaller institutions, worry about the biggest bank and the fed ran with it and did things on their own. not in the explicit direction of congress but they loosen to the rules. host: where there also issues with svb's portfolio and their investment strategy that caused

their collapse? guest: yes. this ia classic bank r. they basically grew dramatically. there were all kin of red flags that were missed by the bank regulators and the management did not pay close ough attention to. the deposit growth grew dramatically from all of these portfolio companies and tech startups and they took that money andhey bought a bunch of long-term securits. treasury bonds, mortgageacked securities, they were fe sets b they bght th at the precise wrg te whenhe d was arting to rais inrest rates, so the value of ese lo-term securities declined dramatically. you have this maturity mismatch. you have these liabilities,

deposits that are on demand. you put youroney in the bank you can demandt out mediately. your assets reong-te. its a clsic probl. creat a cruh. ey had all t securities they cod not wouldot sell. onednesd night they said they did t to sell $20 billion of securiest a lof $2 billion a then ey tri to say it isk becae we will iseoney. th spook investoit's ot dositor they flit -- it spooked deposirs. y bank that suffers that kind of outflow ia single day is very tough for them to survive. ho: andrew ackerman is our guest. we are talking about the coapse of svb, the u.s. response to that. we welcome your calls and questions. (202) 748-8001 is the line for

republicans. (202) 748-8000reeemocrats. for dependents and other (202) 748-8002. or y can sd us a text at (2) 748-8003. the ftc response was rapid but unusual in that they have said they will bastop the investments above the normal $250,000 dosit. is thithe first time for the fdic doing sometng like this? guest: they have not done something like this since the financial crisis when you had bigger bks that failed. this is different from 2008 but it is the last time since 2008. it is a little technical. if you are the fdic, wch insures bank deposits, when

you're resolving a failed bank, they have to rolve it in the cheapest way possible with the desit insurance fund, which is is big pile of money that all the banks pay into. they have to take the cheapest urse o action. unless there is a systemic risk. then y have a lot more flexibility to guarantee all positors and other things too that ithe key thing. they said this is a systemic risk. they had two bank failures. they were seeing people making large-scale withdrawals from other banks ofimilar size. our reporting shows they thought that was enough to say there is a systemic threat. that is how they were able to say we are not just going to guarantee the deposors who are insured, we will guarantee the uninsuredepositors, which is a huge step that raises all kinds

of policy issues. there'll be a lot of fallout fromhat decision. host: your publication today, some of your colleagues reporting that the fed reaction to this may be the fed does not raise rateat their meeting next week, potentially sing that is a problem. what can you tell us about that? guest: there is a saying in this town that the fed raises rates until somethin breaks. i tnk this is bn a pretty bruising episode for theed because they have had to get their hand on inflaon and now they have this finaial stabily issue has emeed because they raise rates at a very rapid clip and things are starting to break. it would be natural for them to pause and take a beat and reassess the cumulative effect of their intest rate raising, and that is what my colleagu expect to happen next week. we will have to see. host: the fe's point peon

response to this isichael barr, theice chair for supervision on the board of governors. tell us about him andis worldvieon this issue. guest: michael barr is an interesting g, rhodes scholar. 18 at michigan -- a dean at the university of michigan. he worked in the clinton administration and the obama administration. was there instrumental in the crafting of dodd-frank. he worked for tim geithner when he was treasury secretary and played a role in the establishment of the consumer financial protection bureau. a couple years ago, early in the biden administration thewanted him for a different role, a supervisory role for the comptroller of the currency, which basically supervises the day-to-day operations of the biggest banks like wells fargo and bank of america.

this may be too much history of michael barr, but the democrats could not agree on him and they ended up not nominating anybody. they wound up ere they do not have anybody in that position full-time. michael barr about one year ago wound up being the nominee for this top fed post, arguably more prestigious. he now is what's called the vice chair supervision, which means he crafts the fed approach to regulating wall street, and typically jay powell defs to the vi chair supervision on the decisions they make. host: in our first hour we were havi a conrsation with viewers about their confiden in the u.s. banking system after these incidents, if they were still confidt. what signs are there people are nerally still confident in the banking systeor are there signs people are concern about

their funds at other banks a bigger banks than svb? est: it is a good question becauswhat you've seen last week is very difficult -- very different from008 but also reminiscent. you had the president say the bankinsystems safe and that makes you kind of wonder. i think the banking system is safe. it cuts a couple of ways to be totally hones the regulars are saying there is a systemic threat. th sought close to two esn't banks sing large outflows of depositors after two banks had faed. we knew about one. a second one was failing and there were dozens of other reonal and midsized banks where people were moving their assets andeposits. -- into e biggest banks like the j.p. morgan's of the wld. when you see that you have to wonder, that is not so good for

the regional banks. the system overall is totally safe. you'll see a lot opressure on the midsized ban iconsumers do not fl like ty have confidence in their business del because they think the biggest ban are too big to fail where t money will be safer there. host: our guest is andr ackerman, reported with e wall street journal and covering economic issues with their team covering this. previous reporting experience includes covering the bond market for the bond buyer newspaper. we welcome your calls and comments. we go to frank in johnson city, tennessee. independent line. caller:ood morning. what i'm wondering about th the holdings that svb had, it was over $200 billion. how much of that was in

derivatives and who were the counterparties to these derivatives? i have not heard that word at all in this situation. guest: i think that is a good question. i think it also illustrates how this episode is so different from 2008, where you had banks -- derivatives were at the heart of the financial crisis. they are not now. this is a much simpler bank that fail than the biggest and most interconnected banks. svb is a large bank but not interconnected in the financial system. this is a classic bank failure and it was a very basic tenet of banking that the management just failed at and theupervisors missed. caller: -- host: in the wake o this, has the fed followed

through wi other medium-sized banks to ensure they are solid? guest: i think they are monitori in real time wha happened to the miized bks. you have to believe they are enhancing their supervision of these firms. host: we will hear from justin in california. democratic line. caller: i wonder,r. ackerman, cayou te me who are the large depositors in that bank are we talking $100 milli, one billion dollars, how large were those deposits? did the fed coider giving a haircut to those depositors over 250,000? that is not covering 1% of their deposit so it would decrease the mal hazard. i would like to stay on the le to hear your answer.

host: hg on, justi guest: that is an excellent question. in thevb's case you had a sophisticated close knit group of depositors. d.c. portfolio compani, te startups, so these were not mom-and-po people. the uninsured deposits comprised over 90% of the deposit base at svb so you are talking about 90% ofhe accounts had more than $250,000. me had far morthanhat. yoat companies le roku that make ev's, installed a roku tv r my mher-in-law over the holidays, apparently they had $400illionf just cash sitting at svb which is a weird way to manage your cash.

i tnk for the administration, for the policymakers the desion was if weo not act aggressively there are gng to be thousands of firms that may be unae to make payroll this week. for them that outweighethe other risk of intervening based on whathey he saidublicly. you are right it cuts another w. if they overreacted andhey have stepped in toupportthey basically swatted a f with a mallet. there is a bunch of policy implications, includinmoral hazard where you are bailing o people whohould have kno beer. you are basically rewaing people who actedoorly

social mia. you hapeople fanning the flames. they were encouring a bank run on twitter. and then on top of that you are ultimately punishing all banks for the actions of a couple that re poor manage. you will see taxpayers a not direct on the hook for the cost of resolving theseirms buyou could see it gup for all banks, so you he commity bankers sayinge had nothing to do with this collapse, we should nohave to pay morend ultimately charge our customers more for the deposit insurance. host: jtin do you hava follow-ufor andrew? ller: i do. mr. ackerman, y touched on th bill that raise the limit from

$50 biion to $250 billion. i realize i'asking question abt your opinion rather than facts, but in your opinion if they had stayet the lower $50 billion threshold, do you tnk at would have prevented this bank from buying long-term commitments with shorterm assets host: thanks for weighingn, justin. guest: 've thought about that queson a l this week. it ia good question. i think we do not know. th$50 billion threshold was totally arbitry. theyaid it at $250 billi which was also arbitrary. the problewith the 2018 rollback if we arlooking at that and progressed dtating with that ha made ifference

, it would have changed the way the culture at the fit, if it had not passed or been a diffent level, may be bank would've managed self diffent if ihad be subject to different rules. there are not th many rules in the 20 law applied tthem. they passed the liquidity requirementsnd the stress testing. you had this cultural change that was a later touch at the fed -- aighter touch at the feand the fit a knowledge some of these rules go back pt 2018 where the fedcknowledged capital changes that are quite technical thathey would have to make up for thrule changes -- i am paraphsing heavily butupervion would have to pick up a t of the sck and that clearlyid not hapn. st: let's hear from tom in buffalo, new york.

democrats line. caller: good morning. i havan annuity that is going to mature in august. i am worried about it. if i take it out now i lose all of the interest that is gathered. i am scared. should i be? guest: i cannot speak to annuities, it is not my area. i would say the banking system overall is safe and sound. regial banks have experienced stress. it would have en a nightmare monday had they not acted. instead you have seen a trickling of deposits out of the midsized banks. things have stabilized more or less. hopefully. the markets are also jittery and there are some signs of stress. there is the treasury market,

there are signs of lower liquidity. that is important because the treasury mket -- banks use the treasury market as collateral. i think overall the banking system should be ok. there is still a lot of policy fallout to watch. host: a story about credit suisse, they needed support yesterday. was that part of the fallout from the svb collapsing? guest: that is sort of a separate issue. credit suisse has had a lot of trouble in recent years and i guess theyad an investor that was n going to top off investnt. sounds likthey got a lifeline from the swiss government. it was not directly related, but if you have an additional bomb going off, potentially a bigger

bomb, it can cause a lot of voc. hopefully that has also stabilized. host: a question for yoon twitter, i think you alluded to this earlier, what about the actis of peter teal withdrawing all of his money from the bank and encouraging investors to do the same which cause the run on the bank. he does not exactlyave the well-being of our democracy in mind. guest: it will be tough for the regulators. i do not think they had considered the possibility of a group of bank depositors fleeing all at once over social media. i do not think the rules envisioned $40 billion going out the door in a single day. it is hard to regulate for that.

there were things that were missed at the firm. i'm not sure why they were missed. it is difficult to anticipate the social media and all of the new technology. ho: our gue is following the washington angle on this story. his story today at, "why top washingtonfficials choseo scue s deposors." whatre you lookingt next? guest: what are ting to writ aut wasike a tikto-- we wanteto gui readers over what happened. we foced on key decision. in 2008 you had all of these marathon weekend meetings where the regulators were bailing ou bas and ted to t up shotgun marriag and ty

needed t weekend to ret things. in a way this last weeke was reminiscent of that. from our thinking it bls down to one crual decion, to invoke theystemic risk exption, which is they say there is a systemic risk d the polimakers who have this classic dynamic where the fed wanted to act quickly to put out a fire and you d treasury board and then you had the fdic's chairman was the more conservative and more reluctant participant,t least initially because the fbi s is going to be worried about the health of the deposit insurance fund. host: initially all of the responsibility falls on the fdic's. guest: yes, or at least a lot of the decision-making revolves around them. they have to take over the failed institution.

they voted to do that. sounds like they had marathon sessions thursday night in a different a morning. they voted by 6:00.m. to close svb and then they had a watch throughout the weekend. you had immediately after svb, it is a good story and we are osely following this -- immediately after svb failed you had basically iran on a seco bank, signature bank, which is regulatedy the new york state regulator. they wer basically half the size of svb but they saw proportionate to their size a number of withdrawals, so huge amounts of withdrawals. there was some disconnect between the management at the bank, which insisted they could reopen safely and soundly on monday at signature.

the regulators there basically did not have confidence the management. we heard the management insisted they still had colteral they could pledge to get money from the fed through these emergency facilities or crew -- or through federal home owned banks which is a lender of second to last resort for banks in this country. the fed was telling the bank these are not legible. i do not know much more about that but they clearly had a disconnect with the regulators and at some point over the weekend, i believe late saturday they decided they would have to revoke this banks charter. once you had two banks fail and the regulators were looking in real time at the other withdrawals that were being teed up, it became clear to them there is a real threat if we do not do something big. if we do not do something big and we just say we will do what

we normally do, we are going to basically, on monday morning, we will pay the insured depositors of svb, sell off the remaining assets, probably at steep losses come in that the uninsured depositors get the remainder of that, whatever is left over from that sal if they had done that it would not have contained the fallout from this. typically uninsured depositors in past examples they get 50% initially and then whatever is left over they get certificates for the remainder of their deposits. think in this case they would've gotten a lot more than 50%. they would have been close to whole. the rate for the regulators, it

was clear they had concerns about contagion. without invoking the systemic risk exception, they do not have the legal authority to back the uninsured folks and so that is where they ended up. host: let's hear from david calling from bloomsburg, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: gd morning, gtlemen. this is diculous that the biden administration is going above and bend the uninsured assets. the fdic rules are for the $250,0 limit that should not have been made, that decision, within 48 hours after the banks were closed. these investments that these board of directo made and these excessivenvestors are poor invtments. there is a lot of money they

talked about into cryptocurrency and all of these woke failures, all of these programs for climate change and everything else that are failing. if a person bought stock in a company that was far-fetched and it failed they did not get bailed out by the government. is is going to cost the u.s. taxpayer because they are being compensated above the fdic insurance aunts. that is coming from the united states government, which is the taxpayers. this administratioforgets it is not their money, it is the taxpayers money. i am sorry. they did not make any specifications as far as revoking the bonuses that were paid out, the stock that was sold off by members of the board of directors several weeks before hand. they knew this was coming, and for the regulators in a secret overnight meeting to say we will cover everything a slap in the face of the taxpayer of

america. they should have never been allowed to take place. host: what do we know about the selloff of stock and bonuses awarded to executiveof svb? guest: i cannot speak to any callbacks. i think the caller raises an interesting point and this is where this whole intervention cuts a couple waysor the regulators. if they overreacted, they bailed out people whorguably would've been made close to whole anywa, and you also arguably sew doubts on the integty of the system and there is a mal hazard issue. it could lead to a lot of anger from people who are like these

guys are uninsured depositors, they should not of been ma whole. they should be sophisticated enough to know they would get whatever is left. theyhould have been better actors the other side of that there is a real problem that they he not paid attention to these midsized banks as much as they should have and that in groups they can still wreak havoc on the syste host: let's hear from arkansas city, kansas. jeff. republan caller. go aad. caller: the caller right before, he hit the nail the head. he covered all of the bases that this thing is wrong. this was a backroom deal done by the buy-indministration. they shod not -- done by the biden administration. they should not ha gone above the fdic limits.

these people were engaged in investing in critil stuff they knew could make them a lot of money but it did not. first we bailout the banks back in 2008, then we bout the airlines, then we bail out the autos, this is another bailout for people making bad instments. your momnd-pop pern that had ney, they shou be covered due to the fact that the bank was bacally corrupt. there were people calling for this back i january. people raisinghe red flag. host we lost our caller. to his point about the mom-and-pop's, there are a number of companies that had money in there that were small businesses. have we heard those businesses will have trouble meeting payroll? you mentioned roku had $400 llion and there. roku is still in business. our other businesses that

invested there -- guest: they were supposed to have access to their money by monday morning. they should be totally fine. host: will e taxpayer pick up the t? you mentioned there is a fund that has already been created. guest: i believe the is $25 billion from treasury at will support the separate fit facility -- the separate f facili wherether bks, similar banks can take post securities as collateral. they will get the face value. there is a small fee. there is an issue in the banking system where there are abo $600 billion of unrecognized losses for capitalurposes that the banks are holding oo.

the idethat ts facility will help relieve some of that strain on the banks. most banks, this has come up a couple times in this conversation, most banks have managed rising interest rate environment quite well. it is this couple of banks that obviously failed and their others- there were contagion risks. the fed still decided they had to step in with this new facility. host: you pointed out that svb started buyingreasuries at the very low wng time when the fed was increasing its interest rates. we will hear from ed in nashville, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fe, thanks. caller: i was just wondering, a

lot of questions have been answered while i have been waiting on the phone. iecall back in 2008, when the banks and everybody is going bankrupt, after everything was sealed the managers of the bank were getting b bonuses because theyailed. that is no right. another thing is you've got your limit on the bk, younow your insured for $250,000, butet they are putting more in there. it is time the law is the law and everybodis saying nobody is above the law. if they lost their money they lost their mon. host:ndrew ackerma guest: frothe pepectivof

the biden administratio if they did notct, they would've had thousands of businses unableo make payroll this week. that was the ratiole for that, fostepping in and a way that insureuninsud depositors and the hope tha would clampdown concern ofther banks that other depositors at other institutions would fee resured. it remains to be seen. i thk thei long-rm pressures facing these midsized banksf depositors dfeel like theimoney ll be safer athe globally systemic important banks, the biggest ban. that is an issue. their pin some policymakers, the is fmer fbi see chairwoman that said -- there is a formerdic chairwoman sai yesterday on john stewart's

podct thathe regulators might have me a mistake. they probably needed to step in and act this way but they prably should have ensured all bank depositors. the issue theres you have to go tcongress to do that. during the fincial crisis the banking regulators did have a temporary governmentuarant of bank deposits. in the dodfrank lawcongress said y cannot do thisgain unless youet a joint resolution of congress. we have heard me chatter, this wadiscussed over the weekend. ultimately the biden administration did not ask for resolution like that from lawmaks. the president did say he wanted legislation, which is an interesting moveecause it will be extremely difficult to get a banking bl throu bothouses of cgress.

its also possible that asking congress to basilly ensure all depotors could alscause re voc. i don't know. st: andrew ackerman covering the story and more for the washington journal. you can read s reporting at sj.com. thanks for being with us. guest: thanks. host: we have about 20 minutes or so. our open forum segment next is your chance to call in with items in the news, public policy or political issues you are following, including what we just talked about with the collapse of svb. (202) 748-8000 free democrats -- free democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. >> c-spansp.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to poor, and accessories. there is somethinfor every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit organization. shop anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, bestseller lists, industry news come entrance with insider interviews. find about books at c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of whats happening in

washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events withive streams of four proceedings and hearing from t u.s. coness, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of litics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find a scheduling information f c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling content. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front proceed to washington. anytime, anywhere. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional heangs, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you front row

se to have issues are debated and decid with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" contues. host: is open forum on washington journal. call it about any items in the news in terms of public policy and politics you are following and wod like to comment on, including the things we are commenting on this morning. the line for docrats202) 748-80, for republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents and others, (202) 748-8002. this is rollcall covering a case in texas. judge ways fda approval of abortion drug. a federal district drug -- judge heard oral arguments in a controrsial case that could

decide the fate of the fda drug approval of an abortion drug, a decision thawould have broad ramification natioide. the case, alliance for hippocratic medicine versus fda could block acss to the drug which is being used for abortions and miarriage management. medicated artions which involve taking the drug and th second drug make up t majority of abortions in the united stes. the lawst was filed last year by t alliance defending freedom againsthe fda on behalf of three physician groups that belong to the alliance for hippocratic medicine, the american association of pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists, and pediatricians in christian dental associations and four individual physicians. let's go to jim in lake elmo, minnesota, on the independent line during open forum. go ahead. caller: good morning america.

i have a couple of comments. one is on the fdic. the fdic guarantees 250 thousand dollars and below to protect e small guy. it is not to protect people who are not doing their fiduciary responsibilities and having almost $500 million in deposits. that is the one thing on the svb. i'm very upset the president did what he did on sunday. it is obviously a taxpayer bailout. second point. rackley after that -- directly after that the signature bank in new york with about half of the deposits, 30% of those deposits were cryptocurrency in the justicdepartment was looking at that bank for money laundering issues. i thought it was ironic and very funny. you want to know how intelligent some of our politicians are or are not?

barney frank was on the board. how much money as that guy making to be on the board of signature bank and having them totally fall apart and fail when he is the guy who made the laws for regulatio there you go. have a great day. host: on to calling from tucson on the independent line. caller: we all know it is about supply and demand. it will come down to the supply. we will be choked off from it. demand for mey will be greer then it now. u have money comto us her years and we had no way of figuring out how we willet a supply bause o money will not pafor it tcoin ll not buy you gaon of gas. you have to pay with money. saudi arabia going to have their oil being paid for with

more money than we do now because our money is not any good. we will choke off supy, gas prices will go up, food pres will go up, and everything will diminish to noing. we have to count better things with our accountingystem. our accounng system is wrong. it is dysfunctial. onehrough0, we nnot count one tough 1 have do thbinary numbering system, whichs one through eight. you do the binary system, we can eliminate eight and make it 10 and en getid of five anpay pele 12. host: there'll be a lot coming up on the banking system

certainly when the treasury secretary testifies this morning. before the senate finance committee this morning at 10:00 eastern. janet yellin testying before senate finance and also it will stream live at c-span.org and be available on the mobile app. also on the c-span n app, you have to talk about the senate commerce committee hearing loing at the issues cing the workforce in the aviation dustry. that is live at 10:00 on the free c-span out mole app. continuing with open forum until 10:00 and the treasury secretary's testimony. we go to plano, texas, to hear from patricia. caller: good morning. i wanted to spea to the gentleman from wall street journal but cannot get in. i worked in a bank for about 10 years, a state bank and a federal chartered bank.

i was wanting to know, to they still chartered them? we were audited twice a year, federal and state. i don't understand how these banks could get away with what they are doing and i just do not understand when congress and the senate passed all the crab to get to where we are now. host: thanks for asking that and staying on the line. we go to douglas, arkansas, and hear from john on the democrats line. caller: hello, this is me. it is douglas, alaska. host: i'm sorry, douglas alaska. my bad. it is early out there. go ahead. caller: common mistake. we need to recognize, listening

to that guy from wall street journal, maybe the svb bk issue is more of a contagion for the economy than i had anticipated, then many of us would think. i thing we need to look more at the larity of this planet. capitalism it seems like we are being t neutralized or neutralized beina distribution that now it is sewing with the climate and everything is getting messed up. i know this sounds far-fetched, i am sorry. there is resource distribution and control of resources becomes conctrated in aspects of the

planet and that is causing everything to t thrown offkilter. i am sorry. host: thank you for going in and being up early with us there in alaska. atlanta is next. will is calling on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. people do not understand that our founders study adam smith invention ofapitalism and it is empathic with the deity, with god in jesus christ, that is who founded this country. we followed the light as prophesies, gentile nation of priests. you can look it up in the book of isaiah. the oil in the hydrocarbons come from the earth, come from the deity. they come in abundance, if you do not harvested it turns into la brea tar pits.

it emerges from the earth. there were sts all over the world where the tar emerges from the earth. these people saying there's something unholy, they are not fossil fuels, they are generated by the earth, by god. host: we go to tim calling from illinois. independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. really disappointed in the president in reference to the svb. a lot of corruption at this bank. a lot of board directors, this whole mary berry issue with the san francisco reserve. the regulators to not keep an eye on this bank, obviously, as well as standard bank. also disappointed the president come in reference to the propeller issue and the drone over the black sea.

i find him missing in action on the chinese intel ballo. biden is hidg constantly. he is out on the west coast doing fundraisers, tacking the republicans. let me ask cpan a question and all the listeners in america. why is iwe only hear h baing republicans. heever says anything about china, russia, any substantive country, any other issue or topic, always hating on republicans. when did we become this country that we uld ignore people in ohio because they d not vote democrat? is that why? i do not get what is going on anymore. it is quite insulting. host: our caller alluded to the downed predator drone hit by a russian jet fighter. this is the headline in the washington post. "pentagon rejects kremlin's air claims.

defense secretary lloyd austin said the u.s. military would continue to fly and operate wherever international law allows, recting moscow's claim of the self-declared exclusion zone over extended parts of the black sea the day after u.s. drone was downed following encounter with russian warplanes. kremlin said it would try to retrieve the wreckage of the surveillance drone which the biden administration says crashed in internatial waters by its operators after a reckless russian pilot perhaps unintentionally caused a collision and rendered it on flyable. russia denied the assertion and said the drone's presence in the area a day earlier proved the u.s. military was directly participing in the ukraine war." annette is up next calling on the democrats line in portland, oregon. caller: i would just like to say everybody should have listened to elizabeth warren.

she made the dodd-frank happen and then we destroyed it. it is really a shame. the other thing i wanted to speak about was the abortion issue and the abortion pill. babies, i do not believe, are born until they start breathing. the republicans, although they claim to believe in the right to life, they just cannot stop handing out guns here, guns there, guns everywhere. we can all walk around with them and ts of people get killed. little children in schools, living breathing children are killed every day. that does not bother the republicans. let's just hand out more killing guns that nobody can have a pill

toake a way a cell in their bodies. people on drugs, people addicted to things should not have babies. they should have a pill to get rid of the baby. it is just a shame the republicans cannot see what they are doing to this country. host: on to marry in michigan on the independent line. caller:ood morning, john. i wanted to change the topic. i am a retired nurse. it drives me crazy when people bring up fentanyl. host: mute your volume on your tv. caller: i do have it. it drives me crazy when people bring up fentanyl. am a retired nurse. fentanyl is a man-made opiate.

it i100 tis more pent than mohine. is us to treat seve breakthrgh pain for cancer and chroc pain patient every time people mention fentanyl, especially on ashington journal," they are talking about something not prescribed by a doctor. there are millions of patients in this country that use fentanyl patches every day to make it through the day. we do not need -- it drives me crazy when people blame china and mexico. you need to look in the mirror. people are not being forced to take fentanyl pills in this country. host: joe is up next west virginia on thdemocrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span.

on the bank collapse, doesn't this all go back to jerome powell under trump giving away free money to the rich for years , approximately five and a half years and as a result of all of that, didn'it drive inflation through the roof simply because the rich took that money, they bought houses, they bought apartments, they bought invements of every kind and they passed that free money on to us to pay for it now. that is why jerome powell should be removed from the federal reserve simply because hmakes the rich richer anthe poor poorer by doing the unequal wealth distribution and making it much worse. and thank you forll the cal this morning. that will do it for this morning's program.

we are back on friday morning at 7:00 eastern. we will stay live and take you over to the u.s. capitol for a hearing with the senate finance committee. they will be hearing testimony from janet yellen. she will beestifying about the president's budget request. we are bound to hear questions about the svb collapse. that will be starting in just a moment. live on c-span. [indiscernible]

>> treasury secretary janet yellen s on capitol hill testifying on the 2024 budget proposal. she is appearing before the senate finance committee. live coverage here on c-span.

[indiscernible]

janet yellen is on capitol hill this morning testifying on president