♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, march 18, bank 23. e failuresf silicon valley

and signature banhad regulators stepping in to stabilize the banking system and market volatility. president biden called on congress to hold senior bank executives accountable. we want to know if you have confidence in the biden administration to prevent more bank failures. if you say yes, you are confident, call (202) 748-8000. if you are not, (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. we are on socialedia. facebook.com/c-span and on twitter. welcomto washington journal. i want to sw you a tweet president biden sent out yesterday. "when silicon valley at signature banks collapsed, we took steps to stabilize the banking system at no cost to the

taxpayer, protecting jobs and small businesses. now congress must more to hold senior bank executives accountable. he wants congress to expand the fbi see's -- fbi seat's -- f dic's authority and expand their authority to bring civil claims against banexecutives. here's an article from cnbc about that. biden cal on congress to tighten laws to clawback executive pay, levy penalties the bank failures. he says no one is above the law and strengtheninaccounbility is an important detrent to prevent mismanagement in the future. regarding what the administration has alrea done, it says this.

e federaleserve loosened s borrowing guidelines for nks seeking short-term funding lewis discount window. get set up a separate,nlimited facility to offer a one-yea loans undeloser terms to shore up troubled banks facing a surgeon cast withdrawals -- surge in cash withdrawals. these are through industry fees, not byaxpayers. janet yellen was challenged on the administration's handling of bank rescues. here's an exchange between her and republican senator james lankford on thursday. [video] >> will the deposits in oklahoma, regardless of their size, be fully insured now? are they fully recovered? every bank in oklahoma, regardless of the size of the deposit, will they get the same

treatment that svb just got or signature bank just got? >> a bank only gets that treatment if a majority the fdic board -- the superajority of the fed board and i in consultation with the president determine the failure to protect uninsured depositorsould create systemic risk and significant economic and financial consequences. >> what is your plan? what is your plan to keep large depositors from moving their funds out of community banks into the big banks? have seen the mergers of banks over the past decade. i'm concerned you are about to accelerate that by encouraging anyone to say we are not goin to make you whole, but if you go

to a preferred bank, we will make you whole at that point. >> that is certainly not something we are encouraging. >> that is happening right now. >> that is happening because depositors are concerned about the bank failures that have happened and whether are not other banks could also failed. >> is happening because you're fully insured if you're a big bank. you're not fully insured if you're at a community bank. >> you are not fully insured. >> siature just barely met the threshold. >> we felt there was a serious risk of contagion that could have brought down and triggered runs on manyanks, and that

given our judgment that the banking system overall is safe and sound, depositors should have confidence in the system and we took these actions -- host: treasury secretary. we are asking and taking calls on your confidence in the biden administration to prevent more bank failures. if you say yes, the number is (202) 748-8000. if you say no, call us at (202) 748-8001. you can also tweet and sentenced texts. let's look at republican senator steve daines. he put the blame on the biden administration and democrats for the recent bank failures. [video] >> we have been watching president biden and senate democrats very reckless financial policies. we are seeing crisis after crisis after crisis.

now, the chickens are coming home to roost. wasteful spending has led to the highest inflation rates we have seen in the united states in 40 years. now, the bank bailouts are going to put montana banks and montana families on the hook for the mismanagement of a bay area bank. why is it well-managed and 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: we are taking your calls this morning on your confidence in the administration to prevent more bank failures. the numbers are on your screen. yes or no? we have a text from russ. no excuse for any bank allowing this to happen.

execs having inside informaon about stocks and then selling off knowing of impending internal problems. james tweets, the biden administration is more concerned with social justice and climate than the stability of the american financial system. i have no trust in biden's handlers. jt from kentucky says, i am very confident joe biden will all he can do, but my confidence in the republican congress is not at all. these are the same people that took regulations off of banking and caused the problem. the republican partynd trump caused this problem. derek says, way more than ever had in the deregulating trump administration. let's go to your calls. charles is first in port hon, michigan. caller: good morni, good morning. how are you? host: i'm doing ok. caller: i support biden.

he's our president. but when it comes to the banks and the arrt of the other president, i think it is a bit too far. -- too far for the media to blast it. host: ed in ocean city, new jersey. what do you think? caller: i don't have any confidence in any politician, incling city council levels. i run a chity and have dealt with a lot of politicians. on front -- i'm from delaware and note -- known biden for many years. you have to get rid of all them. host: kathy for massachusetts.

caller: you need to underand how the banking system works to unrstand the fdic is the one that takes care of things. people need to understand you do have a $250,000 limit. if you don't understand that, the other thing is -- this is not political. e s was part the next level banks -- svb was part of the next level banks that would have been covered, the liquidity checks that would have made sure there was money in place. to make sure what risk was in place. host: do you work in the banking industry? caller: i work in the financial services industry, yes. host: you said people need to understand how it works. do you find most people don't

understand how it works and that might be contributing to the problem? caller: an awareness. for example, in massachusetts, you have the fdic. that is a national plan. the fdic covers the first $250,000 in the bank. in massachusetts, they have supplement to insurance that covers more than $250,000. it is called dif. host: that is on a state-by-state basis ? caller: it is. the thing i'm curious about is with svb, aside from the fact it was a unique bank -- it is not a california bank. agree with the sior executives need to be addressed, but i think generally some of

the concern was there was salary held in the bank. that would fall over $250,000. part of the concern was -- tt has to go over $250,000. what do u do with that for everemployer who has to pay their employees over $250,000. that's an interesting thing to consider. richard host: host: in fredericksburg, virginia. are you ther no. shelby in alabama. what you think? caller: i have great confidence in the administration, because this is a competent, seasoned president who has a cabin and treasury secretary who was in

fact the federal reserve chair. i look at the reporting overnight. jamie diamond with the fed chair and the fdic chair brought together the bearing of the stability of the investment of $30 billion to stabilize it. e federal reserve -- i nted jerome powell to be replaced. he is not an economist. he has a harvard law degree and a political science degree from georgetown. he was an investment banker with carlyle group. another one of these groups that has caused all of this contagion, if that is the word we want to use in the country. the boom line is this. we are a banking system that held down the federal reserve -- the federal reserve -- jerome powell knows what the liquidity and reserve requirements are

based on laws that was pasd in 2017, 2019 and 2020 that guided the cop on the beat for these reserves and liquidity. i have great confidence in the president. he is a seasoned, reasonable, and brought together seasoned and reasonable people for th people policies. that is what we have here. host: shelby in doylestown, ohio. what do you think? caller: i was wondering if there were --they were going to bailouthe people over $250,000 . i see they did. i can't believe they did that. i tried to find out -- i have been hunting hard and heavy to find out who got their money over $250,000. i got a hunch the reason they did this is because certain people got bailed out because

they had a bunch of money in it. i think one of them was nancy pelosi now. that would turn down the heat if they would publish the people they got bailed out over $250,000. i don't think that is fair when you go to a high risk, why should you be bailed out [indiscernible] if you go with high risk there's the risk you might lose your money. if you go over [indiscernible] host: take a look from bankrate.com. a list of the six largest bank failures. this is e first by assets. washington mutual in 2008. the second and the third is silicon valley bank and signature bank. it goes back to 2008, 2009 and 1998. linda in harrisville, new york.

caller: yes. it is the fault of the deregulation of the trump administration. we are feeling it now. i don't think we can depend on ceos to regulate their own banks. this is evidence of it. i have confidence in the democratic administration. elizabeth warren warned us this years ago. i have confidence in the biden administration and we need more regulation on corporations. thank you. host: linda mentioned elizabeth warren. let me show you this. this is a article from nbc news. democrats led by warren unveiled a bill to repeal trump era bank laws. the legislation reported by nbc news. it would undo the core of a 2018 deregulation law by rtoring

enhanced scrutiny of banks wit assets of $5 billiono $250 billion. it says this legislaon wilbe unveiled on tsday. the regulions that were undone under then president donald trump in 2018, seeking to fix what they say was the cause of silicon valley bank's collapse. the legislation would repeal the centerpiece of a law passed on a bipartisan basis by the republican-but congress in 2018 which eased dodd frank regulations on midsize banks by ising the too big to fail threshold from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. let's take a look at senator warren. she is on e senate floor. this is from tuesday, introducing her bill. [video] >> on the eve of the senate vote i warned from right here on this senate floor that "washington is

about to make it easier for the banks to run up risks, make it easier to put our constituents at risk, make it easier to put american families in danger just so that the ceos of these banks can get a new corporate jet and add another floor to their new corporate headquarters." i wish i had been wrong. bulast week, the fdic w forced to rush into takeover teedo failing banks. silicon valleyank and signature bank. then take extraordiny actions to protect those banks' customers and prent the contagion from spreading throughout the economy. both svb and signature bank suffered from a toxic mix of poor risk management and weak supervision. if congress and the federal reserve 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 shk. they would have been required to conduct regular stress tts to expose their vulnebilities and ensure up their businesses. they would have had more aggressive regulators standing at their shoulders looking more closely at every part of the bank posey business. but because those stringent requirements were taken out of dodd frank, when an old-fashioned bank run hit svb the bank could not withstand the pressure. shortly after that, signature bank collapsed. to fight back the risk of contagion and to protect the banking system the federal government once again was called on to take extraordinary measures. the kind of measures that dodd frank was originally supposed to protect us against. these threats should never have been allowed to materialize. now, we must prevent them from occurring again by reversing the

dangerous bank deregulation of the trump era. host: senator elizabeth warren. we aresking about your coidence in the ainistrion to prevent more bankin failures. tom is next from zion,llinois. , you say yes you are confident. caller: yes. let me explain melf. i believe a time major bk ke this collapses and billions of dollars are involved we should take it seriously. if there is a domino effect with other banks. however, to scegoat joeiden and the biden administration i ink is unfair. it is typical of the far right to do that to him. joe biden became ourresident because we need somebody to stabilize our country again after the craziness of the trump years.

whether it was financial laws, deregulation, lobbyists taking over washington again, or problems with putin or -- host: getting back to the financial situation. caller: we need a leader to stabilize our country again and joe biden is an experienced leader. if he wants to look at what janet yellen is doing in the financial side of decisions that are being me, his administration -- in his administration, fine. but the point the finger at him i think is ridiculous. host: manning in la jolla, california. hi, manny. caller: good morning. i used to work for the fd. i'm retired. a 70-year-old former law

professor here in la jolla. my take on all of this -- i just sent an email to my 200 people on my email list. tting wall street journal article about the regulators. the problem is that there is this thing called judgment immunity. when i was working at the ic, my job was to go in on the weekend, close the banks down, and then hire lawyers to sue the bad bankers, the bad lawyers, the valley council. everybody who had fault and that bank failure. the problem is, down the hall i said to my fellow lawyers, i said, we were drinking the same kool-aid. how can you have the same fdic agency both regulate the banks

and when they fail, sue the banks. there's a huge conflict of interest. host: is that a similar situation now? caller: i was there under obama 10 years ago. the law is still there. i cannot sue anybody in the federal government under the sovereign immunity. the regulators who were asleep at the switch again should have been on top of this but they weren't. they screwed up, just like they screwed up before when i was suing all the banks but i could not sue them. when you g sued out here -- i used to defend lawyers and malpractice cases. it became the biggest law firm in california because all we did was defend lawyers, which is a sad comment on lawyers. host: tim next in wisconsin.

caller: yes. host: go ahead, tim. caller: i was going to say i misunderstood the question right away. i dialed really quick. i think we have seen with inflation that has been at record highs and how afghanistan was handled and every thing else, you would have to say unequivocally no. i have no confidence in them doing this right. how anyone could say that trump, who has been out of office for teedo years was responsible for this -- host: what do you think of what they did for the teedo banks that did fail? what you think of the administration's handling of that? caller: i thought it was terrible. they should have done with the regulation said. anything under $250,000 and below, a they went and bailed

out everybody. they alsdid that in 2008 under -- host: do you think have they not done that there would have been a run of the banks and banks that failed after that? caer: i guess that is part of being in a free maocie. it is supposed to be when you invest you take a chance. obviously there was a lot of criminal activity going on in that bank. the major stockholders were cashing in their stock the week fore it happened. they got their bonuses before it happened. there is a lot of shenanigans going on in that place. people need to go to prison out of that place. a lot of them are donors to a lot of politicians so they will get out of that and i'm sure they will get their money reored and go right on stealing money from the public. host: gloucester, ohio. jim, good morning.

caller i wanted to make a comment on the situation. i think the biden adminisation has made a principalffort to prevenbank failures but it will not work out. the stimulus in the economy due to the coronavirus situation, the debt it placedpon us, the trump and biden administration's and the absolute fear that a foreign entity such as china or ssia could cause a bank faile is a scenariwith the funds withdraw and all the national debt they hold in u.s. treasury bills. that is all i can say. it will not be a domestic situation. he will be a foreign situation and a large percentage of trade disruptions. thank you for the opportunity today. host: let's look at some of the tweets we got. when you have been economy run by wall street, private equity

and financial institutions where greed is the driving principle and ethics do not exist, no administration can or will do anything about it. politicians work for them. curt says, banks have long bonds that lost value as rates climbed by 30 times. the fed printed during covid-19 and flip to the market in bank 22. banks -- 2022. now most of them are basically insolvent. i don't know what svb can do that is not -- biden can do that is not hyper inflationary. the republican senators all voted to loosen bank rulations in 201 now theyay it is biden who is responsible. most of us are not that gullible. 17 corporateems share the blame. regarding that, here are remarks from president trump -- former

president trump back in 2018 before sending legislation easing bank rules under dodd frank. [video] >> the legislation rolls back the cripplindodd frank regulations that are crushing community banks and credit unions nationwide. they were in such trouble. one-size-fits-all. those rules just don't work and community banks and credit unions should be regulated the same way. you have to really look at this. they should regulated the same way with proviso for safety as in the pasthen they were vibrant and strong. they should not be regulated the same way athe large, complex financial institutio. that is what happened. they were being put out of business one by one. they were not lending. since its passage i2010, dodd frank has dealt a huge blow to

community banking. as a candidate i pledged we woulrescue these community banks from dodd frank. the disaster of dodd frank. now we are keeping that commitment and all the people with me are keeping that commitment. host: the former president and we are asking this morning about your confidence in the biden administration to prevent more bank failures. the numbers are on your screen. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. or, engage on social media. take a look at this article from cnbc.com. treasury secretary yellen says not all uninsured deposits will be protected in the future bank failures. treasury secretary told senators government refunds of uninsured

deposits will nobe extended to every bank that fails. only those that possystemic risk to the financial system. she'been at the center of an emergency program to refund billions of dollars inninsured deposits held by clients athe failedilicon valley bank and shutred signature bank. but with markets recering somewhat lawmakers were concerned these backstops can become a new norm for big banks, giving too big to fail banks event. managed over community lende. let's talk to mike who was in huntington, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i will tell you what. this situation -- i'm a 70-year-old man. 78-year-old man. they are broke the fed pang down $8 billion a month will -- it takes 10 years

to pay $1 trillion. how in the heck do they think -- that is 100 years. if they did not spend a dime it would take them 100 years to pay that $8 billn or $9 billion -- 4 trillion. -- or trillion. host: this is from time magane. the headline is, will americans end up footing the bill for bank failures? the article says hows the response being paid f? most of the cost of guaranteeing all deposits at thoseanks will likely be covereby proceeds the federal deposit insunce corporation received from winding downhe teedo banks, either by selling them to other financial institutions or by auctioning off assets.

any cost you on that would be paid for out of the fbi see'-- fdic's deposit insurance fund used to reimburse depositors for up to 250,000 per account. -- $250,000 per accnt. it is paid for by fees from participating banks. both silicon valley and signature bank had a strikingly high share of deposits above that amount. 94% of silicon valley's deposits were uninsured, as were 90% of deposits at signature. the average figure for large banks is about half that level. if necessary, the insurance fund will be replenished by a special investment on banks. the fdic said in a joint statement with treasury the cost of that assessment could ultimately be borne by bank customers. it is not clear how much money would be involved. let's go to david, auburn, new

york. good morning. caller: od morning. i'm lookg at the question of confidencen the biden administration over this banking issue. truthfully, confidence is a hard-wking put to work right now on this presidency. another caller called in and said something about stabilizing everything that needed to be stabilized. we ected this man to stabilize our economy. anybody really out there think this is stable? you're looking at the inflation and every other issue, including the banking issue. this was driven by this crazy inflation. if you want to find the culprit you can't create wealth out of thin air by printing money. it has destabilized the economy. this is the result of what is going on. these people are scrambling to

stay in business. in this case it is svb. this is not done. they pulle the plug out of the bottom of the pool and you will see it until someone smart enough comes along a stops the drain. that is where i'm seeing it. i could not comment on policy for banks. that is a big issue way out of my pay grade. host: let's talko robert from clearwater, florida. good morning, robe. caller: thank you for taking call. i think the biden administration has ne too far. i don't believe in the democrats anymore. i think they ruined things in thisorld. i think these people killing over her fightin for our

country because we need people to fight this war if china comes after us. they put that balloon in the a and stuff like tha now they are registering people. we have a lot of people to fight china. host: harold in cherry hill, new jersey. caller: good morning. you took a wind out of myails about all the democts blaming trump. as you saw on that tape you showed. once again, as people always say, the gop is for the rich. the democrats bailed out on the banks and wall street in 2000 were going to pay mlions and millions. mark cuban had20 million in

the bank, a billionaire, and now we will have to give in $20 million. host: here's a clip from our archives. this is from july of 2010. it is when then president obama signed the dodd frank legislation into law. here's a portion of his speech from the signing ceremony. [veo] >> these protections will be enforced by a new consumer wahdog with just one job, looking out for people, not big banks, not lenders and investment hous. looking out for people as they interact with the financial system. that is not as good for consumers. that is good for the economy. it will put a stop to a lot of bad loans that fued a debt-based bubble. it will mean all companies will have the seek customers by offering better products instead of more deceptive ones. beyond the consumer protections i have outlined, perform will

reign in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. it will finally bring transparency to thkinds of complex and risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. shareholders will have a greater state on the pay of ceos and other executives so they can reward success instead of failures. and because of this law the american people will never again be asked to foot the bill for wall street's mistakes. no more tax funded bailouts, period. host: we are taking your calls about whether or not you have confidence in the biden administration to prevent more bank failures. here is what -- i want to share something the wall street journal editorial board printed. they said this.

e bankingtem,ven asbailout of ficis have been telling e ecomy is gat and there was nothing to worry about. the unpleasant truth which washington will never admit is thatvb's failure is the bill coming due for years of monetary and torytakes. svb executike mistakes and they will pay for tm, but they were encouraged by easy money and misgderegulation. as the fed flooded the wld with dollar liquidity, money flowed into venture startups. that is where svb's customer banks. the bank's deposits sword beyond what he could safely ld. let's go to sean calling us from new hampshire. ller: nice to talk to you. i was just wondering if america could help me out.

i swear, janet yellen, the day after the banks failed, said she would not bailout any banks. then 180 degrees difference. thank you. st: henry in montrose, virginia. caller: good morning. i think president bid is doing the best he can do. he made a big mistake letting jerome powell ruhis treasury. those guys are setting biden up to fail in 2024. i don't ink they should pay anymore $250,000. rules are rule if we don't sticby the rules in this country, this is what we

get. have a wonderful, blessed day. host: barry in north carolina. caller: good morning. one thing is that the secretary yellen basicly said or implied deposits and stockholders are the same. she mentioned -- i'm sorry. she mentioned them almost in the same category. one is a risk taker and one is supposed to be insured up to $250,000. there was one part that was bailed out to the amount or will be bailed out to the equivalent of $3.3 billion. they have the ability to ensure their own deposits above fdic. it is a cost they have to incur

but it is something they can do. that is part of risk mitigation. now i will fall back on the taxpayer, either direct through our taxes or indirect and the costs given to us by the banks. nothing is free. we all know that. everyone above 35 in this country knows that. no, i don't think it will stabilize the situation. i think the situation will get wors not just biden. this is a 20-year cycle of fiduciary irresponsibility in this country. we have gone up from $5 trillion in debt in that period. the highest level indebtedness a country has seen in history. it is mething that is unsustainable. host: let's talk to craig in.

kirkland, washington. caller: hi. i was going to bring up a few things people are missing. the previous color did bring it . it is a cycle going on here. most of the financial and fiscal policies that get created take 10 years to be in limited. now when barack obama and his administration put in those bank regulations, which i thoht were very good, it brought us to a level where people end consumers had confidence in the system. in 2018, the trump administration repealed those, along with some democrats as well. now we are suffering from bad investing, just like the bubble. we need to reinstate som regulations, treat banks that have a large deposits in them the way we are supposed to treat them, and then i think we will

reap the benefits of not heavy regulations but decent regulation. i want people to remember the fdic is the one bailing out svb, not the taxpayers. at least not right now but it will have a trickle-down effect. host: let's take a look at axios. they are talking about the idea of banking reform. congress stairs down dim prospects for banking reform. both parties are drying battle lines over the collapses of silicon valley bank and signature bank while the knowledge and reglet to reform faces a steep if not impossible climb in congress. democrats are preparing to intruce legislation tt woul rerse a gop-l back of dodd frank banking regulations in 2018 that many of them, including presidt bide cs the culprit for the bank failures. top demoats expressed early pessimis about thedea that

any reform measure could garner the republican votes needed to pass th senate, let alone the gop-controlled house. rick is next in hayward, wisconsin. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question. a lot of my points have been made by other people. someone said earlier that nancy pelosi was a depositor in that bank. did you guys fact check that or everybody says what they want? host: we can look that up for you. if we find any information about that, i ll share it. caller: my comment would really bet seems like there is such -- these are big words. collusion, corruption between wall street and the gornment. we never get to a solution. it seems like when people run and get elected they say all the thin they want to say to campaign, th get elected. in wisconsin, gallagher d

johnson. they say all these things like gallagher's for term lits in congress. he had the opportunity back when they got mccarthy to say all these people are talking about term limits, i'm for that. he did not even comelose to tryingo vote for that. they lied to get elected and then they get elected in 's all the same over and over. what can be done about this is the question. everybody wants to talk about it but where are the answers? host: bobby in grayson, kentucky. od morning. caller: good morning. host what do you think, bobby? caller: i think ianybody is for joe bide and -- i repeat and, let harris --kamala harris, it is simple. you are stupid.

host: jim in missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. your question about confidence in theiden ministration and the banking ordeal going on, well, i think we need to sp and think abo. the bestredictor of future behavior is past behavior. when you looat the biden administraon, do we have confidence? the answer is unequivocally no. host: what do you think of how they handled the signature and the svb failures? caller: i don't have any confidence. i don't think they handled it well. host: what do you think they should have done? caller:'m not really sur i don't think they should have stepped in and helped out all the depositors. it will trickle down, like one of the other callers said to the amican people. they will be paying for that. the reason why i don't have confidence is when i look in the

past, the afghan withdrawal, everything has been a disaster. he did not even go to east palestine. you look at the chinese spy balloon, what a disasr. host: we want t bring it back to the financial situation. caller: i get that. the question is, do we he confidence in the biden administration? host: to prevent future bank ilures. caller: it goes to the overall confidence in the administration. when you look at their past -- host: i get it. let's look at social media. this is a text from william in connecticut. biden administration confidence? no way. no way -- democrat barney frank for massachusetts. don't trust politicians with moneand power our stake. lee tweets, when you invest in

long bonds, you hedge ainst that. that is what investment bankers do. the problem is commercial banking and investment banki are merged. we need glass-sagall to separate commercial from vestment banking. dave in orlando. i have faith in biden to do what he can but you cannot stop greed of ceos and cfos if they keep doing stupid risky business, p eriod. michael who is in four oaks, north airline. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, michael. caller: i first wanted to say i love you and greta. i always like to tune in when you guys are on television on washington journal. i think you are very educated and professional. host: thank you. caller: i would like to say i'm a republican and i thinkhe administraon is doing all they can with the problems they are

handed. i did not vote for president biden. i have faith in government. i think with what is going on there is a back-and-forth with regulation. fortunately, you kno you have different parties taking over different ccks and balances. did seems like we keep going back and forth with regulation. we make changes and then one party is hand power and hands it to another party we change regulation again. if we could have some consistency and more agreement it wld be great. overall i think everything is going a lot better than it did in 2008. 'm confident in the biden ministration as far as whats going on -- bid administration as far as what is going on with the banks. host: thomas is in vineland, new

jersey. caller: yes. the banking stuff, i have got mine and a regular bank. in a regularank. i'not rich. if i was rici don't know what i would be doing. he did all this. joe biden, obama. he made all this happen with the banks. he can put it in his pocket and his whole family. they are going to jail. i can't wait for that day. i love it. host: here is usa today. silicon valley bank, signature bank executives gave thousands the democrats and republicans. the article says before they went down history as of the largest bank failures in the u.s., executives arsicon

valley bank of california and signature bank of new yk were political donors that steered money to people that steered financial services laws. svb political action committee gave to democrats and republicans with the most influence over their industry. while the bank executives use their own money to donate more often to democrats, according to a review of filings with the federal election cmission, executives for signature bank get to a steady mix of republicans and democrats. let's talk to rich who was in marion, ohio. caller: yeah. great conversation. this is important subject to get right. let's fa it. there was $2 trilln that was spent by our president. he knew if he did that the fedel reserve was going to haveo raise rates. he intentionally did that. last week, we had the federal -- the treasury secretary and the president deciding to put

another $10 trillion out there. guess what they will do with the interest rates again? yehe was going to pay a the people gting thrown out of their jobs? we have good spending and d spending. they cannot find $.10 to cut in the budget while they are pushing the self around -- this stuff around. there is going to be an automatic reaction from the federal reserve. they can't really say something to the president to stop the damn spending. all he can do is do what he has to do and get the budget under control. hello see it's -- posi? she shorted, she should be thrown out of office immediately. host: bill in lexington, kentucky. good morning, bill. caller: gd morning. my question was, i'm about to

transfer all my wealth into gold. i was ndering that's a good idea. larry kudlow sayhis moneys in the bank. it might not even be worth tt much. the only reassurance you have is gold. i wanted an opinion about that. host: somebody -- a couple of people brought up nancy pelosi. we are not seeing anything about her being an investor in silicon valley bank. we have this article from the atlantic. nancy pelosi says follow the money. the former speaker discussed silicon valley bank's history and more in an interview focused on money and greed. it says, she says follow the money. she uttered that phrase and

similar versions several times during her interview with evan smith, a contributor at the atlantic, as part of a forum they held. she represents california's 11th congressional district. discussing the collapse of svb and anxiety sweeping through natalie her home district both attack and financial industrs -- tech and financial industries. "i don't think there is appetite in this country for bailing out a bank. what we hope to see his or some other bank to buy the bank." carla is up next in missouri. caller: hi. i have a comnt. a gentleman called earlier that said the fdic would cover all these deposits. the fdic only covers insured depositors. these two do banks had a large percentage of uninsured. the taxpayers are on the hook for that.

i have a question. where were the bank examiners when this was going on? secondly, if i hear the phrase this will never happen again, i'm going to kick in the television set. thanks a lot. host: i hope you don't take the television set. donald from alexandria, virginia. caller: thanks for c-span. i think a lot of people are forgetting the impact of covid on this whole situation. both trump and biden spent a lot of money to try to ease the effect of that unual impact that disease on the world and the united states. now we are seeing the results of partially of that action. we also know back in october of last year when the inflation rate hit around 5% the federal reserve and powell admitted to it, it was delinquent in doing

their job of trying to tackle it right on. instead of calling it transitory. consequently, it ballooned into what came out to be. the biggest mistake i think was made when bin reelected powell to sit there. it takes me backo the years of miller when he was the federal chair. what was happening in the carter administration was inflation. host: what do you not like about the federal reserve chair powell? caller: that he failed to recognize he needed to act back in october. possibly a rlacement would have been larry summers or maybe elizabeth warren to head of the federal reserve. they have the foresight to see where we were going at that time. i do have confidence that biden will do the best he can to try

to send this situation. i hope he is able to put it under control, which so far has happened. that's all i have. host: john in princeton, new jersey. you are not confident. why not? caller: actually i'm calling to address the viewers here. i might be a bit late. i would like to know normally when banks do investment analysis they try to figure out what the odds are of winning or losing. i wanted to ask this really educated group of listeners you have today, what are the right odds for something like this? you can't reduce the odds to zero of a bank going down the tubes. to think that you can avoid this at all costs for years and years and years is just not the way

bankers figure out how to handle money. thanks a lot. host: darlene in florida. you say yes. caller: yes. i think biden is doing a pretty good job. is my first time calling and i'm nervous. if i remember correctly, whenever the previous administration came into office, did they not overturn or weaken the dodd frank act? which in essence is what the republicans and some of the democrats voted for? so when they did that, the bankers, the heads of the banks just started doing the same old thing they did before. as far as silicon, i think that was too much of risky behavior. as far as signature, i thought i read signature was questioning

money-laundering through bitcoin. am i not correct? host: there was crypto involved in that, yes. i read that as well. caller: they were talking about money-laundering. i don't know if we are comparing apples to oranges and they are just falling into this one category. now because of the dodd frank being weakened, all the banks -- i don't think it will get to 2008. 2008 was mostly because of failed mortgages. host: this is an article from the insider about that. these 13 democratic senators joined with republicans to roback regulations and 2018. progressives say that contributed to svb's collae and are blaming the collapse of silicon valle bank by

deregulation. it could not have passed without democratic support. these 13 members helped republicans pass that law. let's talk to paul in fort dodge,owa. caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. at some time we have got to quit bailing everybody out. people and companies, thehave to be responsible for their actions. we cannobe printing money all the time. theyever should ha bailed out the auto industry back in 2008. you have to stand foyour actions. constantly printing money to ba these people out, that is fueling our debt. e inflation is what brings this to life and why the banks,

svb failed in silon valy. it was the risks the were taking. they shouldn't have taken the so they should be responsible. they shouldn't be able to sell eir stocks or take outheir bonuses. i'm sure people knew what was coming down when this happened. you kw, so -- i'm not confidentn the taking ce of this. host: that is all the time we got for this first segment of "washington journal." thanks everyone who called then. next up, a professorf environmental health and engineering at john hopkins university to discuss new efforts by the washington administration to remove forever chemicals from drinking water. then joe wiesenthal joins us for our spotlight to discuss the

fallout from the collapse of silicon valley bank and the podcast that he cohosts. we will be right back. >> sunday on q&a, the author of "fearless women" talks about the history of feminism in the united states from the american revolution today. >> i just realized there is a crazy myth that has grown up on the left as well as on the right about what feminism is. we feel so divided as a country today. what i realized working on this project is that feminism was born in the american revolution, driven our history, helped to define us and contributed to our social, economical, political development. how can we let such an importan thing be bandied about and not derstand its history.

>> elizabeth called with her book "fearless women" on c-span's q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. his book "toward a more perfect union" where he argues american children are n being taught enough civics in school. and looking at how and why selling blood plasma has turned into a $20 billion business in her book "blood money." she is interviewed by olivia go ldbill. watch online anytime at booktv.org.

>> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-an do u get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered byab. >> who killed jane stanford? she died in 1905. she was the wife of leland stanford, a former railroad magnet, governor of california, and u.s. senator. their son died at age 15 in 1884 of typhoid. in his honor stanford university

was born in 1891. why all these years later is there a book? america stanford university professor richard white s been chasing this mystery for several years.his book is subtitled "a gdeage tale of murder, spirits, and the birth of the university." >> on this episode of book notes plus, available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." i am joined by carsten prasse, a professor at johns hopkins university. we are talking about the federal efforts to remove forever chemicals from drinking water. carsten, welcome to the program. let's start if you could explain, what is a forever chemical?

what does it mean? guest: a specific type of chemical also known as pfas a specific type of chemical also known as p fuss. -- instead of hydrogen they have fluoride ithem. we call them forever checals because unfortunately based on their properties they are very resistant to degradation in the environment. we use them because they are heat resistant and water repellent, which is why we are using them, for example, in teflon or water repellent applications. but that is generally what we think about these forever chemicals, how we call them today. host: if you would like to call in and ask a questn or make a commenyou can do so by regions. in the eastern ocentral time zones, the number is (202) 748-8000.

mountain or pacific, (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text on (202) 748-8003. you can also rch us on social media. you said that these chemicals were very persistent in the environment? what about in our bloodstream' once people are exposed to them, how lo do they last? guest: unfortunately, they can last very lo because some of them can accumulate, bio accumulaten our bodies. it takes a long time for our bodies to get rid of the it is certainly one of the concerns that we have with them. host:ou menoned that they are teflon, all kinds of things. how do they get into the water supply? guest: a lot of different ways. when you think about using them

in our households -- for example, people have used them in dental floss, when you have carpet spray to make your carpet or count water repellent you are using this. it might get into the municipal water by washing clothing. when you think of, like, a water repellent jacket, for example. that is one way. a different soue is the use in firefighting foam, called hfff. these are used for fires if solvents are burning. they lay on top of the solvent and prevent oxygen from getting to the fuel source. there are a lot of military sites and fire stations where these foams were used for

trainingr actual fires. that is an important source of how these chemicals get into the environment. host: what happens once people are affected by it? what could happen healthwise? guest: so, there is something that we are looking into, researchers are looking into. we know that there are impacts both on adults in high concentrations. you have the risk for certain cancers. we also know in pregnant women it can lead to certain adverse effects. also, there is new research showing the is an adverse influx on birthweight. it negatively impacts the birthweight of babies, which is something that is a very high concern. i think there is still a lot o

research that needs to be done to think about the different adverse effects that these compounds might have, particularly in low concentrations in the environment. host: here is an article from the associated pre that says that the epa is set to limit toxic forever chemicals in drinking water. it was announced on tuesday. the first federal limits on drinking water, a long-awaited protection that the agency says will save thousands of lives and prevent illnesses, including cancer, and lit toxic pfas chemicals to the lowest level that can be detected. this is a group of compounds that is widespread, dangerous, and expensive to remove from the water. they do not graden the environment and are linked to health issues like, as you

mentioned, low birth rate and kidney cancer. my question is, how low is low? they were talking about setting limits to four parts per trillion. what does that mean? is that low enough? guest: two things. one thing to give the listeners, the viewers an idea, we talked about adding a few grains of salt into an olympic-sized swimming pool. that is the concentration they are talking about. according to health advisors the epa has released for the two main chemicals in thpast that we have talked about the advisoriesre much lower. hundredths to the thousandths.

this is currently the limit of our detection that we have to detect these compounds. this is more of a macro contamant level and the limited accountabilities we have, less so on the health effects which is something to keep in mind when we are discussing these values. host: i want to ask about the cost of getting them out of the environment. why is it expensive to clean up the environment? guest: one issue is certainly that they are at this point very dely present. we said they are ubiquitous, basically occurring almost everywhere. these compounds, based on their properties, our in the environment. when they get into the ground they can seep into the

groundwater. the same thing when you think of thsurface water wastewater treatment plant dischargin one of the main issues now is we don't really have technolog -- when you think for example wastewater treatment plants or drinng water treatment plants -- to address these compounds. the costssociated with this is that we have to upgrade for these drinking wer regulations. we have to upgrade our dnking water systems to actually deal wi these compounds, because they currently can't. we are talking about different technoloes, ones that are, at least at this point most commonly used are activated carbon, or ionic exchange. all of these technologies are costly. they need to be maintained. in the case of activated carbon

and ionic exchange rates, they have to be exchanged regularly. there's a whole other set up of costs that are associated if you want to upgrade the drinking water treatment plants with these technologies. host: one more question before we open the phones to our callers. why would it take so long to actually get federal regulators to say, hey, no more of these chemicals. they are not allowed. it doesn't sound like there is anything good in having these chemicals. guest: for us from the health perspective or the environment there is certainly nothing good. they have been commonly used because of their properties. that is why the industry has been widely using them. i personally have a lot of frustration with this, especially with pfas. we have worked with pfas in areas of the u.s. we have known about these compounds for almost 20 years,

that they are present, but there was no incentive for them to remove them. as i said, they are very costly. until the regulation came into place. in our opinion the regulation is extremely slow and the evidence of health impacts takes time. if we are exposing people for potentially 20 years to toxic chemicals, which we know today, i think we have to kind of think about, is this really the way of doing things or can we improve this moving forward? in my opinion there will be a lot of pfas ithe future. i don't think this is the last time we will bhaving this conversation, unfounately. on twitter, can the pfas chemicals be removed from drinking water guest: yes, they can be removed. ateast to some extent.

again, i mentioned the mn technologies that are currently used. there are new technologies being tested. one thing that i want to menon is technologies that we are currently using don't destroy the compounds, and that is important to keep mind. when you use activated carbon, which might be in yr brita filter, you have activated carbon and then you have to think about, what are you doing with that? if you're doing it on a large-scale you can either put them in a landfill, which then has the question are these compounds potentially leeching over time as the carbon breaks down? you couldncinerate the with incineration we know that pfbeuse they are so stable, you need extremely high temperatures well above 1000 degrees celsius to actually

destroy them. otherwise you might just basically blow them into the air , which is viously another concern outside of the drinking water. there are technologies to remove them, but they have some caveats . also, they have to be maintained . you also have to check how well they perform over time, which is an issue because it adds another cost to the whole system, basically. host: carsten, let's take a call from peter in dover, delaware. caller: my question is for the caller. it sounds like theres a need for a call for action. what i hear is that we have solutions out there where there is a cost factor involved. my question is, do you know of any federal or grant programs that are open for even minutes of polities -- munipalities

businesses defund these technologies and get the ball moving? guest: thank you for the question. the epa is discussing this. funds that will be made available. i think they're talking between 700 million and a billion dollars. it is certainly a gd chunk of money. based on wh i've seen already or what i know from other colleagues, this might not real be enough. we would have to think about things that go beyond that and that is something that needs to be discussed in addition to the actual contaminant levels. if that enough and what can be done. thinking about this, but i don' think that they have specified in detail yet. host: tammy next in dixon, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning.

first of all, i wanted to thank you guys, every single one of you, at c-span. i'm going to be 65 in a weekend i have been watching you for years. thank you for letting us evolve, participate with aactual human being and have input. question specifically, there is smuch. there is so much that he said that i don't understand. i've got a question about teflon. my 21-year-old came over to visit me. obviously i am a boomer, older. she like, mom, you've got to get rid of all of these pots and pans. you aren'supposed to be using them. the teflon is worn out of them. it is cancerous, this d that. it was news to me. i had no clue. i still have them comen low income. what is the deal with teflon?

est: a great question. teflon is basically made of the forever chemicals that we are talkg about and the issue is not so many if you are having a brand-new pan, but if you have sctches on the surface some of the compounds might get into your food that you are consuming. what i want to say to you is one, i understand that this is overwhelming. it is overwhelming and i think that this is part of the issue. in terms of the pan, i went through the same process and we got d of all of the teflon. i used to teflon pans. they are very convenient. nothing stks to them. it makes cleaning easier. yeah,e got rid of all of the teflonots and pans because of that reason.

that is certainlone way of doing it. i also hope that this regulation wi lead to a better description on different products if they contain pfas or not. i don't think that we can expect consumers, also speaking about self, to know where these chemicals are use we are talking about dental floss. we know ther are certain menstrual products where these are used. i think ski wear. all kinds of variety where no one knows that these are used. we shouldn't put the burden on the consumer to make this choice or do the research. they should have the choice and they should specifically say these contain pfas and then the consumeran decide if they want to use it or not. hopefully they won't. host: here's an article for marketwatch. an issue with your tissue? forever chemicals are in toilet

paper too. epa wants to crack down on pfas and water, but forever chemicals are used and stain resistant clothing, cookware, and dental floss. add toilet paper to the list. definitely concerning. on twitter, all i need to know is, is a brita effective for drinking water? guest: to some extent. the reason that i can't give a precise answer is pfas, something we should discuss -- they're only six compounds discussed for regulation but pfas is potentially tens of thousands of different compounds. because there are so my they have a lot of different properties. it might work well for some, but it might not work as well for others. it is certainly better than not using a brita filter, but they do have some limitations. the issue is also you don't

ally know when the filter is spent. so, that is one issue. you can only really determine if you can test the water that comes out of it. that would make it very expensive because the tests at this point are extremely expensive. host: a question over text from milwaukee. is bottled water or purified and/or springwater completely free of pfas? i.e., does reverse osmosis remove all pfas, or can we tell with current technology limits? guest: again, it is good at removing most pfas. there might be low concentrations coming through. reverse osmosis is basically where you have a very dense membrane where you push the water through. they have very small por.

most of the pfas are not coming through, but some compounds might make it through. the other issue is in terms of really dermining we don't really know because we currently have no detection methods that can measure these very low concentrations. we would have to measure them in order to say we are above or below the health advisory levels. reversosmosis is definitely one of the approaches, especially for households, that might be a pretty good approach. the technology should work r a relatively long time in removing the mpounds. host: a question about bottd water. maverick tweets, mr. carsten, how about commercialottled water? are they being regulated and/or tested on a regular sis for contaminants like forever chemicals? guest: they are mostly not.

a lot of bottled water is actually made from municipal drinking water. just because iis bottled doesn't necessarily mean that it is pfas free. i think that is someing that needs to be tested. colleagues of mine in my department have looked into this and have found pfas in bottled water. in very low concentrations, but still present. unfortunately, bottled water isn't necessarily a solution to this either. host: what water do you drink? i'm curious. you don't even drink filtered water? guest: i do. we actually have an activated carbon filter in our basement. it wasn't even for pfas that we

instled it it is for disinfection byproducts which we have in oudrinking water. we have an activated caon filter in the basement. that is why i am using tap water. we have a four-month-old, so i'm very conscious about what is in the water. i especially don't want to expose our baby to chemicals such as pfas. host: dennis next in alabama. caller: hi. host: hi, go right ahead, dennis. caller: you and -- you answered my question about bottled water being regulated. most of it is tapwater. the other thing that gets me is they put chemicals ithe fields to raise our food. corn, wheat and everything. it is all things like chemicals.

the chemicals soak into the ground. we are actually getting the chemicals in our food. host: your comment to carsten? carsten, do you he a response? guest: you are right with regard to pfas. the aspect that i didn't mention yet is when it comes to food pfas is also coming in food packaging. not only the aspect that you mentioned, using the compounds potentially in the environment, but also food packaging. when you think about pizza boxes, for example, they are made of cardboard. if you expose cardboard to grease, it just soaks through. we are lining the inside with a film of pfas to prevent the

grease from soaking into them. into the cardboard. another aspect that compcates this more and we are looking into is in growing food, that is another potential pathway of getting pfas into our agricultural soil using bio salts from our wastewater treatment plants. they are commonly used as very good fertilizer, but unfortunately we know these contain pfas. there have been examples where farmers had to shut down because their soils were being contaminated with a high concentration of pfas through the biolids. unfortunately, pfas is an extremely complex problem.

we are discussing mostly drinking water now based on the epa to regulate it more, but we are regularly exposed to pfas through almost everything that you can think of at this point. it is a much larger issue, and i hope it starts us thinking about, what can we do to deal with this? host: ray in lexington kentucky. caller: what products have the most pfas? personal-care products like shampoo, floss, cosmetics, nail polish, eye makeup, grease-resistant paper, fast food containers, popcorn bags, pizza boxes, candy wrappers, stain resistant carpet, upholstery, water resistant clothing. it sounds like we have been using it for a long time. what is the urgency now?

-- cleanup the world again. host: carsten, ray doesn't think it's that big of a deal. guest: the reason, as i introduced earlier, is we are getting health impacts. it just takes a long time. you can do animal testing, which has been done, but in terms of human exposure you basically need studies that take several years to see how certain posures to pfas, measuring in different individuals in different cohorts and the sue is that these compounds are toxic. acutely toxic. these are commonly seen. they are dying immediately.

obviously, there are a lot of other factors that impact exposure when you thkbout smokin, your diet, exercise. this makes it complex. it is hard to pinpoint ectly the compounds, and it takes a long time. it took so long for us to gure this out. again, we have pretty good evidence that these compounds have adver outcomes. it is definitely a very positive step that has been taken, and the reason why took so long is that we need to gather enough information to actually make this step and be clear on this. unfortunately, this takes a long time, and we have all been exposed for a long time. we don't really know if it is due to other aspects, but we

certainly know that it can contribute to these aspes. >> this is from dave in annapolis who sent us a text. you might not be able to answer this, but the former water plant operator asks how much water would you have to drink before it becomes to humans? >> again. especially because we are talking aboutancer. chemics that cause cancer, in theory, molecules already cause that effect. i'm not saying tha is the case. but it depends on who you are as a human being oretabolism with other expures. it is ry hard to say this did if you want to go, you have to drink a lot, but that is not the issuhere.

what we are talking about our chronic effects. you're exposed to these concentrations for decades, potentially, that might lead to it. you ve to differentiate between what is caung this in what you are getting sick from versus long-term effects that might impact your health. >> let's talk to tom in portland oregon. hello. >> hello. thank you, professor. quick background -- i am a chemical engineer. i worked a lot in water treatmen i am well educated on that part. my question is to calibrate u. do not believe in social trade-offs the idea that sometimes, hard choices have to be made between the social good of a product and the potential consequences? thank you very much i'm not sure i understood.

>> he wants to know what the trade-off is. the benefit of a product as opposed to the harm it could be doing to humans and the environment. >> i guess, again, in my opinion, as an environmental chemist, we shouldn't expose people to any harmful chemicals. iny opinion, it is just not. it is not fair to -- and people don't know about this. to expose em to these chemicals, and to be clear, we are using chemicals on a daily basis. we are surrounded by chemicals in the products we are using. i think, in my opion, what we have to do, and what is missing, is accurate testing before they get into the different products on the mket, and that is something we have to do to

prevent that from happening in the future with other chemicals. why not test chemicals more extensively in other places in the world, for example. it will have a health impact on certain chemicals, and only using them with that impact or the information we have. we don't see an adverse impact. that is my answer to the question. >> michael is in new york. good morning. >> good morning. i just have a couple of simple questions. a lot of the packaging of foods that we have with frozen foods and milk and stuff, it is separate. those packages contain frosts as far as compounds.

are they safe? that's question number one. my second statement is that we have eight chemical engineer that was just on and he asked about the trade-off. >> based on what you're are saying, what you have to do is to more research and development. is a way that the stuff was signed. you can address the risk of cancer and the trade-off. you can ask that question again. what is the trade-off. would there be a trade-off in what is designed to prevent these things. i think it goes into the research and development. than you. what about the protocol of how we build these products, and what is your take on that? >> you raise a great point, and in my opinion, that is where things have to go, obviously. you can imagine from the industry side, it would also

entail more cost. we would have to more research, and we would have to excde certain compounds because of this aspect, but my opinion is that this is the way to go. with the food packaging, it is very common if you have canned foods, and people -- it is commonly used in cans and the inside of cans. we know today that there reaching out of these packaging materials read again, it is very hard for me to say, this contains a lot. there are some where you can explicitly read on it. but, it is the exception rather than the rules, but i hope this will change. >> i'm a little freaked out about all of these chemicals that are pretty much everywhere. what do you recommend for a

normal person as far as trying to protect themselves from these forever chemicals? >> i fully understand the concern, and i have that concerned as well. i think i mentioned already, thinking about what we know, and where these compounds -- at this point, there is an online database where you can look at if certain products contained it orot. i think, we know a specific teflon for example. that is a relatively easy step to take. making sure that if you buy a product, may be do your own research and make sure it is free. it is very hard and difficult to do. we won't be able to prevent

exposure entirely, but that is what i would recommend at this point. i think the main point really is, and i hope this will lead to this, there will be more transparency about the use of these chemicals in different products, and i hope different companies are making a larger effort to make sure that there are products that are free of this, but there are also examples where they thought they were and they turned out not to be. there needs to be more transparency and more confirmation, basically. it is a challenging problem. i'm hoping that, again, this will lead to more action on a wider level on the drinking water side. but for drinking water, you can always check waterrom

utilities. you contested so you know whher it is in or not, and you could get a treatment statement under the sink. there are some carbon centers in the system, and obviously they are associated with costs which is a big issue because some people might be able to afford that and others might not, but i think that is the main thing i would say. you can do that at this point. >> let's talk to marianne in minnesota. >> hello. i use reverse osmosis for the last 40 years, and cast-iron cookware. if you read silent spring by rachel carson, which is written many years ago, she tells you what to worry about. this has been going on forever. all the chemical plants and vapor bills that drain this into

our water sources, it is a list. we have to learn lessons from the 50's. that's where this started. get rid of these products, make sure they don't work right, talking to other thing so we can sell more. add garbage to it. it's been going on forever. we need to start reading more, looking at things, and protecting ourselves. that's what i've been doing. trying to protect my family and other people. we just have to do it. >> all right. enke. >> thank. let's talk to alan in pennsylvania. good morning. >> good morning. i would like to know what is the average person doing that drinking water all day. i drink water most of the time. i don't drink a much else. what is the average person supposed to do. >> i don't want to keep you from what you shouldn't. as i mentioned, there are ways

of trying to ensure that you are avoid being exposed to it in your drinking water. their treatment systems you can use if you're getting water from a utility. i would say making sure at they make a test for that and they can put that in the water. at this point, the only thing you can do, and we talked about ttled waters. it is not a better alternative. in addition to one thing, especially in plastic idols, if used has to, you also have the issue that there might be other chemicals coming out of rustic and water. so yes. >> let's talk to davis and winterville, georgia. good morning. >> yes. why might the chemicals that cause this make them at all?

why not regulate? why have it? >> why have these chemicals? >> yes. why can't there be regulations that stop them from being made? >> these areommonly used because they have a very diinct property. that is why we use them in teflon, for example. we think of pans, they are nonstick, and they don't break do. that is something you want in a pan. you also want thaand stain resistant clothing and carpets. there are benefits we think about what we likeo have, but the issue is this comes at a co of what we know now it there are a lot of adverse health impacts, plus

characteristics. they make them unique. on the other hand, they are very resistt and the degradation of the environme which is what we call them forever chemicals. so, again, from the industry side, there is a lot of benefit to using these chemicals, and there are benefits to using them. your rain jacket is water repellent for example. the estion is, we've discussed this, whatre the benefits and what are the negative pacts, and i think at this might, we know the negatives are much larg than we originally had thought originally. we definitely need to take action to these compounds. >> has all the time we have for this segment it carsten is a vest right john hopkins. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me.

>> coming up is our spotlight on podcast series. join us in discussing the fallout and collapse of the silicon valley bank, and the show from marco host called odd lots. but first, open forums. the numbers are on the screen. we will be right back.

>> welcome back. it is open forum for the next half-hour. i will be taking calls on anything related to politics or public affairs. things happening in washington. the phone numbers are on the screen. take a look at this article that just came in on the associated press. it says trump says he will be arrested as the da ice charges. trump said that he will be arrested on tuesday as a new york prosecutor is eyeing charges examining hush money paid to women who alleged sexual encounters from the former

president. trump said on hisocial network that illegal leaks from the manhattan district attorney's office indicate that the leading repuican candidate and former president of the nae states of america that will be arrested on tuesday of next week. trump urged his followers to protest. law enforcement officials have making security precautions or the possibility that trump could be indicted. there has been no public announcement of any timeframe for the work, including any potential votes to indict the ex-president. >> here's an article from reuters. it was said that putin committed were crushed, and that his policies were justified on friday. the russian president has

clearly committed war crimes, and the criminal court decision to issue an arrest warrant for him was justified. following on that, related to the war in ukraine, turkey and hungary have approved finland and nato membership. sweden has yet to recee suppor from budapest. if you recall, finland and swed have applied for nato membership, and they are awaiting approval for those. let's start taking your calls now. let's start with arnold who is a republican. in california. >> i love c-span. i enjoy it. i get up very early here in california, but i have a question in regards to insurance companies. insurance industries.

we've used this term, insurance, in so many different aspects of institutions. who monitors insurance companies? if we look at the numbers, it rises to trillions that are at risk in a lot of our society. it is an insurance industry stable enough to withstand some of these things that could be coming, and how could that affect the overall stability of our society? i will take other thoughts from other callers, but thank you so much for c-span and washington journal. >> all right. let's talk to robin syracuse, new york areaemocrat.

>> good morning. i want to return to the earlier half-hr on confidence in the biden administration to handle the current banking crisis. and i just want to mention, i don't think any political administration is going to be able to handle a banking crisis. if we look abroad, right to switzerland, yesterday, credit suisse almost went under. and the major swiss bank, without cash, that is like hershey without chalk it. there's the federal reserve. going back to what was mentiod at the insurance company, when bush 43 was president, the collapse of aig followed by the banks happened under the bush administration. and, compared to what is going

on under the biden administration, the binding ministration is a drop in the bucket. i think we should lighten up and there will be more than enough light to go around. thank you. >> allen is calling us from new york area at hello. >> good morning. one of the indecipherable mysteries to me in this day and age is after all of the things tell trump's been through with a born star and how he spoke to the ukrainian president and the shutdown down, and how he spoke to georgia, could somebody explain how this man garters such support as he does? these people are idiotic. the electorate. >> manny isn florida. >> good morning.

i have a thought here that most americans feel like they are under scrutiny. taxes, all kinds of things. at what point are we going to become americans again? ourountry is so separated right now. we don't know if we ever are going to recover from all of these things. >> what do you mean? >> the way like you go off and be people that you know, and they know that you are republican. they have this thing that they are totally against because you are republican. and if you are democrat, they say, well, you are a liberal. this and that. but the pot is, we are all americans. we all have feelings and thoughts.

this is why we were brought up in the 60's. you are a democrat or republican. you wore an individual. and you are respected. no longer. >> let's talk to andrew in fall river massachusetts. >> i just want to give a face to the public school achers in this coury. i was raised in a catholic family. all of my brothers and sisters went to catholic school, and i was born with a learning disability. they kick me out of catholic school. th only biblical help i got from them was don't worry, god has your back. i was educated in a public school syste they helped me out. teachers help me out as much as they could, but there wasn't a program. and there wasn't the help that i needed. i am dyslexic. i suffer from asperger's.

the ly heli got from this organization was, don'worry. god has yourack area i got more help from the hells angs than i did for any so-called christian group. we have to bkup our schoolteachers and give them the help they need. it isn't their fault that kids in this country go wall-to-wall. they need backup. they need mon to help educate. that is all. >> independent in marchal texas. mona, are you there? >>ello. >> go ahead, you are othe air. >> thank you. >> i have a grandson who was cently in mexico. theyaved his life and operated on him. he had a huge saoma on the

right side of his ribs. it grew to be almost two pounds in about three and a half months. he lived in key west, florida. my daughter is a nse practitioner, and she started doing search immediately and found doctors in mexicthat new about this. it apparently is the se tng that the english man had with huge lumps all or his body. she was able to find doctors who specialize in that in e catan, and they operate on my granon andemoved a huge tumor. it was already necrotizing. it was about to burst open like a bigeed pod.

>>our daughter found that ere was more expertise in mexico tha in the united stes? was it a question of ct? >>t was a question of cost and timing. apparently, according to the doctors there, if they had waited any longer, he prably would be dead. it was a very successful surgery. th had ner seen anythi like this. it was so huge. they aed if ey could do a se stu on this boys tumor he has lived in key west since he was five. he is 43 years old now. he is back in key west, woing. he is a very succeful chef at eight cafe. >> all right. public line, illinois. bo that's me. love c-span.

the mainstream media chased after trump for six yrs and never found any evidence. they found one of his lackeys had a tax problem, but nothing on trump. i see all of the stuff with the biden crime family in front of our noses. thmainstream media wo't cover it. now, i understd there is a story were alan bragg once to perp walk dona trump. i hope he does it. that wl rally the troops like never before. ron desantis should wait his turn in the trump have it. he's dealing with who can save our country. thank you. >> all right. let's talk sal and south carolina, democrat. >> donald trump is -- a lot of people like donald trump, but dona trump is a big liar. you can't trusa liar. he has lied about everytng. he is not -- most people are

taught that the things tell trump is done, they are taught that is hate. th is what he does. he punches into the hate in america. st people are good people. most white people are good people. rich people ne to wake up and see that donald trump doesn't li anybody b donald trump. tha's what i have to s. >> i want to show you an article from the new york times. it is headlined tt the who accuses china of hiding data that may link covid'origins to animals. genetic research from china suggests to some extent that the coronavirumay have sprung from a seafood market in wuhan, china. the data is missing from a scientific database. it sayshat the w review chinese officials on fridand ey werholding resear wch y linkhe origins to wild anims, asking why it had not be made ailable three yea for and whit is now missing.

the data disapared in an ternatnal team of experts downloed and began analyzing the rearch. itppeared online ijanuar they sata ports -- th say i suppts the idea that raccoon dogs infecd people at a seafood market. let's talk to bill in ohio. independent. >> good morning. i would like to talk about the train derailment. i know that we are concerned about the burn pits from years ago in afghanistan, but it seems like the government didn't learn anything. we did in ohio. it is fuel during to me that that is the way they did it, and second of all, our resident doesn't seem to have any concern about it at all. this is something that is not easily going away. i don't wanted to be forgotten.

i don't think norfolk southern should be blamed. i didn't work for them, but i used to drive around, and i got to know these guys a lot. i feel bad for them. also, the company, in a way, but i hope they are held responsible to clean this up properly. >> all right. well, there is a event happening and we will have live coverage on c-span at 1 p.m.. it is avent in south carolina in charleston that is the palmetto vision 2024 event. that is coming up today. here is an article from the courier by caitlin byrd. she says that they could see hu presidents no fields from other forums today. eight major republicans from nikki haley to ron desans are being asked to come to south

carolina in march of this month so they can share their vision for america on a turf that will play a majorolin the presidential nomination. we have a reporter with us from the courier joining us from charlston to talk about that. welcome to the program. >> good morning. how are you? >> i'm doing ok. >> another morning on washington journal. let's talk about the event coming up today. tell me who is going to be there. nikki haley is confirmed. who else? >> we have tim scott. i'm very interested to see what sort of shadowboxing we see playing out on stage, but we have some other republican candidates, and also, influencers like hometown senator lindsey graham, marsha blackburn, former congresswoman tulsi gabbarwill be there. asa hutchinson. john kennedy was a center.

we will seek to confirm presidential candidates, as well as mike rogers, who is a late confirmation as of last night. next telme about the family counsel. what is this about and how is it funded? >> ty are a nonprofit. they are basedn columbia. they were founded in 1993 in the state of south carolina, and to us, this is a cradle of christian conservatives. that iwhere you hear a lot of evangelicals. that is why see mike pence going back time and ti again. this group is based in columbia. in addition to their nonprofit work, they have a very strong lobbying arm. they are very invoed in the legislature and lobbying on efforts like abortion, same-sex marriage, which they are opposed to, sex ecation. theyost recently got involve last year in an effort we saw take place in multiple states, trying to push bills that would

ban transgender females from participating in sports. they are a very conservative christian base gup. i suspect we will hear a lot of talk aut that today. it is a departure from some of the more foreign policy talk that we have seen being a differentiator in this republican presidential primary. >> as far as the impact goes? how much weight es this council have? >> they are a powerful group. when we lobby with republicans, people know where they are. they've been around since the early 90' they have survived, they have grown. they can be influential, and they have posted forms in the past, and even in the 2008 presidential cycle, they held a forum and individuals were seeking the repubcan nomination forresident back then. they saw value in speaking to this group. to its members into the people who might be interested or drawn to the issues that are rootedn

things, and how much christianity and christianity values they want to play out in politics. they came to thaevent. people like mitt romney and john mccain. they are big players in this state, even if they do work hundred, but they are also not afraid to take calls will be asked them if they are pushing for specific legislation. >> event is called vision 24. tell me about this format. what do you expect to see? >> what i've been told is that this is not going to be a forum where all of the candidates or influencers are going to be on stage. they will go one by one red i'm rious to see if there will be a teleprompter allowed. i don't know for sure. i understand that the potential here is looking like it will either be candidates getting up and speaking to the crowd or maybe some combination of that plus a q and a, but le i said, i will be looking to see if these people will have teleprompters. if not, i will get excited because that means people will

have to have a talking point memorized. speak off-the-cuff and be ready to go. >> of course, former president trump is also a candidate. any chance he is going to show? >> definitely t showing up. he was invited, sos vice president mike pence, but we know there will be breaking news about where he will be as early as next tuesday. he's going to be arrested, so i don't think south rolina is on his mind. >> florida governor ron desantis also is not showingp. what is the significance of that? >> i thinkhe significant is that it will keep building anticition. every time i'm speaking with republican voters who are waffling on who they are going to support, whether we are talking about nii haley, or this dynamics cocked. ron desant or donald trump. there is a group of republicans

who are really holding outo see if he will jump in. we' tim scott jump in. the santos is missing an oprtunity to speak to the voters who are curious. in some ways, it is a disappointment, buin other ways, it means he gets to build suspense and build momentum. but he has to be careful because anytime you are seen as the perceived front runner, we have seen how the starshine's brightness and fizzles out quickly. so espially before they get there. it seems to me that ron desantis is beingery intentional, and many of these events are explicitly tied to the book tour he is on. it is not coming here yet, but i'm curious to see if it does. >> what will you watch for in this event? what is the big thing you are looking for? >> i am looking to be curious about the differences we hear, especially between nikki haley and tim scott.

this is home turf for them. they know south carolina voters better than almost anyone on that stage, and the only caveat is senator graham will also be speaking and he has been in politics for quite some time, but it will be interesting to see what the lane is that they are carving out. when they ta about things like faith, which both nikki haley and tim scott have talked about being important in their lives. for both of these candidates, seen as joyfularriors or conservatives like messengers for the gop, i'm curious to see the differentiation since they are oftentimes a lot of different similarities. i'm alscurious whether we will be going down some new paths in talking about different questions that we just haven't seen pop up quite as much so far. especially with things related to faith. i think we are veering into the culture wars, and i'm curious to see how far candidates will go, and what sort of policies they are willing to lay down as what

they see as important to them but also their faith. >> all right had senior politics reporter. from charleston. thank you so much. >> thank you for having me. >> republican residential candidates and potential contenders such as tim scott and ava hutchinson will be in south carolina today, hosted by t palmetto family council. you can watch live coverage beginning at 1 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. on our free mobile app, online at c-span.org. it is open for them. another five minutes or so. we are taking your call on issues opublic policy. dale has been waiting from columbus ohio on the democrat line. thank you for waiting. >> thank you good morning. i just want to s it is about time that somebody tried to get involv.

trump has been doing a lot of crooked stuff. i'm amaz that people always say that it startedhen he came wn the escalator. it did not. he had so many lawsuits in the beginning. inhe first place. i want to say something aut a lot of these republicans. he asked for people to protest because he might be indicted or go to jail and all that stuff, but you have to think about it. he told everyone to come there the last time. january. not one time did he ever try to get those people arrested. not out of jail. you could be standing t there getting arrested, and donald trump would not be coming in. but not one time he wouldvever come to get to this. it is a shame that he is so me people locked in like that, but he's just trying to start a war. is not going to happen. if you want to go to jail, followed behind donald trump. have a nice day. quick speaking of janry 6, here is an article from politico. it says the house gop ignored

request to review public footage. only one of the 40 clips that aired on tucker carls -- carlsen show was approved. >> general counsel wrote in a foreign court filing. my voice is starting to give out. anthony in brooklyn, new york. independent. >> hello. go ahead. >> hello. i'm calling -- excuse me. i want to speak about the prescription drug coverage in the medical benefits of this country. >> go ahead. >> sure. people like me, there are thousands more. in this country.

they are in constant pain. they are chronically ill, and terribly, etc.. they are not getting medication. they are not getting the right treatment. that is number one. with all of these expenses for people like us, --. >> already talking about opioids and your access to them? >> not just opioids. there are other medications as well. my case i am incurable. i have a lot of friends. that's one of them. but more so than that, because you spoke on opioids abuse on your show, or them once in the past.

totally, like other medications as well. i am sure you are aware. and, it's just not -- it's so hard. it's like being an amputee. getting the right prosthetic. getting the right pain medication. it's just different. there are many different things. too numerous to mention. >> i'm sorry you're dealing with all that pain. james is in scottsboro alabama. democrat. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i'd like to make a comment about donald trump. he said he was going to be arrested on tuesday. best this morning. they just made that post. >> that's right. he's in alabama. >> i live in a racist state red full of bigots. >> ever since i've been in my -- alive. i've listen to this. george wallace from alabama was

trying to keep black folks from going to school. donald trump is doing the same thing that george wallace said. if you don't believe i pull up your records and comparehem side-by-side. you have a nice day. america is going to hell in a hand basket. >> all right. that's all the time we have for open forums. thank you to everyone who called in. coming up next, our spotlights on podcasts. joe wiesenthal joins us to talk about the fallout from the collapse of silicon valley bank and the show he cohosts is called odd lots. we are going to be right back.

talks about the history of feminism in the united states from the american revolution until today. >> i realized this was a cra myth that has grown up on the left as well as on the right about what feminism is. we feel so divided as a country today, and what i realized as i work on this project is that feminism is born in the american revolution and it has driven our

history. it has helped to define it. it has contributed to our economic development and our social develop and. our political about me. i thought, how can we let such an important thing just be bandied about, not really understand its history. >> elizabeth cobb with her book, peerless women. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span q and a. you can listen on all of our podcast and our free spandau app. -- free c-span now app. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided completeoverage to the halls of congress from hous and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span.

here on future -- filtered view of government. >> washington journal continues. >> welcome back to washington journal. it is our weekly series on podcasts and my guest is joe wiesenthal. he is a cohost of all lots from bloomberg. lcome to the program. >> thank you for hing me. i am excited to be he. >> let's art with talking about the podcast. what is the name? >> it is a podcast that i started with a cohost, tracy, who really wanted to be here, and i am said she isot. she had a vacation planned, so i am said she could not join us because it would be better wit both of us. we started at bloomberg six or seven years ago, and awed lots essentially in finance and markets refers to chunks of shares or bonds that are not

simple and round numbers. i don't know. if you have 87 of some stock as opposed to 100. there might be interesting things that happen in the trading of these unusual lot sizes. when we first started the podcast, it was a reference to the idea that maybe not everything we talk about would necessarily fit in perfectly. we try to find topics that aren't necessarily right in the news now, and will become news. or guess people may not have heard of but they are prominent voices. we cover markets and finance. it is sort of a nod to that ambition. >> who are you aiming to reach? who is your target audience, what you hope they take away? >> i would say it is twofold. we think a professional audience. we want to aim really to professional people and finance, who are traitors, managers, etc.. we want them to learn more.

often, thewant to learn more about their own indusies, and people who trade bonds, for example, might still have questions abt how the federal reserve operations work. even people who are steeped in the knowledge -- knowledge of a specific domain often have questions that we can hopefully find answers to, but we want to make it accessible. just add a normal, intellectually curious, plugged in person who might want to learn more about some topic that is going on in the news about market finance and economics. they would find that accessible. in my mind, it is about nding a line of how you create something sophisticated enough that the average professional audience will find useful in their day-to-day life. but not so dark any or in the reeds that youan't understand it. th's the line we try to aim for. >> we are talking about the podcast from bloomberg called odd lots. financial news of the day. if you wld like to call in and

make a comment, you can do that now. the numbers are on the screen. the big news obviously is the collapse of the silicon valley bank. give us a primer. what caused the collapse? >>n many ways, of all the financial crisis moments that we've experienced over the past or 20 years, it might be one of the more straightforward ones for people to understand because it resembles a very old fashioned bank run on deposits. we think of 2008, there were also bank run elements, but they was not the sameort ofetail deposirs point their money because they thought the bank was going to gunder. it was more esoteric and

complicated that people wer selling at a fire sale out of here this one, obviously, there was an incredible boom. in 2020, 2021, tons of venture capital energy and startup funding. the dominant thing was when she got funding, put your money and silicon valley bank. they did a good job of capturing the audience are starting to capture the custer base. they saw a huge surgeon deposits with this boom of those ears. at the same time, they hado do something with those deposits. there were not a lot of profitable opportunities for them like there might be in a normal bank because a lot of their customers didn't really need to borrow so much. mortgages, they did that stuff, but it wasn't eir bread and butter. th went out and bought treasuries. they needed it on yield. they needed to get some sort of income to service the brand-new client base and they had a high touch that was li a kia sears

-- concierge style bank. when they lost bonds in value over the last severaweeks, investors and depositors at the bank became concerned. their asset size was shrinking because of the interest rate increase. what appears thave happened i that in extraordinary short. of time, word got out that some people were concerned, they start going around on various chats and basically within two days, the bank was wound up and that wasver, they were taken to receivership for a wednesday to a friday. it was a classic bank run, but in a real lightning speed which is sort of shaking to everyone cause how ft could ts have happened? is this a new risk, a dynamic of group chat run banks that all of us have to think about? >> there is an article from the

washington post which is headlined, after the bank collapsed, washington asked, is it to blame? state and federal regulators missed warning signs. 15 years after a bigger bank crisis led to the great recession. what do you think of that? is it an issue of regulation >> that is a huge element. of course, is not about absolving management or anything like that, but i think there is going to be a lot of soul-searching and questioning about the current state of regulation, and i think there are a couple different elements that read for example, it would have required a bank like silicon valleyo have more liquid cash on hand to deposit. that might have staved off a banking collapse. there are rules for smaller banks that were rolled back in 2018. just from a rule change, it is possible that some of that maiden 2018 was to blame.

or they had a culprit in the collapse of the silicon valley bank, t there were also regulators. there were people within the federal reserve system who had a job to pay attention to what is going on in the bank, and it should have been a fairly clear, extremely fast growing deposit on the cost or the edge of systematically or not quite the systemically important banks, as identified, but growing really fast. there were some clear risks obviously. i mentioned the interest rate exposure. there was a concentration of depositors. that is the other thing. most banks don't -- face the same dynamics because they might have more diverse funding. retail depositors that work around some of the geography, they are probably not all going to be facing the same economics at the same time. some of them might lose jobs or gain jobs. you would expect there to be diversity.

when you are concentrated in a specific industry and it is in a downturn, tech startups have been over the last year half, you have a lot of new cash because we don't want the vc money coming in, but it is dring down deposits because they have to keep operations going. that is a concentration that is a risk. that is something supervisors and regulators might have been able to pick up on, and i think there will be a big question as to, where will the regulators, the san francisco fed and elsewhere, bloomberg, reported elsewhere that the sanrancisco fed said warnings to the bank but they weren't taken seriously enough, or maybe they didn't have enough teeth for late last year, but why regulators didn't take a me aggressive action to tell the bank, we'd each shortened finances, we need to raise some equity. we need to head sure interest rate risk. these were huge questions about

regulators, and i think there'll be multiple investigations. >> to agree with president biden that more regulation is needed? stronger regulation? >> i think what i would y is the bank collapse cause people to revisit that log change, and whether that is wise, one can imagine a very small bank. banks failed. that happens. there been a lot of failures, and it's usually not a big deal. it is usually not a big bank failure. but this happens when you have a bankight on the cusp of -- not one of the top banks needed to havetress test, but it is a. big bank. most of the reue we saw on sunday night was that it was essentially the fdic the fed and the treasury determining that the risk bill er from the bank was systemically important. that is how they were able to make a commitment to make depositors whole. that will be a strong argument that there is number of banks

that aren't currently subject to the most rigorous strs testing and capital requirements and liquidity requirement standards. there are questions that that should extend to larger banks than the ones we have now. >> how would you rate the administration response to these bank failures? guest: i would say this which is by and large what we have learned, looking into thousand eight -- looking at 2008, the desire to nickel and dime it in something costly. no one wants to do the things they call a bailout. t's get ts little capital injection there and make a rule change. everyone hopes that will be enough, it ends of compoundg the cost. the slower you go in the beginning, the more you y at the end.

the fed, the treasury, fdic, if we go big at the beginning, which is the lesson we have learned, you ultimately don't have to go as big as the end. there is the political cost, the dollar cost, and it does not end up being as big. that was really the storyn 2008 and 29. on thursday, they had major bas on the closets -- on all deposits. that was meant to be a show support to first republic that all of these major banks like goldn and citibank, they were willing to put billions of their money on deposit for the first republ. the basic story is it does not seemo have a fully quality situation -- fully quelled this

intuition. while the administration did respond aggressively, it is still tbdbout if it is aggressive enough. host: we are taki your calls for the next half hour til the end of the program. by party for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. let's start with the jerry who is in new jersey, for democrats -- the line for democrats. guest: -- caller: i have a couple of questions for you. we just had the ftx scandal. is there a tie and -- a tie in to the ftx?

and the people getting bailed out -- the people who supported democrats, are they the same people getting bailed out by us? my ccern is that we are peeling off the bridge here. the people that lost money with ftx and now gaining the money back again. is there more to it than we are seeing? the other thing is, janet yellen testified they were good to begin to choose the banks they bailout. to me it looks like the average person is going to be left holding the bag and these rich people are going to be getting all of their money back. can you answer that question? guest: there are a few dimensions to the question. i don't think what we have seen is directly ti to ftx. i would say both are of a

particular environment where ntb's had a lot of---- a lot of cash. in that environment where everyone is getting extremely rich, people stop doing basic due diligence, stop thinking about risk, stop thinking they are -- start thinking they are invincible. he saw that with crypto in 2020 and 2020 one and you saw it in tech. i think they are correlated more than causal. there was not an ftx bailout. when you think about who is going to benefit from the rescue of silicon valley bank depositors, most of the money -- i would say a few things. there is a good chance even without federal intervention most of the depositors would have been made close to whole because silicon valley bank has a lot of assets.

the bondholders are going to take some substantial cuts. there is a good chance in the end t depositors were going to be made whole. what is notable is that last sunday the bank made clear they were going to make everyone whole. there are some very wealthy depositors. there was a story in the financial times that peter teal had $50 million of his own money on deposit. that is true. there are a lot of companies that had to make payroll. they may be startups, they may be well-funded, but it would be devastating for the police, the economy, etc. if a bunch of compies cannot make poor rural -- could not make payroll. there are good reasons regulators felt they had to step

in and guarantee deposits for the smooth operations of t economy. you asked about the janet yellen clip and i think that is telling. there is this tension, and i don't think this is the one everyone in washington and financial regulation circles are debating, the law does not say everyone gets their deposits back automatically. when you heard that question from janet yellen and senator lankford, does a small community bank at the same treatment silicon valley bank depositors got? she answered the question in a technical manner which is basically the law says x about this and anything further, there is a determination, is this systemically important? it is not something someone wants to hear right now. there is this assumption all depositors are insured even if we say itnly goes up to

$250,000. if we are going to implicitly accept that no one will lose their money, we might want to think about changing the laws to codify that and say they are all insured. if they are all insured, change other laws that have to do with the nature of banking. we are existing in this limbo space where everyone probably believes implicitly all deposits will be insured. we have not made the legal changethat would be smart to go along with that. it is a very complicated situation. host: let's talk to donna. caller: this is about your setup explaining what happened to svb. after you explained there was a lot of deposit money in the

bank, your next step was and they had to do something with that money. if glass-steagall was still in operation, i think that wouldn't be t case. when the bank needs to do something with depositors' money, they are basically borrowing from the depository to make more money -- from the depositor to make money on their investment. that is not what the depositors have in mind. thanks so much. thanks so much to all of c-span. guest: i believe this is kind of the ke thing which is we have this system in banking where technically speaking a depositor at a bank is a letter to the bank. that is how our banking system operates.

no one thinks about that way. you think is the atm network going to be good, can i connect my bills? are there a lot of branches? do i have a mortgage? the last thing most depositors are thinking about is, and i let her to this bank or should i be concerned about whether this bank is going to pay me back? most people say nobody thinks that and we don't want people to spend their time thinking about that. how many people are even qualified to do that? it is a not realistic way to run a banking system. on the question of borrowing and lending, glass-steagall aside, that is our model of banking. they borrow money, they try to get cheap money to borrow, many of them are deposit funded and then they lent. unlike 2008 and two dozen nine,

the story -- and 2009, the story was these banks were taking serious credit wrists -- credit risks with people's money. what planted people here is they were not buying toxic assets, they brought -- they bought treasuries. most people would say that is very safe, that is a very prudent thing. most regulators and people say they want to be conservative. it turns out they were taking interest rate risk because when inflation proved to be more entrenched than people expected, we got these rate hikes in 2022, bond prices go down and what they thought was a conservative portfolio turns out to be a costly one. it was clearly a risk on banking.

it was sort of a classic of bankg risk that cou have existed under any regulatory regime. host: warren is next. caller: i am going to get a little off subject and then back to it. when the central bank let some much cash out the and it increases demand and people are staying home and putting money in the bank part -- and if the bankinflation is going to happen. i think jerome powell is inuenced by the administration to keep interest rates down. he started not getting them up fast eugh. the center would take off, like in t 19's, every bank knows what is going to happen. the interest rates he to go up so they knew that.

menu the risks. get insured up to $250,000. it goes in a pool and we pool out of that pool -- pull out of that pool. the people who have 100,000 in there are obably not going to get their money because it will empty the pool. all of these rich people either are not educated on what is going to happen for what ever happened. but they were connected to the democratic party, i guarantee you and they have all that money and influence on them. now they are giving away money that should go to the rest of us if the other banks failed. st: 20 think? -- what do you think? guest: there is a pool. it is not obvious that the pool is going to be tapped.

someone who is $5 million in short is not good to impinging on someone at $1000 -- $5 million insured is not going to impinge on someone at $100,000. it is funded by the assets on how the bank has on its books, not the fdic's pool. they have mortgage-backed securities, they have certain loans they made to startups, th were involved in venture debt. all of these things will get sold some way or another and that money will go to depositors. if there isot money left over after that, it is possible the fdic insurance fund, there might have to be some draw on it. each bank around the couny would have a one-time levy assess to replenish the pool. it is important to understand

that the first line of money for the depositors is the bank's money. it is not like it went to zero, the bank has plenty of assets it can sell. you raise politic questions, i think it is ambiguous. some of the latticed people were calling for full deposit protection. they are not huge fans of the biden administration. i mentioned peter teal and $50 million. he spoke at trump's nomination in 2016 -- the convention. it is not a simple matter of democrat versus republica or democrats would get paid back and republicans wouldn't. the left-right politics of th are ambiguous and kind of inside track to the real issues this story exposes.

host: let's go to yogesh in smyrna, georgia. are you there? caller: hello? host: are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i already said my question. the government could have problem with signature bank a few months earlier. host: what do you think? caller: -- guest: this is a big question. there were concerns within the government about silicon valley bank. i don't know as much about the background of signature and when or if supeisors became concerned about it. not only was the reporting my

other colleagues at bloomberg indicating regulators were concerned, silicon valley bank should have raised some alarm, especially thanks to its size and rapid dosit growth. it's sizes significant and the fact that if it were to fail, it wod be costly and dangerous. when you see rapid growth, it is not common for banks to grow rapidly. banks are supposed to be kind of boring. that is safe, when you see a bank growing like crazy, that should be a tell. let's take a deeper look. what are the risks of the bank is taking that might not appreciate one risk silicon valley bank was taking was getting a huge influx of startup cv money. it was getting very correlated funding. that money walked out the door the same time. that is a risk that someone who may have been more on the ball

thinking about thisargest rowing bank in ameri might be taking. management failureare on the table, why didn't they do a better job with interest-rate exposure? regulatory failures are a lot of what people are going to be examining. host: fairfax, virginia. the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. one question i have is bitumen focused on the janet yellen-lankford question. there is a lot of fstration with the public with these capital investments happen. it is very understandabl i am curious to see from your perspective what are two or three things from a legislative

or law perspective you think would correct in light incentives we are seeing in the current system? asou mentied, banks are incentivizedo grow rapidly and th should not be the case. they need to be stable and a lot people do not have -- you have already gone into detail. i am curious what kind of man pressure points you think -- what kindf main pressure points to think, should focus on to correct the things unaligned in the current system? guest: is a great question. in many ways i feel unqualified to s here are the ways to fix the banking system. the question of liquidity and cash on hand to meet outflows, that was something rolled back in 28. i thi credible peoplargue

had those la not rolled ck, silicon valley bank would not have been in the position to makehese risks and the run would not have materialized so fast. that is something to look at. one of the bigger concerns, and you mentioned the janet yellen-lankford conversation, setting aside a bank's solncy, will depositors just say i am not comfortable being at a regional bank? i want to move my money to one of the big banks. too big to fail was one of those things said, i don't know sarcastically or pejoratively, but that was not good phrase. people are taking that and any other way and saying i want to be at a too big to fail bank. if we nt to have a widespread network of smaller reonal community banks out there, because they know their

communities better and they know what is happening and facing their own customers, if you want to preserve that, what do we do to make people feel comfortable. is it about raising deposit insurance? if you are an individual and a small bk, if we raise the deposit insurance to $1 million, the would be few people at the bank who felt compelled. there are some things like perhaps changing deposit insurance that could encourage people to feel comfortable banking at regional and community banks rather than feeling they have to go tooig to fail. host: donald is next in oxford, michigan. caller: this is the first time either for called in. i am turning in in the middle of your conversation so i don't

know what haened earlier on. i do feel like the fed should look at the possibility of quantitative easing for banks because they have raised interest rates suddenly. these banks probably bought a lot of these bonds on the fed at a low interest rate. now the interest rates are higher and people are possibly lling their money out going to a money market fund to get a higher interest rate. that could be the determiner of what was going on -- that could be a big determiner of what was going on. that is veryetrimental to the economy. i think the quantitative easing idea for next might be necessary. the fed is going to get their money on those bonds anyway. it is a matter of interest. people putting money through savings accounts, or are they going to get 1% when they go to

another institution and get 4.5%? guest: you raise several important points. one is individuals and banks are up to the fact that rates have gone up a lot. the short end rates have gone up ahead of most people are getting paid barely anything on their checking accounts. this move,etting aside what you think about your bank's health, this move to say i want to be i want to be in other instruments like a money market fund is going to be an impulse people are waking up to. banks are going to have to increase their offer that they pay on deposits to keep those depositors. that will pressure profitability. it speaks to aroblem with the existing system. there seems to be this tension between the fed's impulse to

fight inflation, which is part of the mandate and the fed has raised rates a lot. and financial stability. we saw how this manifests in the case of silicon valley bank with a hit to the bond portfolio that came as a result of this effort to fight inflation. it speaks to something bron in decision -- in this decision is the financial system cannot operate at a level of interest rates the fed teams appropriate to fight inflation. we might be in a situation where does two things at once. maybe it hikes rates further because the fomc feels it needs to fight inflation. with the left hand, maybe it comes up with liquidity to programs. they already announced one that

allows banks to pledge their bonds at par which makes it so that the hit and they took his felt the less utely. maybe there are things the fed does to ease the pain on the side of bank bance sheets while moving ahead to make the economy slow down. it is a tricky fine line to walk. host: let's talk to richard, democrats line. caller: i am not too knowledgeable about banks but i came up with $12,000 to put in a savings account. they showed me what was left of that account, it was a nickel. i think i am better having it under the mattress. i can take it and accounted everyday. with these banks being bailed

out, these students that barred money, let's let them off the hook because they at least got something for the money. they got education. they might put some -- back into the system if they had a good education. i don't see how banks go broke. they charge more interest than a nickel. guest: this period has been profitable for the reason you identified. their assets are paying more money on it is interest rate environment. they don't feel much pressure to raise rates. it is a pain to change banks, everybody knows that. you have your cards, do automatic bill pay, etc. -- your automatic bill pay, etc. i get the temptation to put it under your mattress but then you

just announced on national tv you have $20,000 under your mattress. every dimension of holding money is going to carry some risk. host: let's talk to steve in maryland. caller: a couple of off-the-wall questions. say you are at the point where you want to put your money under the mattress, i am looking for some institutional place to put my money where i know they are not going to go wheeling and dealing. i am willing to pay a subscription, but something that is totally safe where they don't rely on lending it out. is there anything like that? guest: the closest thing to that that exists would be some sort of fund of government bonds where you know exactly what you are getting. it is government bonds. it is a short-term so you are

not exposed to the same interest rate truck risk -- interest rate shock risk. is the closest thing to a digital city deposit where you put x in -- it is -- government bonds at the short end are paying 3.5%, more than your bank and you are not opposed to any counterparty. there are entrants, it is a few extra steps, but by and large money market mutual funds that are short-term is probably the closest term -- the closest thing people are going to find to basically a box you can put your money in and be sure when you want to withdraw it that it is there. host: republican in houston texas. can you be brief? caller: can you hear me?

guest: yes. caller: i am a lover of "auto lots -- "odd lots." peopleought all of the ec that have assets and i look back and the fed said you're going to new asset prices -- we are going to nuke asset prices and people ill bought. why do you think that is? what do you think the obvious thing to not buy today is? guest: i wish i had a really good obvious not buy thing. there was an element of crypto which was exuberan, speculation, we cite from crypto to the kathy wood arc stocks, lots of things. nobody doubts it is correlated to that.

as you know, there are communities of people, you can't dessert us. when it is looking the most bleak, this is the timwhen you have to double your commitment. some of the elements crypto have this cult-like thing where you are shamed when you walk away. crypto does traded sort of like other risks -- other risk assets. on the other hand, there are these things within crypto that are endemic that habit to persist and ve people be interested regardless of what is going up or down at any given moment. host: that is the time that we have for today joe wiesenthal, the host of "odd lots" podcast from bloomberg. caller: -- guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up today, nikki

haley -- tim scott and asa hutchinson will be in south carolinaored by the palmetto family council. youan watch live coverage beginning at 1:00 p.m. here on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. that is today's "washington journal." we will be back againomorrow at:00 a.m. eastern. have a great saturday. ♪ aptions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national caponing institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> how the news talked about campaign 2024 and the emerging republ presidential team. we look back on the anniversary of the iraq war. hosted by the palmetto council. wah live coverage beginning at

1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span now, or online at c-span.org. sunday on q&a, texas and him professor elizabeth cobbs talks about the history of feminism and feminists in the united states from the american revolution to today. >> there is this crazy myth on the left and the right about what feminism is. we feel so divided as a country. what i realized is feminism was born in the american revolution. it has driven our history. it has helped to define us, contributed to our economic development and social development. how can we let such an important thing be bandied about and n understand its history. >> elizabeth cobb sunday night

at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> next week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are back with the house working on the parents bill of rights legislation. the senate repeals authorizatio for the use of military force against iraq. bins $6.9 trillion budget with testimony om secretary of state antony blinken, treasury secretary janet yellen, the hhs secretary, secretary of defense oyd austin, and general mark milley. on wednesd, the ceo of moderna will testify for the senate health committee on a proposal to increase the cost of the coand on tuesday, the tiktok ceo

stifies on privacy and data security practices. watch next week live on the c-span networks orn c-span now . also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video on demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including charter commications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best inteet providers. we are just getting started, building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charterommunication supports c-span as a plic service along with these other television