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 providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. good morning. it is saturday, march 18, bank 23. the failures of silicon valley and signature bank had regulators steppin in t 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 bid administrati to prevent more bank failures. if you say yes, you are confident, call (202) 748-8000 if you are not, (202) 748001. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. we are on soci media. facebook.com/c-span and on twitter. welcome to washington journal.

i want to show you a tweet president biden sent out yeerday. "when silicon valley at signature bas collapsed, we took steps to stabilize the banking system at no cost to the taxpayer, protecting jobs and small businesses. now congress must do more to hold senior bank executis 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 bank executives. here's an article from cnbc about that. biden calls on congress to tighten laws to clawback executive pay, levy penalties in the bank failures. he says no one is above the law

and strengthening accountability is an important deterrent to prevent mismanagement in the future. regarding what the administration has already done, it says this. the federal reserve loosened its borrowing guidelines for banks seeking short-term funding lewis discount window. get set up a separate, unlimited facility to offer a one-year loans unr loser terms to shore up troubled banks facing a surgeon cast withdrawals -- sue in cash withdrawals. these are through industry fees, not by taxpayers. janet yellen was challenged on the administration's handling of bank rescues. here's an exchange between her and republican senator james lankford o thursday. [video]

>> will the deposits in oklahoma, regardless of their size, be fully insured now? are they fully recovered? every bank in oklahoma, regardless othe size of the depot, will they get the same treatment that svb just got or signature bank just got? a bank only gets that treatment if a majority of the fdic board -- the super majority the fed board and i in consultation with the prident determine the failure to protect uninsured depositors would 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 ofommunity banks

into the big banks? we have seen the mergers of banks over the past decade. i'm concerned you are about to accelerate that by encouraging anyoneo say we are not going to make yo whole, but ifou go to a preferred bank, we will make you whole at that point. >> that is certnly not something we are encouraging. >> that is happening right now. >> that is happeng 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 fly insured if you're at a community bank. >> you arnot fully insured. >> signature just barely met the threshold.

>> we felt there was a serious risk of contagion that could have brought down and triggered runs on many banks, and that given our judgment is 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 king calls on your confidence in thbiden 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 andentenced 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 fro russ. no excuse for any bank allowing this to happen. execs having inside information about stocks and then selling off knowing of impding internal problems. james tweets, the biden administraon is more concerned withocial justice and climate than the stability of the american finanal system. i have no trust in biden's handlers. jt from kentucky says, i am very confident joe biden will do all he can do,ut my confidee in the republican congress is not at a. these are the same people that took rulations off of banng and caused the problem. the republican party and 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 huron, michigan. caller: good morning, 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 arrest of the other present, 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 nfidence in any politician, including city council levels. i run a charity and have dealt with a lot of politician

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. call: you need to understand how the banking system works to understand 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. the seb was part of the next level banks -- svb was part of the next level banks tt 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 indusy, yes. host: you said people need to understand how it works. do you find most ople don't understand how it workand that might be contributing to the prlem? 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, thehave supplement to insurance that coversore than $2,000. it is called dif. host: that is on a statby-state basis ? caller: it is. the thing i'm curious about is with svb, aside from the fact it was unique bank -it is not a

california bank. i aee with the senior executives need to be addressed, but i think generally some of the concern was there was salary held in the bank. that wou fall over $250,000 part of the concern was -- that has to go over $250,000. what do you do with that for every employer who has to pay their employees over $250,000. that's an interesting thing to consider. richard host: host: in fredericksburg, virginia. are you there? no. shelby in alabama. what you think?

caller: i have great confidence in the administration, because this ia competent, seasoned president who has a cabin and treasury secretary who was in facthe federal reserve chair. i look at the reporting overnight. jamie diamond with the fed chair and the fd chair brought together the bearing of the stabily of the investment of $30 billion to stabilize it. the federal reserve -- i wanted jerome powell to be replaced. hes not an econost. he has a harvard l degree and a political science degree from georgetown. he was an investment bankewith carlyle group. another one of these groups that has caused all o this contagion, if that is the word we want to use in the country.

the bottom line is this. are a banking sysm that held down thfederal reserve -- the federal reserve -- jerome powell knows what the liidity and reserve requirements are based on lawthat was passed 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, reanable, and brought together seasoned and reasonableeople for the people policies. that is what we ve here. host:helby in doylestown, ohio what do you think caller: i was wondering ithere were --they were going to bailout the 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 whoot their money

ov $250,000. i got a hun the reason they did this is because certain people got bailed t 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 50,000. don't think that is fr 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 the first by assets.

washingt mutual in 2008. the second and the third is silicon valley bank and signure bank. it goes back to 2008, 09 and 1998. linda in harrisville, ne 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. have confidence in the decratic administration. elizabet warren waed us this years ago. i have confidence the biden administration and we need more regulation on corporations. thank you. host: linda mention elizabeth warren. let me show you this. this is an 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 restoring enhanced scrutiny of banks with assets of $50 billi to $250 billion. it says this legislation wl be unveiled on tuesday. the regulations 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 bipaisan basis by the republican-but congress in 2018 which eased dodd frank regulations on midsize banks by raisin the tooig to fail threshold from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. let's take a look at senator

warren. she is on the 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. but last week, the fdic was forced to rush into takeover teedo failing banks. silicon valley bank and signature bank. then take extraordinary actions to protect those banks' customers and prevent the contagion from spreading throughouthe economy. both svb and signature bank suffered from a toxic mix of

poor risk management and ak 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 shock. they would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities 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 are asking about your confidence in the administration to prevent more banking failures. tom is next from zion, illinois. , you say yes you are confident. caller: yes. let me explain myself. i believe any time a major bank like this collapses and billions of dollars are involved we should take it seriously. if there is a domino effect with other banks. however, to scapegoat joe biden and the biden administration i think is unfair.

it is typical of the far right to do that to him. joe biden became our president because we needed 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 d 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 made, his adnistration -- in his administration, fine. but the point the finger at him i think is ridiculous.

host: manning in la jolla, california. hi, mny. caller: goo morning. i used to wk for the fdic. 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 0 people on my email list. putting wall street journal article about the regulators. the problems that there is this thing called judgment immunity when i was wking at the fdic, my job was to go in on the weekend, close the bks down, and th hire lawyers to sue the bad bankers, the bad lawyers, the valley cncil. everybody who had fault and that bank failure. the problem is, down the hall i

said to my fellow lawyers, i id, wwere drinking the same kool-aid. how n 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 nnot sue anybody in the federal goverent under the sovereign immunity. the regulators who were asleep at thswitch again should have been on top of this but they weren't. they screwed up,ust like they screwed up before when i was suing all the banks but i could not sue them. when you get sued out he -- i

used to dend lawyers and malpractice cases. it became the biggest law firm in califora 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 w goingo say i misunderstood the question right away. i dialed really quick. i think we have seen with inflatiothat has been at record highs and how afghanistan was ndled 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 r 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 terrib. they should have done with the regulation said. anything under $250,000 and below, and they went and bailed out everybody. they also did that in 2008 under -- host do you think have they not done that there would have banks that failed aftethat? caller: i guess that is part of bein free mark society. it is supposed to be when you invest you take a chance. obviously the was a lot of criminal activity going on in that bank. the mar stockholders were cashing in their stock the week before it happened. they got their buses before it happened. there is a lot of shenanigan 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 restored 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 administration has made a princip effort to prevent bank failures but it will not work out. the stimulus in the economy due to the coronavirus situation, the debt it placed upon us, the trump and biden administration's and the absolute fear that a foreign entity such as china or russia could cause a bank faure is a scenario with 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 equy and financial institions where greed is the driving princip 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 cov-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 regulations in 2018.

now they say it is biden who is responsible. most of us are not that gullible. 17 corporate dems 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 crippling dodd 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. yohave to really look at this. they should be regulated the same way with proviso for safety as in the pa when they were vibrant and strong. they should not be regulated the same way as the large, complex

financial institutions. that is what happened. they were being put out of business one by one. they were not lending. since its passage in 2010, dodd frank has dealt a huge blow to community banking. as a candidate i pledged we wod rescue 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 a 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 look at this article from

cnbc.com treasury secretary yellen says not aluninsured deposits will be protected in the future bank failures. treasury secretary told senators government refunds of uninsured deposits will not be extended to every bank that fails. only thosehat pose systemic risk to the financial system. she's been at the center of an emergency prograto rund billions of llars in uninsured deposits held bylients at the failed silicon valley bank and shuttered signature bank. but with markets recovering somewhat lawmakers wer concerned these backstops ca become a new norm for big banks, giving too big to fail banks event. managed er community lenders. 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 paying 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 biion or $9 billion -- 4 trillion. -- or trillion. host: this is from time magazine. the headline is, will americans end up footing the bill for bank failures? the article says h is the response being paid for? most of the cost of guaranteeing

all deposits at those banks will likely be covered by proceeds the federal deposit insurance corporation received from winding down the teedo banks, either b selling them to other financial institutions or by auctioning off assets. y cost you on that would be paid f out of the fbi see'-- fdic's deposit insurance fund used to reimburse depositors for up to 250,000 per account. -- $250,000 per account. it ipaid for by fees from partipating banks both silic valley and signature bank had a strikingly high sre 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 ic said in a jnt

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: good morning i'm looking at the question of confidence in the biden administration over this banking issue. truthfully, confidence is a hard-working put to work right now on this presidency. another caller called in and said something about stabilizing everything that needed to be stabilized. we elected this man to stabilize our economy. anybody really out there think this is stable? you're looking at the inflation and every othe issue, including the bankinissue. this was driven by this crazy inflation. if you want to find the culprit,

you can't create wealth out of thin a by printing money. it has desbilized 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 pulled the plug out of the bottom of the pool and you will seet unt someone smart enoughomes along and stops the drain. that is where i'seeing it. i could not comment on policy for banks. that is a big issue way out of my pay grade. host: let's talk to robert from clearwater, florida. good morning, robert. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the biden administration has gone too far. i don't believe in the democrats anymore.

i think they ruined things in this world. i think these people killing over he fighting for our country because we need people to fight this war if china comes after us. they put that balloon in their and stuff like that. now they are registering people. we he a lot of people to fight china. host: harold in cherry hill, new jersey. caller: good morning. you took a wind out of my sails about all the democrats 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 8. we are going to pay millions and millions. mark cuban h $20 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. [video] >> these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job, looking out for people, not big banks, not lenders and investment houses. 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 fueled 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 the kinds 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. this is a de facto b of the banking system, even as regulators a bid officials have been tell the economy is great and there was nothing to worry about. the unpleasant truth which washington will never as that svb's failure is bill d regulatory mistakes.netary svb exetives make mistakes and they will pay for them, but they were encouraged by easy money and misguided regulation. as the fedloed the world with dollar liquidity, money flowed into venture starts. that is where svb's stomer banks. the bank's deposits sword beyond what he could safelyend. let's go to sean calling us from

new hampshire. caller: nice to talk to you. i was just wondering if america cod 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. host: henry in montrose, virgia. caller: good morning. i think president ben is doing the best he can do. he made a big mistake letting jerome powell run his treasury. those guys are setting biden up to fail in 2024.

i don't think they should pay anymore $250,000. rules are rules. if we don't stick by the rules in this country, this is what we get. have a wonderful, blsed day. host: barry in north carolina. caller: good morning. one thing is that the secretary yellen basically said or impliedeposits and stockholders are the same. e mentioned -- i'm sorry. she mentioned them most in the same category. one is a risk taker and one is pposed 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. ey have the ability to ense their own deposits above fdic. it is a cost they have to incur buit 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. well know that. everne above5 in this country knows that. no, i don't ink it will stabilize the situation. i thk the situation will get worse. not just biden. this is a 20-year cycle of fiduciary irresponsibility in this country. we have gone up from $5 tllion

in debt that period. the hight level indebtedness a country has seen in history. it is something 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 up. it is a cycle going on here. most of the financial and fiscal policies that get created take 10 yearso be in limited. now when barack obama and his administration p in those bank regulations, which i thought 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 some regulations, treat banks that have a large deposits in them the way we are supposed to treat them, and then i think we will re 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: l'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 introduce legislation that would

reverse a gop-l back of dodd frank banking regulations in 2018 that many of them, including president biden cs the culprit for the bank failures. top democrats expressed early pessimism about the idea that any reform measure could garner the 10 republican votes needed to pass the 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, will share it. caller: my comment would really be it seems like there is such -- these are big words. collusion, corruption between

wall street and the vernment. we never get to a solution. it seems like when people run and get elected they say all the things they want to say to campaign, they get elected. in wisconsin, gallagher and johnson. they say all these things like gallagher's for term limits 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 come close to trying to vote for that. they lied to get elected and then they get elected int'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. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think, bobby? caller: i thinkf anybody is

for joe biden 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 the biden ministration and the banking ordeal going on, well, i think we need to stop and think about. the be predictor of future behavior is past behavior. when you look at the biden administtion, 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: i'm not really sure.

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 american 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. if you look at the chinese spy balloon, what a disaster. host: we want to bring it ba to the financial situation. caller: i get that. the question is, do we have confidence in the biden administration? host: to prevent future bank failures. 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 administrationonfidence? no w.

no way -- democrat barney frank for massachusetts. don't trust politicians with money and power our stake. lee tweets, when you invest in long bonds, you hedge against that. that is what investment bankers do. the problem is commercial banking and investment banking are merged. we need glassteagall to separate commercial from investment 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 thi the administration 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. unfortunately, you kw, you have different parties taking over different checks and balances. did seems like we keep going back and forth with regulation. we make changes and then one party is hded power and hands it to another party we change regulation again. if we could have some consistency and more agreement it would be great. overall i think everything is going a lot better than it did in 2008.

i'm confident in the biden ministration as far as what is going on -- biden 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 regular bank. i'm not rich. if i was rh i 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 a republicans. the article says before they went dowin history as of the largest bank failures in the u.s., executives are silicon valley bank of california and signature bank of new york 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 th the federal election commission, executives for signature bank get to a steady mix of republicans and democrats. let's talk to rich who was in marion, ohio. ller: yea great conversation. this is an imptant subject to get right. let's face it. there was $2 trillion th was

spent by our president. he knew if he did that the federal rerve was going to have to raise rates. he intentionally did that. last week, we had the federal -- the treasury secretary and the president deciding to put another $10 trillion outhere. gus what they will do th the interest rates again? yes he w going to pay all the people gettinghrown out of their jobs? we have good spending and bad 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 predent to stop the damn snding. all can do is do what he has to do and get the budget under control. hello see. it's -- pelosi? if she shorted, she should be

thrown out of office immediately. host: bill in lexington, kentucky. good morning, bill. caller: good morning. my question was, i'm about to transfer all my wealth into gold. i s wondering if that's a good idea. larry kudlow says his moneys in the bank. it might n en be worth that 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 aicle 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 intervi with evan smith, a contributor at the atlantic, as part 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 industries -- th andinancial industries. "i don't think the 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 cment. 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 ts 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 usual impact of 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% e federal reserve d powell admitted to it, it was delinqnt 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 biden reelected powell to sit there. itakes me back to the years of miller wn 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 replacement would have been larry summers or maybe

elizabeth wren to head of the federal resve. they have thforesight to see where we were going at that time. i do have confidence tha 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 nervs. if i remember correctly, whenev 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,he 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 monelaundering. 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 rollback regulations and 2018. progressives say that contributed to svb's collapse and are blaming the collapse of silicon valley 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, iowa. caller: hi. anks for taking my call. at some time we have got to quit bailing everybody out. people and companies, they have to be responsible for their actions. we cannot be printing money all the time. they never should have bailed out the auto industry back in 2008. you have to stand r your actions.

constantly printing money to bail these people out, that is fueling our debt. the inflation is what brings this to life and why the banks, svb failed in silicon vley. it was the risks they were taking. they shouldn't have taken them so they should be responsible. they shouldn't be able to sell their stocks or take out their bonuses. i'm sure people knew what was coming down when this happened. you know, so -- i'm not confident in the taking care 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 professor of 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 collapsof 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 divid 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 important thing be bandied abt and not understand 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 auths discussing their latest nonficti books. his book "toward a more perfect union" where he args american children are not being taught enoh cics in scho. and looking at h a why selling blood plasma has turned into a $20 billion business in

her book "blood money." she is interviewed bolivia go ldbill. watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you 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 wo. if it happenhere or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> who killed jane stanford? she died in 19. 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 has been chasing this mystery for several years.his book is subtled "a gilded age tale of rder, 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 doeit mean? guest: a specific type of chemical also known as pfas a specificype of chemical also known as p fuss. -- instead of hydrogen they have fluoride in them. we call them forever chemicals because unfortunately based on their properties theare very resistant to degradation in the environment. we use them because they are he resistant and water repeent, 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 question or make a comment you can do sby regions. in the eastern or central 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 reach us on social media. you said that these chemicals were very persistent in the environment? what about in our bloodstream's? once people are exposed to them, how long do they last? guest: unfortunately, they can last very long because some of them can accumulate, bio accumulate in our bodies. it takes a longime for our bodies to get rid of them. it is certainly one of the concerns that we have with them. host: you mentioned that they

are in teflon, all kinds of things. how do they get into the water supply? guest: a lot of different ys. when you think about using them in our households -- for example, people have used them in dental floss, when you have carpet spray to ke youcarpet 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 jack, for example. that is one way. a different source is these 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 foa were ed for training or 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 lookg 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 there 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 of research that needs to be done to think about the different adverse effects that these compounds might have, paicularly in low concentrations in the environment. host: he is an article from the associated press that says that the epa is seto 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 les and prevent illnesses, including cancer, and limit toxic pfas

chemicals to the lowest level that cane detected. this is a group of compounds that isidespread, dangerous, and expensive to remove from the water. they do not degrade in 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 listers, the viewers an idea, we taed about adding a few grains of salt into an olympic-sized swimng pool. that is the concentration they are talking about. according to health advisors the epa has released for the two

main chemicals in the past that we have talked about the advisories are much lower. hundredths to the thousandths th is rrently the limit of our detection that we have to dect these compounds. this is more of a macro contaminant 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 widely present.

we said they are ubiquitous, basically occurring almost everywhere. these mpounds, 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 the surface water wastewater treatment plant discharging. one of the main issues now is we don't really have technology -- when you think for example wastewater treatment plants or drinking water treatment plants -- to address these compounds. the cost associated with this is that we have to upgrade for these drinking water regulations. we have to upgrade our drinking water systems to actually deal with these compounds, because they currently can't. we are talking about different technologies, 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 ionicxchange 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 persctive or the environment ere 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 extrely slow and the evidence of hlth impacts takes time. if we are exposingeople 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 onion there will be a lot of pf in the future.

i don't think this the last time we will be having this conversation, unfortunately. on twitter, can the pfas chemicals be removed from drinking water? guest: yes, they can be removed. at least to some extent. again, i mentioned the main technologies that are currently used. therare new technologies being tested. one thing that i want to mention is technologies that we are currently using don't destroy the compounds, and that is important to keep in mind. when you use activated carbon, which might be in your brita filter, you have activated carbon and then you have to think about, what are you doing with tt? if you're doing it on a large-scale you can either put them in a landfill, which then has the qstion are the compounds potentially leeching over time as the carbon breaks

down? you could incinerate them, but with incineration we know that pfasbecause ty 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 obviously 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 sysm, basically. host: carsten, let's take a call from peter in dover, delaware. caller: my question is for the caller. it sounds like there is a need

for a call for action. what i hear is that we have solutions ou 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 -- municipalities or 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 good chunk of money. based on what i've seen already or what i ow from other colleagues, this might not really 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 is enough and what can be done. thinking about this, but i don't think that they have specified in detl yet. host: tammy next in dixon, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i wanted to thank yo 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 an actual human being and have input. my question specifically, there is so much. 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 is like, mom, you've got to get rid of all of these pots and pans. you aren't supposed to be using them.

the teflon is worn out of them. it is cancerous, this and that. it was news to me. i had no clue. i still have them come on low income. what is the deal with teflon? guest: a great question. teflon is basically made of these forever chemicals that we are talking about and the issue is not so many if you are having a brand-new pan, but if you have scratches 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 rid of all of the teflon. i used to teflon pans.

they are very convenient. nothing sticks to them. it makes cleaning easier. yeah, we got rid of all of the teflon pots and pans because of that reason. that is certainly one way of doing it. i also hope that this regulation will 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 myself, to know where these chemicals are used. we are talking about dental floss. we know there 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

consumer can 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 chemicalsre in toilet paper too. epa wants to crack down on pfas and water, but fever chemicals are used and stain resistant clothing, cookware, and dental floss. add toilet paper to the list. definitely concerning. on twitter, all i needo know is, is a brita effective for drinking water guest: to some extent. threason that i c't give a precise answer is pfas, someing we should discuss -- they're only six compounds discussed for regulation but pfas is potentially tens of thousands different compounds.

because there are so many they have a lot of different properties. it might work well for some, but it might not work as well for others. it is cerinly better than not using a brita filter, but they do have some limitations. the issue is also you don't really 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 becausehe 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 pores. most of the pfas a notoming through, but some compounds might make it through. the other sue is in terms of really determining 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 aisory levels. reverse osmosis is definitely one of the approaches especially for houselds, that might be a pretty good approach. the technology should work for a relatively long time in removing the compounds. host: a question about boled water. maverick tweets, mr. carsten,

how about commercial bottled water? are they being regulated and/or tested on a regular basis for contaminants like forever chemicals? guest: they are mostly not. a lot of bottled water is actually made from municipal drinking water. just because it is bottled doesn't necessarily mean that it is pfas free. i think that is something 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 installed it it is for disinfection byproducts which we have in r drinking water. we have an activated carbon filter in the basement. that is why i am using ta 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 rit ahead, dennis. caller: you and -- you swered my question about bottled water being regulated. most of it is tapwater.

the other thing that gets me is they put chemicals in the flds 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 have 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 pza boxes, for example, they are

made of cardboard. if you expose cardbod 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 complicates 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 biosolids. unfortunately, pfas is an extremely complex problem. we are discussing most 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 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 exposures to pfas, measuring in different individuals in different cohorts and

the issue 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 think about smokg, your diet, exercise. this makes it complex. it is hard to pinpoint exactly the compounds, and it takes a long time. it took so long for us to figure this out. again, we have pretty good evidence that these compounds have adverse 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 aspects. >> 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 about cancer. chemicals that cause cance in theory, molecules already cause that effect. i'm not saying that is the case. but it depends on who you are as

a human being or metabolism with other exposures. it is very hard to say this did if you want to go, you have to drina lot, but that is not the issue here. what we are talking about our chronic effects. you're exposed to these concentrations for decades, potentially, that might lead to it. you have to differentiate between what is causing this in what you are getting sick from versus lg-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 treatment. i am well educated on that part. my question is to calibrate you. 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. in my opinion, it is just not. it is not fair to -- and people don't know about this. to expose them to these chemicals, and to be clear, we are using chemicals on a daily basis. we are surround by chemicals

in the products we are using. i tnk, in my opinion, what we have to do, and what is missing, is accurate testing before they get into the different products on the market, and that is something we have to do to prevent that from happening in the future with other chemicals. why not testhemicals more extensively in other places in the wod, for example. it will have a health impact on rtain 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 weave 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. thank 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 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 exclude certain compounds because of this aspect, but my opinion is that ts 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 thanhe rules, but i hope this will change. >> i'm a little freaked out about all of theschemicals 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 coerned as well. i think i mentioned already, thinking about what we know, and where these compounds -- at this point, there is an online dabase where you can look at if certain products contained it or not. 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 water from utilities. you contested so you know whether 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,ut 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 e 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 worr about. this has been going on forever. all the chemical plants and vapor bills that drain this io our water sources, it is a list. we have to learn lesss 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 wean 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 is drinking water all day.

i drink water most of the time. i n't drink a much else. what is the average person supposed to do. >> i don't want to keep you from what you suldn't. as i mentioned, therere ways of trying to ensure that you are avoid being exposed to it in your drinking water. their treatment systems you can use you're getting water from a utility. i would say making sure that they make a test for that and they can put that in the water. at ts point, the only thing you can do, and we talked about bottled waters. it is not a better alternative. in addition to one thing, escially 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 toavis 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 a commonly used because they have a very distinct property. that is why we use them in teflon, for example. we think of pans, they are nonstick, and they don't break down. that is something you want in a pan. you also want tt and stain resistant clothing and carpets.

there are benefits think about what we like to have, but the issue is this comes at a st 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 resistant and the degradation of the environnt 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 question is, we've discussed this, what are the benefits and what are the negative impacts, and i think at this might, we know the negatives are much larger 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. ank 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 chargeexamining hush money paid to women who alleged sexual encounters from the former president. trump said on his social network that illegal leaks from the manhattan district attorney's office indicate that the leading republican 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 fo the work, including any potential ves to indict the

ex-president. >> here's an article from reuters. it was said that pin 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 receive support from budapest. if you recall, finland and sweden 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 republic. in california.

>> i love c-span. i enjoy it. i get up veryarly here in california, but i have a question in gardso insurance companies. insurance industes. 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 ming, and how cou that affect the overa 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 area democrat. >> good morning. i wa to return to the earlier half-hour on confidencin the biden administration to handle the current banking crisis. and i just want to mention, i don't think any political administration is going toe able to handle a banking crisis. if we look abroad, right to switzerland, yesterday, credit suisse almost went under and the major swiss bank, thout cash, that is like hershey without chalk it. there's the federal reserve. going back to what was mentioned

at the insurance company, when bush 43 was president, the collap of aig followed by the banks happened under the bush administration. and, compared tohat is going on under the biden administtion, the binding ministrati is a drop in the bucket. i think we should lhten 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 toe in this day and ag is after all of the things te 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? the people are idiotic. the electorate >> manny is in florida. >> good morning. i have a thought here that most americans feel like they are under scrutiny. taxes, all kinds of things. athat point are we going to beco americans again? our country is so sarated right now. we don't know if we ever are ing 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 publican. and if you are democrat, they say, well, you are a liberal. this and that. but the point is, we are all americans. we all he 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 country. 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. the only biblical help i got from them was don't worry, god has your back. i was educated in a public

school system. they helped me out. teachers help me out as much as ey 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 only help i got from this organization was, don't worry. god has your back area i got more help from the hells angels than i did for any so-called christian group. we have to backup our schoolteachers and give them the help they need. it isn't their fault that kids in ts country go wall-to-wall. they need backup. they need money to help educate. that is all. >> independent in marchal texas. mona, are you there? >> hello. >> go ahead, you are on the air.

>> thank you. >> i have a grandson who was recently in mexico. they saved his life and operated on him. he had a huge sarcoma on e 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 nurse practitioner, and she started doing research immediately and found doctors in mexico that new about is. it apparently the same thing that the elish man had with huge lumps all over his body. she was able to find doctors who spialize in that in the

yucatan, and they operate on my grandson and removed a huge tumor. itas alreadyecrotizing. it was about to burst open like a big seed pod. >> your daughter found that there was more expertise in mexico than ithe united states? was it a question of cost? >> it was a questioof cost and timing. apparently, accordinto the doctors there, if they had waited any longe he probably would be dead. it was a very successful surgery. they had never seen anything like this. it was so huge. they asked if they could do a case study on this bo tumor. he has lived in key west since he was five. he is 43 years old now. he is back in key west, working. he is a very successful chef at

eight cafe. >> all right. republican line, illinois. bob. >> that's me. love c-span. the mainstream mediahased after trump for six years and never found any evidence. they found one of his lackeys had a tax problem, but nothing on trump. i e all of the stuff with the biden crime family in front of our noses. the mainstream media won't cover it. now, i understand tre is a story were alan bragg once to perp wk donald trump. i hope he does it. that will 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 donald trump is a b liar. you can't trust a liar. he has lied about everything. he is not -- most people are taught that the things tell ump is done, they are taught that is hate. that is what he does. he punches into the hate in america. most people are good people. most white people are good people. rich people need to wake up and see that donald trump doesn' like anybody but donald trump. that's at i have to say. >> i want to show you an article from the new york tis. it is heained that the who accusechina of hidindata that may link cod's origins to animals. genetic research from ina suggests to some extent that the coronavirus may have sprung from a seafood market in wuha china. the data is missing from a

scientific database. it says that the who review chinese officials o frida and they were holding research which may link the origins to wild animals, askg why it had no been made available three years foand why it is now missing. the data disappeared in an international team of experts downloaded and began analyzing the rearch. it appeared online in january. they sata ports -- they say it supports 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 deilment. 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 fueled 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 a event 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 huge presidents no fields from otheforums today. eight major republicans from nikki haley to ron desantis 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 mor role in 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 gabbard will 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 tell me about the family counsel. what is this about and how is it funded? >> they are a nonprofit. they are based in columbia. they were founded in 1993 in the state of south carolina, and to us, this is a cradle of christian conservatives. that is where you hear a lot of angelicals. that is why see mike pence going back time and time again. this group is based columbia. in addition to their nonprofit workthey have a very strong lobbying arm. they are very involved in the legislature and lobbying on

efforts like abortion, same-sex marriage, which they are opposed to, sex education. they most recently got involved last yr in anffort 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 christiabase group. i suspect we will hear a lot of talk about 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 does this council have? >> theare a powerful group. when we lobby with republans, people know where they are. they've been around since the early 90's. they have survived, they have own. they can be influential, and they have posted forms in the past, and en in the 2008

presidential cycle, they held a forum, and individuals were seeking t republican nominaon for president 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 rooted in things, and how much christianity and christianity values they want to play out in politics. they came to that event. people like mitt romney and jo 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 abouthis format. what do you expect to see? >> what i've been told is that this is not goingo 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 curious 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 like i said, i will be looking to see if these people ll 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 trum is also a candidate. any chance he is going to show? >> defitely not showing up. he was invited, so as vice president mike pence, but we know there will be breaking new about where he will be as early as next tuesday. he's going to be arrested, so don't think south carolina is on his mind. >> florida governor ron desantis also is not showing up. what is the significance of that? >> i think the significant is th it will keep buildin

anticipation. every time i'm eaking with republican voters who are waling on who they are goi to support, whether we are talking out nikki haley, or this dynamics cocked. ron desantis or donald trump. there is a group of republicans who are really holding out to see if he will jump in. we'll tim scott jump in. the sant is missing an opportunity to speak to the voters who are curious. in some ways, it is a disappointnt, but in 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 especially before they get there. it seems to me that ron desantis being very 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 eve? 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 ishat they are carving out. when they talk 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 joyful warriors 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 also curious 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 ndidates and potenti contenders such tim scott and ava hutchinson will be in south carolina today, hos the palmetto family council. you can watch live coverage beginning at 1 p.m. eastern right n c-span. on our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. it is open for them. other five minutes or so. we are taking your call on issues of public policy.

dale has beewaiting from columbus ohio on the democrat line. thank you for waiting. >> thank you good morning. i just want to say it is about time that somebody tried to get involved. trump has been doing a lot of crooked stuff. i'm amazed that people always say that it started when he came down the escalator. did not. he had so many lawsuits in the beginning. in the first place. i want to say something about 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 out there getting arrested, and donald trump would not be coming in. but not one time he would ever 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 speakinof january 6, here is an article from politico. it says the house gopgnored 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. independen >> 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. peop 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 tohem? >> not just opioids. there are other medications as well. my case i am incurable. i have a lot of friends.

tha'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. geing 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 l 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.

ey just made that post. >> that's right. he's in alabama. >> i live in a racist state red is 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 it, pull up your records andompare them 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 he for open forums. thank you to eveone who called in. coming up next, o spotlights on podcasts. joe esenthal joins us to talk about the fallout from the llapse of silicon valley bank and the show he cohosts is called odd lots. we are going to be right back.

whall these years later is there a book about whoilled -- emerit stanford university professor richard white has been chasing this mystery for several years. his book is subtitled, "a gilded age tale of murder, deceit, spirits and the birth of a university." >> richard white on this episode of book notes plus, available on the free c-span i'm a lap over every you get your podcast. >> on march 19, 1979, americans

for the first time were able to watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives on c-span. to mark this special occasion, shall our 4h anniversary sale going on right now at spanshop.org. use the promo code c-span 44 and save 15% on all of our c-span pructs, including appel, plus histories -- accessories and books. every purchase lps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right during c-span's 44th anniversary sale now through thursday at span shop.org. >> sunday on q&a, texas a&m oppressor elizabeth cobbs, author of "frless woman," talks about feminism in the united states from the wreck and revolution to today. -- 10 today -- from the american

revolution to today. >> we feel so divided as a country today. what i realized as i was working on this project is that feminism was born in the american revolution. it has driven our history and help define us. it has contributed to our economic development, our social development, our political development. my gosh, how can we let such an important thing just be bandied about and not understand its history. >> izabeth cobbs, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a at our podcast and are free c-span now have. -- on our free c-span now app. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has providecomplete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate

floors, to congressional hearings, party briefings an committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary, no interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered 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 coho of all lots from bloomberg. welcome to the program. >> thank you for having me. i am excitedo be here. >> let's start with talng 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 saishe is not. she had a vacation planned, so i

am said she could not join us because it would be better with 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 happ 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 rfectly. 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. ofn, they want to learn more about their own industries, and people whorade bonds, for example, might still have quesons about how the federal reserve operations work. even people who are steeped in the knowledge -- knowledge of a specific domain often have questis that we can hopefully findnswers 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 iabout finding 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 you can't understand it. that'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 would like to call in and make a comment, you can do that now. th numrs are on the screen. the big news obviously is the collapse of the silicon valley bank. give us a primer. what caused the collapse? >> in many ways, of all the financial crisis moments that we've experienced over the past 15 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 same sort of retail depositors point their money because they thought the bank was going to go under. it was me esoteric and complicated that people were 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 mey and silicon valley bank. they did a good job of capturing the audience are starting to capture e customer base. they saw a huge surgeon deposits with this boom of those ears. at the same time, they had to 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 their bread and butter. they 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 toh that was like a kia sears -- concierge style bank. when they lost bonds in value over the last several weeks, investors and depositors at the bank became concerned. their asset size was shrinking because of the interest rate increase. what appears to have happened is that in an extraordinary short. of time, word got out that some people were concerned, they start going aroun on various chats and basically within two days, the bank was wound up and that was over, 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

because how fast could this have happened? is this a new risk, a dynamic of group chat run banks that all of us have to think about? >> there ian 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 valley to 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, but 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 drawing 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 san francisco 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 more 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 say 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. the 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 bank right on the cusp of -- not one of the top banks needed to have stress test, but it is a. big bank. most of the rescue we saw on sunday night was that it was

essentially the fdic the fed and the treasury determining that the risk bill over from the bank was systemically important. that is how they were able to make a commitment to make desitors whole. that will be a strong argument that tre is a number of banks that aren't currently subject to the most rigorous stress testing and capital requirements and liquidity requirement standards. there e 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.

let's get this little capital injection there and make a rule change. evyone hopes that will be enough, it ends of mpounding the cost. the slowerou go in the beginning, the more you pay 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 a big. that was really the story in 2008 and 2009. on thursday, they had major banks on the closets -- on all deposits. that was meant to be a show support to first republic that all of these major banks like goldman and citibank, they were willing to put billions of their

money on deposit for the first republic. the basic story is it does not seem to have a fully quality situation -- fully quelled this intuition. while the administration did respond aggrsively, it is still tbd about if it is aggressive enough. host: we are taking your calls for the next half hour until the end of the program. by party for democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. let's art 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 concern is that we are peeling off the bridge here. the people at 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 bac

can you answer that question? guest: there are a few dimensions to the question. i don't think what we have seen is directly tied 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 resc 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 the 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 companies 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 the 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 it only 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 changes that 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 elained 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 the case. when the bank needs to do something with depositors' money, they are basically borrowing fromhe depository to make more money -- from the depositor to make mon 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 key 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 quified 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. whatlanted people here is they were not buying toxic assets, they brought -- they bought treasuries. most people would say thats 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 banking risk that could have existed under any rulatory regime. host: warren is next. caller: i am going to get a little off subject and then go back to it. when the central bank let some much cash out there and it increases demand and people are staying home and putting money in the bank part -- and if the bank, inflation is going to ppen. i think jerome powell is influenced by the administration to keeinterest rates down. he started not getting them up fast enough.

the center would take off, like in the 1970's, every bank knows what is going to happen. the interestates have to go up sohey 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 probably 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. host: 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 s on its books, not the fdic's pool. they have mortgage-backed securities, they have certain loans th made to startups, they 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 is not money left over after that, it isossible the

fdic insurance fund, there might have to be some draw on it. each bank around the country 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 political 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 republican or

democrats uld get paid back and republicans wouldn't. the left-right politi of this 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 a problem with signature bank a few months earlier. host: what do you think? caller: -- guest: this is a big question.

therwere concerns within e government about silicon valley bank. i don't kn as much about the background of signature and when or if supervisors became concerned about it. not only was the reporting my other colleagues at bloomberg inditing regulators were concerned, silicon valley bank should have raised some alarms, especially thanks to its size and rapid deposit growth. it's size is significant and the fact that if it were to fail, it would 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 ris of the bank is taking that might not apeciate?

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 at the same time. that is a risk that someone who may have been more on the ball thinking about this largest rowing bank in america might be taking. management failures are on the table, why dn't they do a better job with interest-rate exposure? relatory failures are a lot of what people are going to be amining. 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 frustration

with the public with these capital investments happen. its very underandable. i am curious to see from your perspective what are two or three things from a legislative oraw perspective you think woul correct in light incentives we are seeing in the current system? as you mentioned, banks are incentivized to grow rapidly and that should not be the case. they need toe stable and a lot peop do not have -- you have already gone into detail. i am curious what kind of man pressure points you think -- what kind of main pressure points to think, should focusn to correct these things unaligned in the current system? guest: is a great question. in many ways i feel unqualified

to say here are the ways to fix the bankg system. the question of liquidity and cash on hand to meet outflows, that was something rolled back in 2018. i think credible people argue had those laws notolled back, silicon valley bank would n have been in the position to make these risks and the run would not have materialized so fast. that is something to lk at. one of the bigger concerns, and you meioned the janet yellen-lankford conversation, setting aside a bank's solvency, will depositors justay im not comfortable being at a regional bk? i want tmove my money to o 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 a 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 want to have a widespread network of smaller regional community banks out there, because they know their communities better and they know what is happening and facing theiown 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 bank, if we raise the deposit insurance to $1 million, there 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 tgo too big to fail. host: dond is next in oxford,

michigan. caller: this is the firstime either for called in. i am turning in in the middle of your conversation so i don't know what happened 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 pulling 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 very detrimental to the econom 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, setting aside what youhink 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 inease their offer that they

pay on deposits to keep those depositors. that will pressure profitability. it speaks to a problem 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 se 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 broken 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. withhe 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 acutely. maybe there are things the fed does to ease the pain on the side of bank balance sheets while moving ahead to make the economy slow down. it is a tricky fine le to wa. 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 wt was left of

that account, it was a nickel. i think i am better having it under the mattress. i can take it and accound 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. >> we take you lives to south carolina for republicans speaking tod. live coverage here on c-span.

>> eleed to the order. he earned a bachelor of civil law degree th full honors from oxford university in england where he studied under sir john hc morris. heerved as adjunct professor from 2002-2016. he volunteers as a substitute tehers in louisiana public schools. how about that? servants heart. he resides in louisiana. the committees are founding members of their local methodist church. i will tell you this, as far as we know, he's the only man who one-line has caused to have anything to say.

as you will be able to see from this video. [video clip] >> if you're confused, you understand it perfectly. you are as dumb as a bag of hair. if you believe that you are like a rock. watch t now. i -- >> that is endorsement please join me welcoming senator john kennedy. ♪