tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN December 10, 2015 3:00pm-4:01pm EST
what we stand for. as we rebuild our nation's sorely neglected military from the bottom up, i don't mean that we should fulfill every military service's so-called wish list. the threats that we face require that we build corresponding capabilities and never become inferior militarily. folks, what it really means is that we build what we need based on the threat that we have. there's no room for pork. there's no room for log rolling. there's no room for using the defense budget as just a jobs program. build what we need to meet the threat that we have here in the 21st century. we have to be careful about how we spend our military dollars especially on weapons systems. we need to reward on-target cost estimates, insist on expensive prototyping and provide incentives for contractors to come in ahead of schedule and under budget, commercial off-the-shelf technology needs
to be used and establish tough criteria for costly design changes. folks, i served on the defense committee for 18 years, and i was involved in many massive reforms. procurement reform, goldwater/nichols to get the services to work together, empowering combatant commanders to be able to have a say. the pentagon has to be reformed. we must have somebody who runs that building and brings a team in that's not too tough because the bureaucracy will run the other way and not too easy so that they can be run over. somebody that can just get it done right with a president -- with a president who constantly looks over at that building, because any of the dollars that we waste are dollars that are not going to support our men and women in the military. can we ever fix it? i don't think so. but can we improve that building? no question. and we need to do it at a time
when we need to have a significant increase in the amount of dollars that we put into national defense. reagan came into office with a clear understanding of our challenges, and he instituted a program of national defense and military revitalization that continues to provide nor our defenses even now. as i've noted, we need to build a strong bipartisan team to implement his innovative policies. we got to do that again and we got to think about what the future is. folks, i've also proposed an economic plan that will provide the growth we need to be strong, strong economically but also strong militarily. my plan will balance our budget because i have balanced the federal budget of the united states working with some of my colleagues and i've balanced the budget in ohio for the last five years. we can't keep adding to our national debt, particularly when other countries who we have to deal with own or are paying our bills, we lose our leverage. and let me just suggest to you
the dysfunction that we see in washington, the inability to solve problems, what kind of a message do you think that sends to the world? it sends a message at home that we don't think we can get anything done. and to the world it says what's happened to america? they can't chew gum and walk at the same time, that is not the united states of america. blatant partisanship and self-interest has to be overc e overcome. can it be? absolutely. with the right leader, leaders communicate a message. it's about you know what you have to do even though you don't want to do it, but we're going to do it and we're going to do it together to solve our problems, rebuild our economy and strengthen the united states of america. unfortunately, there are also new dimensions that has been added to the threats of our national security and one on our doorstep today as we meet is a large and growing threat to our
information security called the cyberthreat. look, $20 billion in estimated cost of cybercrime to the u.s. economy in '13, they're hacking everything. from our companies to our banks to our government. the actual scope and industrial scale of this problem now poses a significant threat to individual privacy and security, to our international competitiveness which to our national security. we need to make cyberdefense an integral component of our national security strategy. we must strengthen our defenses, deter cyberattacks, prepare to recover nimbly from such attacks when they occur and to respond swiftly and decisively to identify attackers. i'm told we do have the technology located in the nsa. we just don't have a policy. we just don't have a direction. we not only need to defend against these attacks, but we need to make it clear that we
have the countercapability to identify and destroy those systems that are attacking the united states. the encryption technology that is increasingly available for everyday communications poses a growing challenge to our nation's defense. furthermore, the next generation of easy-to-use strong encryption is rapidly approaching. let me -- let me just explain. we knew of four or more individuals who our security people had been watching. the couple in san bernardino, it appears, were communicating with those people. but yet because of strong encryption, we didn't detect it. let me also say in the case of san bernardino, there were some red flags.
people building an arsenal. neighbors who might have suspected something. we need to watch. we need to report. but encryption technology when people can hide in a playstation 4 or when they can use the encryption on our own phones to avoid detection has to be solved. but it isn't easy. because the minute you begin to solve the encryption problem by giving our security officials an ability to get in a back door, it opens the possibility for criminals to be able to use that same back door or those who want to harm us to use that same back door to exploit access to the n encrypted technology. so, what do you do? you sit down with people in the technology community, in the intelligence community, in the legislative community and you fix it. there is not a single problem that we see that cannot be fixed
if we get smart people in a room with good intentions, you can fix it. i've seen things fixed in washington of which i've been a part, balancing budgets, changing welfare, reforming entitlements. and in ohio a move from a loss of 350,000 jobs and $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus and the growth of 400,000 jobs. and how does it get done? smart people solving problems. you get in a room and you get the best people you can to fix it. after 9/11 i was invited to a meeting with secretary rumsfeld and had suggested at that point, because of our lag in technology, we bring people from the silicon valley to help some of our technical problems. and for a number of years, i was able to be a person to lead a group of the best and the brightest from the silicon valley to deal with our problems. and they were there to help. but, you know, as congress moves
to put more rules and regulations, then our smartest and our best in our society say i don't want to be involved anymore. let's use some common sense to try to figure out how to solve our most vexing problems in the world of technology and basically in restructuring government. intelligence agencies must continue to have the authority to monitor foreigners who we reasonably believe to be potential security threats and we must intensify international intelligence cooperation, have to. relationship with our allies will be critical to all we do. friends in europe have been ignored. and after charlie with a million people standing in the town square in paris, the united states did not see fit to send a major official to mourn with the people of france. it's inexplicable. and allies like israel, the prime minister of israel comes to the united states, and i'm
president, he will have a meeting. and maybe we won't have 50 cameras there. but we're not going to disrespect our ally. our most meaningful alliance relationships are not just based on common interests, but they're rooted as well in shared universal values -- respect for human life, freedom of thought, expression in religion, and a right of every person -- every person -- to have a chance to learn, grow and achieve. these values have diviguided or civilization nor century and they are enshrined in the mag na carter and in the constitution and in so many constitutions around the world. some consider it is somehow insulting or politically incorrect call america exceptional. i've got to tell you, along with most americans in the political mainstream, i don't believe, i know america's exceptional. and i won't equivocate on the matter. it's rather simply a statement of the obvious.
we are exceptional because of our uniqueness. america's not a language or an ethnic group or religion, it's a melting pot of every people in the world so when france hurts, we hurt. throughout our history america's never been afraid to fight for its values and ideas and sometimes we argue. oh, yeah, we can argue. that's part of the normal give-and-take. perhaps even demanded for any vibrant democracy. that we have internal disagreements is part of how our system is designed to work but disagreement is a hallmark of freedom. but, you know, at all times throughout our history we unite as a nation, and we've come together in common cause. oh, we're so much stronger when we're together. republicans and democrats. liberals and conservatives and independents. together, we stand together, and with unity we have power and confidence.
i believe we're in such a time today. a lot of the changes i'm talking are -- some of them are large. unleashing the economy, strengthening our military and alliances, engaging our adversaries and if all else fails being more willing to project force decisively. i'm confident we can do it, i know we can do it, because america's national security transcends partisanship. our willingness to strive together and sacrifice together and to serve one another, those are our essential strentds, aren't they? to keep us safe and restore america's standing and leadership. we'll come together again and forge a new consensus around a realistic and sustainable vision for our future national security and the tools with which to implement it. thanks for your attention. i'll stand for a few questions. thank you.
>> thank you, governor, for a very detailed look at foreign policy. i'm going to ask you one question having to do with news of the moment. you didn't mention donald trump's answer to national security, to ban all muslim immigrants. is that because you saw it as beneath contempt, or is it something that moderate, pragmatic republicans like you should take on head-on? >> i have been attacking not donald trump but donald trump's ideas that divide this country for a very long time. and i'm glad to provide a little bit of cover for those who are beginning to wake up, who are running for president. whether it is his plans to attack hispanics, muslims, databases, insults to women and
went so far as to make fun of a reporter with disability. this is not what leads to a strong america. i mean, and now this latest declaration. look, people don't buy this. oh, there may be a few. but this doesn't represent what we are. but, you know, when -- >> do you think it's an un-american? >> when you're in an "american idol" primary all kind of crazy things happen to be honest with you. >> do you think it's un-american? >> certainly not the way we run as a country. i've been encouraged here by the number of moderate muslims who have come out. they said that their religion has been hijacked. they have said -- they have condemned aggressively the attacks all over the world. and, you know, bernard lewis wrote a great book i think called "what went wrong" where
we talked about the need for islam to reclaim itself. and i see signs of people wanting to fight for what their religion is really all about. >> can i push you a bit on syria? you came out with a very passionate and actually very detailed reason to put boots on the ground in syria. but i wonder if you could explain -- >> and iraq. >> -- how you would persuade europeans to back that who have generally been very reluctant and what would happen when you came up against russian boots on the ground in that area? >> well, look, if russia wanted to help us to fight isis, i'd welcome that. but it doesn't change my view on ukraine or eastern europe. i mean, there can be -- there can be times in which we can work together for a common purpose, but it does the let somebody off the hook when they invade another country or thr t threatthrea threaten invading our friends in eastern europe. we actually spent a little time before we came out here talking about this. if you take a look at the number of attacks, isis-inspired
attacks throughout europe, we hear about some of them. there are so many of them that have happened that we don't really see because some are larger than others. but this is -- this is an attack on all of them. these are not going to go away. i mean, whether it's in all the countries, i mean, who would have ever dreamt that we would see what we're seeing in brussels. it's everywhere. so, there's two ways to deal with it. you got to go to where the problem is. and my view is you don't have to lecture. but you got to talk to prime ministers and leaders of countries. you got to talk to them privately. we all have to be part of it, and america needs to lead. when we're not leading, they're not going. and when we're leading, we can convince them. i remember in the first gulf war -- think about this. the first gulf war was nothing more -- and a big deal -- but nothing more than saddam invading kuwait. and i remember when the egyptian
ambassador to the united states stood in the rose garden and pledged arab support for our coalition. we're now talking about an exten existential threat on everybody. what do you think hussein thinks in jordan? what do you think the family thinks in saudi arabia? what do you think they think in the gulf states? what do you think they think in egypt after for a while there we almost had a muslim brother hood government? they're next. i think it's possible to put a coalition together if we lead. and if people can count on us, you know, the red line was devastating to us. so, air power, important. but if you're not on the ground, it isn't going to work. now, in a syria, i believe we should have been, you know, again a lot of this what should we have been doing. we should have been supporting rebel forces early on. i believe we ought to continue to support rebel forces and i believe assad has to go. but at the same time, i just think we've got to have a coalition, we've got to go.
but clearly it isn't going to happen now because the president thinks his policies are working. >> do you think you could sell that policy in toledo as well as riyadh? >> oh, i have no doubt. you know, i've been talking about this since last february. this is nothing new. and i just saw -- i don't -- polls, you know, polls -- leaders that run on the basis of polls they're not leaders. i mean, don't we have enough of focus groups and i'll put my finger in the air, you know, i was governor of ohio. i went in in the first year we were devastated and at the end of my first year i was the most unpopular governor in the country but i won 86 out of 88 counties when people saw the results. lead. that's what we want out of our political leaders. we want leadership not people -- you got to be smart about it. you got to have the right tone. you got to know how to encourage people. you need to know how you put your arm around them and you need to be the one out there doing the leading. and -- and across the country i'm told that more and more people understand this threat. people want this dealt with.
>> is there any -- go straight to questions from the audience after this. but is there any part of the president's, barack obama's current foreign policy that you admire and you want to keep? >> i think he has done a few things in sending some naval forces in the pacific to send a message to the chinese, clearly not enough. i would -- i would say that that would be one thing that would stand out. that he recognizes that problem there. i don't spend all my time adding up all the things that i disagree with the president on, except he has a completely different view of the world than i do. he really believes that we ought to -- i don't think he said it, maybe he said, lead from behind. that's a new way in the 21st century to define leadership. you lead from behind. but he has a different view. and he thinks that america leading is a negative. and i think that america leadership is frankly indispensable to world peace. and our ability to deal with these -- with this problem as
it -- you know, as it's been accelerating. >> let's go to questions. >> two brief pointed questions. two brief pointed questions. you mentioned donald trump. yesterday former republican governor of pennsylvania and homeland security secretary tom ridge said if trump was nominated, he would not support or vote for him. how about you? if nominated, will youh suppor and vote for him or not? question two, the defense establishment has said widely recently that climate change is a national security problem. do you believe in it? do you take it seriously? and do you think it's a national security problem? and if so, what would you do about it? >> i would say first of all with the climate change, right after the attacks in paris, the president says we're going to fight terrorism by doing climate change. i never understood that at all. secondly, do i believe that human beings affect the climate. i do. the degree to which, i'm not sure. and neither is anybody else quite sure.
just imposing willy-nilly goals and rules that may not be able to be achieved while displacing people in the workplace is not my idea of how you would handle this issue. i'm a believer in renewables, but i believe in the whole series of energy resources, and i think they need to be exploited. secondly, in terms of trump, i signed a pledge. that's why you have to be careful with pledges you sign, that i would support the republican nominee. now, look, is it possible that you change your mind? yeah. it takes something extreme to do it, but i will tell you, sir, there's no way that donald trump's going to be president. i've been saying that for weeks. i don't even take it seriously because he isn't going to win. it's not going to happen. and maybe we can all learn a little less been from all of this. >> another question. >> thank you. allen blank from the washington center. in the last ten years over 3 00 americans have been killed by
terrorism. but in the same period, over 300,000 americans have died from gun violence. would you support a ban on assault weapons? would you support closing the loophole on gun shows? and would you support a ban on weapons availability to those who are on the no-fly list? >> yeah, let me say one thing about the no-fly list. one thing you have to be careful of is we stop people in ohio who are on the no-fly list -- or, i'm sorry, the terrorism watch list. and the one thing we don't want to do with people who are on the terrorism watch list, we want to make sure we know what they're doing. we want to follow them and understand it. and, i mean, and then when you look at the no-fly list, my concern with the no-fly list is you could be on no-fly list. and we got to make sure that the people who are on that no-fly list are people who shouldn't fly on airplanes. and if we determine that they shouldn't be on airplanes, then
i think if they have some due process, i don't think they should be able to purchase firearms. but let me also tell you that i don't think -- you take guns away from all the law-abiding people like the bumper sticker says, bad people will still have guns and we won't. and, you know, i have two 16-year-old daughters and a beautiful wife, and i want to be able to defend myself if somebody's going to do me harm. but let me suggest something. forget about the terrorism side. talk about the mass shooting side. if you've noticed, if you have noticed that most of the mass shooters come from broken families, from neighborhoods that have fallen apart, you wonder where's the siblings. where are the parents -- where's the father. what are we doing on mental illness. you know, i have an extensive program in ohio on emergency beds and treating the mentally ill, but we need to look deeper as to some of the causes of what happens here. when people are isolated, mentally ill, feel as though
their lives have no meaning, they can do really crazy things to harm others. so, i think we need to go deeper on the gun debate than just the gun, and we need to get to the very root cause of what's happening in our society, and what is it that we're not doing to strengthen families, to strengthen neighborhoods, to be in a position to dealing with the real serious problems of mental illness so -- >> another question. sorry, the man in the white. can you identify yourself, please? as well. >> herbert livingston. governor, if mr. trump invites you to join the ticket as vice president, will you refuse? >> i wouldn't run for vice president on any ticket. okay? i'm not running for vice president. i got the second best job in america. governor of ohio. and so don't be thinking about vice president for kasich. ability going to happ in
ability goi in ain't going to happen. keep your eyes on the ball and we will see what happens here. >> can i ask you a question on that? in terms of the way you look at foreign policy, what sort of people would you want to bring in? who are the people you see as the gurus of foreign policy for you? apart from -- >> what i have learned -- what i've learned from the many years dealing with the national security issues is you want two kind of groups of people. you want your traditional military people and those who think differently. you know, there's always been a struggle, a war, between those who believe in sort of the traditional military operations and those who have spent more time in things like special forces. you want to have a divergence of opinion between your traditionalists and those who are not your traditionalists. and the same should hold true in the civilian advisers. those who are your
traditionalists and those who are not. my chief adviser is richard allen the former national security adviser of president reagan. he's just terrific. but i have other people that i listen to. and i'll give you one example of what i say when i talk about nontraditionalists. i asked one person with a long record in the cia if they thought the cia was capable of targeting. and you remember when we la launched the drone strike and we hit the wrong target. this person who served a long time in the cia said i don't think the xcia is great at targeting. i think this is something that should be done inside the pentagon. i like that guy. because i like to hear divergent opinions about how to do things. so, you want a variety of opinions. the same is true when it comes to -- people say how many forces on the ground? it's not the job of a -- if you don't know anything you might think you should answer that. but it's not the job of the president to decide troop levels. it's up to him to decide we're
going to go. give me a program. give me two or three programs and let's sit down and aggressively discuss the alternatives. so much of what we do in a presidential campaign today is i got to give you a slick little answer. things don't get solved with slick little answers, you know, when we talk about the problems of the no-fly list or we talk about the problem of encryption or we talk about the problem of cyber warfare. these things don't lend themselves to some little, tiny little sound bite. it requires smart people with good intentions, intellectually honest and solving problems. if i find somebody that i work with that doesn't operate that way, i don't keep them involved. but do you know what, most people want to contribute to something greater than themselves and that's kind of the way i would do it. >> right there. >> governor, adam blum from austin, texas. i'm an investor. with all that's going on in the region could you expound further on how you'd work with israel? >> well, you know, sometimes in
life isn't it true that sometimes we're tougher on our families than we are on people that we barely know. the same is true it seems sometimes innent national relations. we're tougher on them that our enemies. israel is our great ally. if i have anything to say to them as president that i don't like that they're doing, i'm going to do it in a back room somewhere where no one else can hear me. i'm not going to do it with a bank of television cameras to embarrass our friend. and frankly, i don't know what all the big discussion is about israel. they are a great ally. you know, their existence is in question almost every day when -- we can't even -- i was somewhere, somebody said, well, what are you going to do about, you know, the peace process. i said, look, when you have to go from saudi arabia and fly to egypt in order to get to israel and if you're in saudi arabia you can't even find israel on a map, why don't we have the world recognize their right to exist.
and until that happens and until some of the radicals change their way, why do we undermine them. let's work with them. and we have things that we think we can do to contribute to a solution, let's do it. the other thing is in regard to israel vis-a-vis the problems there, there are no final answers. the approach to me in the middle east in regard to israel is how do we achieve stability. how do we get through the day and be stable. because there is no single, simple, little resolution to the challenge that we have there. but we can't forget that they are our great friend. >> can i ask you one thing on that? a lot of the earlier plans on syria has bought turkey and their relationship with israel has fallen dramatically. >> we had a conversation in the back about air erdoghan, i think
about sitting in a chair across from him. i think the eu made a very big mistake when they refused to allow turkey to be part of their economic program. turkey needs to be pulled to the west. they don't need to be let go to the east. they could be a bridge to the middle east. now, people have told me that erdoghan, who spoke here, i think i saw his picture on the wall out there, you know, he's a -- he's a tough character, clearly. one thing i would tell you is i don't understand when the russians -- and some people have said, look, the russian plane went in briefly and they shouldn't have shot it down. i don't know what the truth is there for sure. but what i know is when somebody invades your airspace and you take action you don't apologize to the country that invaded the airspace. it seems to me as though we
should have been saying to the turks, you're nato, you did this, they entered your airspace and we support you. i think the economics of turkey may be a way to be able to get there. we're going to have to deal with turkey when it comes to a long-term resolution of the kurd issue. you know, as you all know, the turks live in total fear of an independent kurdistan, but the reality is, is that the kurds are going to have some place. maybe a confederation. i don't know. but we have to think about it and we're going to have to work with erdoghan and frankly we're going to have to spend a lot of time with him and understand what we can do to move him our way. i just think it's vital. there was a long history of turkish and israeli good, positive relationships. i don't think one precludes the other and i don't think -- i think we need to work on this. i think public diplomacy has been at an all-time low. i kind of believe around the world, not only should we have a
military presence and general jones, a former commander in nato and former head of the marine corps, has said that, look, we need military. we need diplomatic, and let me tell you, if you're an investor from texas, we need to have our business friends and partners around the world having something to say also. you know, i know somebody that runs a major oil company that i think knows more about putin than the entire state department. so, we need to be able to listen to -- and we understand they have a bias. they have a self-interest. we know that. but they're also americans, and they have a lot to say. so, public diplomacy -- i just have friends in columbus, ohio, who actually have opened a company in turkey. be interesting to hear what they have to say. but we don't want to lose the turks. we want to bring them towards the west, in my opinion, and i would work aggressively to try to do that. >> the gentleman in the yellow shirt. >> jeff laurenti.
governor, you made your mark in washington on the federal budget as somebody who knows it inside and out. so, i would like to ask if you could explore a bit with us the financial implications of your foreign policy vision. on the nonmilitary hardware side. >> sure? >> do you see the investments we make in diplomacy in the state department and in international development aid and things like the younger president bush's health care initiatives, et cetera, or u.n. peacekeeping in africa, as an important contributor to our role in the world? is this something that we need to expand along with the defense spending for the future, or is this where we have to economize in order to keep our budgets in balance? >> well, look, here's -- in a nutshell, i can do this very quickly. i get a budget that gets us to balance in eight years, but i'm not promising you flat taxes and no irs, come on. come on, folks, let's grow up. okay? let's be real about what's going
to happen. but i would bring the top rate down to 28 like reagan did, i would have three rates, a simplified system, capital gains at 15 and in addition to that -- and an increase in the earned income tax credit so people at the bottom have an incentive to work. in the corporate world i would bring it down to 25 and accelerated depreciation and at the same time i would bring all your money back from europe, five or 6% tax and then after that no more double taxation. that would provide about a point in economic growth. i also would restrain government spending. i'd freeze all nondefense discretionary for that period of time, but i would move welfare, job training, transportation, and medicaid out of washington into the states with greater flexibility with some guardrails. and then i would increase defense spending by $100 billion. i would freeze all federal regulations for one year except for health and safety and make a real effort to try to reduce our
overregulated society. and all that adds up to about 3.9 % growth which would get us to a balanced budget i think it would probably happen much sooner than we project but i'm being realistic with you. in terms of international diplomacy, i haven't checked this lately but the agency from international development was supposed to take people from developing on developed and i think our foreign aid leaves a lot to be desired. however, in 1998 or 1999 i was the guy that took bono to capitol hill and worked with, believe it or not, ted kennedy and jesse helms and ronald reagan -- or bill clinton and pat robertson to pass the first debt relief measure. why? because when our bombers fly over an african village and the men are shaking their fists, i want the woman to say -- the women to say, the united states vaccinated my children. so, the deal is, is that foreign
aid is important diplomacy's critically important, and the foreign aid that actually goes to help people. and i think what president bush did, never got any credit for it, was really a follow-on what bono had started. it's things like clean water. it's things like vaccinations, it's things like mosquito nets. absolutely they're important. but you can't come in there and create a big dam project that puts money in somebody's pocket and then you displace all the people in the village and all you do is create -- you create anger and antipathy towards the united states. so, of course, there's a big role there. but i hope you will also listen to what i said or suggested about the war of ideas. i believe that the western ethic has to be defended. you got to realize that when -- who are these people to join isis? how do people from starkville, mississippi, try to make their way to syria? who are they? whenever people lose meaning in
their lives, whenever they think their lives do not matter, whenever they become hopeless and frustrated, bad things happen. drug addiction. a turn to radicalization. we need to tell people that their lives do matter. that they can change the world. that, in fact, that we have to live lives bigger than ourselves. and that we are for equality of women and science and progress and civilization. we have to communicate that in every mean we can to those people out there who sit on the fence and hear the propaganda from isis and their ilk. and foreign aid and diplomacy, it's all part of it. okay? >> the lady in red at the back. >> so, my question is, if you were forced to live somewhere outside of the united states, for maybe, say, five years where could you see yourself living like a society you think does it
well? my second question is, how would you fix the problem that is the cleveland browns? >> boy, those are two great questions. how would i fix the cleveland browns. probably start all over again. you know, i have a hard time imagining living outside of westerville, ohio, let alone outside of america. you know, honestly, i couldn't imagine living in another country. what a -- let me tell you, i mean, aside from all the rhetoric, my father, his father was a coal miner, he could go down in the mine all day and he'd come up and he would say look at the coal i brought up and the guy would say, well, that's not coal, it's peat and they would rip him off day after day. there were eight kids in the family. i'm told by my uncle george that my dad and my uncle times went to school in clothes that were made out of flour sacks.
my uncle george can't even believe what's happened to his nephew. my mother's mother was a croatian. she couldn't speak english. i never met my grandfather on my father's side. i am at the council of foreign relations today. no, i mean, i'm not -- this is no suck-up. this is, like, a big deal. i'm at the council of foreign relations. i can't even believe it. i'm with the guy that used to be the head of "the economist." >> i'm sure that's what your grandmoth grandmother dreamed of. >> she would have been very enthralled with your accent, i can tell you that. where would i want to go? i mean, this is where i want to be. now, i love to travel around. i took my wife to -- i'm going on here. i want to tell you this, though. i took my wife to prague. we went there for her 50th
birthday a couple years ago, she's much younger than i am. it was unbelievable to go to prague to think about claus and their struggles and the beauty of that city that was spared the bombings of world war ii. i then took her to berlin and we were standing at one of the last pieces where the wall is. my wife had never seen it. i'd been there before the wall came down. i'd visited the soviet union as a member of the committee. and standing at that wall there was a woman in a carriage. she was on one side -- this is just recently. standing on this side of the wall and her son who was kicking a little ball around, probably no more than 6 or 7 was on the other side. and i became emotional and my wife is -- and the guide that was with us said what the heck is wrong with you? i said, just think about this. before that wall came down, if you lived over here, you had a life. and if you lived over here, you lived in a big prison.
we brought that wall down. we freed people and we don't often think about what we were able to achieve. and what i'm saying is -- we went to paris. i mean, what's better than versailles? i kind of like louie xiv in a way, he knew how to use executive authority. i love to travel. but i'm not leaving america. okay? i'm not. even if the browns win, i'm not leaving america. >> sadly, we've run out of time. we've gone all the way from donald trump -- i'm afraid -- >> go ahead. >> we've gone all the way from donald trump to science progress and louie xiv. thank you very much. >> thank you. blip a tweet earlier today by donald trump reads as follows -- a new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if i departed the gop and ran as
an independent. so, where does that put the race? we wanted to check in with glen thrush chief political correspondent for politico, thank you for being with us. >> great to be here. >> so, let's talk about this pledge that he signed earlier in the year. where is that? >> where is it? that's a good question. i remember being him waving it around like neville chamber lynn getting off the plane from munich, right? this is a republican piece in our time. well, you know, i don't think -- at the time i think a lot of us thought it wasn't quite worth the paper it was printed on and i think we're finding out ultimately that donald trump -- donald trump's leverage on the republican party, apart from his popularity, which is quite significant, he's 28% to 33% in most national polls, a lot of his leverage is based on the fact and he goes rogue throws the election to hillary clinton presuming she's the nominee. >> in a story published earlier today in "the washington post" saying twice i will never leave the race, where does that put the gop establishment?
concerned about what this potentially means in 2016, not only for the presidency but also for key house and senate races? >> oh, it puts them in a really, really difficult position, you know, one really does get the sense that over the last week or so, you know, apart from all the predictions of his demise have turned out to be foolish and i don't think this man is going to implode any time soon and leave the race. i think -- over the last week, however, a lot of these statements particularly the muslim ban, while it's popular among the republican base, has really turned i think the national media against him, some international folks, and just a lot of people who are not core republican voters. and i think it's really put the republican establishment on the spot. you know, yesterday the head of the republican national committee really delayed -- he was one of the last republican officials to comment directly on
trump's assertions, and even he had to denounce trump. the other thing we have a story today on our website talking about what the down-ballot implications are. there's a lot of concern that if trump is at the top of the ticket, say good-bye to the senate. >> but does donald trump care about this? i ask the question because anytime he says something, like he said about muslims, doesn't that only embolden his supporters and make him the "us versus them" i'm going after the establishment candidate? >> absolutely. the other thing about it, a lot of people think -- he's been called a farnar narcissist and people think trump is doing this for himself. i don't really believe that. i think trump is a performer to some extent but he's someone who is acutely aware of his supporters and fan base. i do think they are a fan base and not a traditional voting
base. this is a guy who has a really good ear for the crowd and he believes in his heart of hearts he's representing a percentage of americans that are forgotten and he owes them a responsibility. that's the big change i see in donald trump. this man feels like he's part of a movement. >> that's his core constituency and those are his key supporter? >> yeah, you know, there's been certain analyses of it, when you look at it it's overwhelmingly white and tends to be out of the large cities and more suburban and rural, and it tends to be high percentage voters who don't have a college degrees. that's obviously not a litmus on people's intellect, but it is a fact that he is attracting white working-class voters, really more than any other candidate in the race. >> glenn thrush, a couple of polls that came out before the muslim comment showing that donald trump increasing his lead in iowa, new hampshire, and nationally. what will you be looking for in
the days ahead? >> i'm looking at ted cruz. it seems like ted cruz, a lot us had thought marco rubio would be moving up a little more rapidly in the polls. he's done okay. he's in the 10%, neal% nationally, not doing well in the early battleground states interestly, but ted cruz is really making his move in iowa. it's clear the base they are drawing this from is ben carson who appears to be imploding, so a lot of the gains trump has made are off ben carson. what i would look at as an uninformed observer is ted cruz gaining continually in iowa and most importantly is he trying to assert some real power in south carolina where trump has dominated. >> and finally, the next major event is tuesday's debate from las vegas, airing on cnn. you can only imagine the first round of questions to donald trump. >> oh, it is just going to be -- it's going to be something. you know, it's not that long ago you had the cnbc debate where my
friend john harwood was pilloried for suggesting donald trump was a cartoon character, a comic book candidate, that seems tame in retrospective. "the new york times" called him dark and divisive, buzz feed said that their style book on donald trump allows them to call him a mendacious liar, so i think the gloves are completely off in terms of the press and trump. it will be interesting to see if we'll have that same kind of sparring between the press and trump. i suspect he's going to attack the moderators. >> and we'll follow your work online at politico.com, glenn thrush, chief political reporter, thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> great talking to you. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet-and-greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our
website c-span.org. next, a hearing on financial stability and the economy. members of the financial stability oversight council created in 2010 by the dodd/frank financial regulation law testified before the house financial services committee. they include southeastern conference commission chair marry jo white and the director of the consumer financial protection bureau richard cordray who talked about the council's agenda and operations. >> the meeting will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. this hearing is entitled oversight of the financial stability oversight council. today we have eight of the ten voting members as witnesses today. secretary liu has testified according to statute earlier in
the year and chair yellin has regrettably declined to give testimony today. i now recognize myself for three minutes to give an opening statement. financial regulators possessed every regulatory power necessary to prevent the 2008 financial crisis but failed to do so, yet washington rewarded them with vast new sweeping powers over our lives and our economy nowhere is that nor evident than in the dodd/frank oversight council whose members save two sit before us today. fsoc is clearly one of the most powerful federal entities to ever exist and unfortunately the least transparent and accountable as well. first the council's power is concentrated in the hands of one political party the one that happens to control the white house. all but one of its members is the presidentially appointed head of an agency, but interestingly, the agency themselves are not members thus denying bipartisan representation. the structure clearly injects partisan politics into the
regulatory process. it erodes agency independence and arms accountability. fsoc's budget is not subject to congressional approval removing yet another check and balance to its immense power. it's earned bipartisan condemnation for its lack of transparency. two-thirds of its proceedings are conducted in private and minutes are devoid of any useful information on what was discussed, even the ceo of the left-leaning better markets has said, quote, fsoc's proceedings make the politburo open by comparison. at the few open meetings they have they snap their fingers and it's over. they are all scripted. they treat their information as if it were state secrets, unquote. of all the council's activities none generates more controversy than its designate of nonbank financial institutions as systemically important financial institutions or sifis by acronym. it anoints institutions as too
big to fail meaning the designations are tomorrow's taxpayer-funded bailouts. designation ominously grants the federal reserve near federal reserve near de facto management authority over such institutions, thus allowing huge swaths of the economy to be controlled by the federal government. members of the council can raise the prospect of a designation and eliminate entrepreneurial risk taking, innovation and growth from our economy. as a result, americans may find themselves paying more to ensure their homes and families. investors who relied on mutual funds to save for their children's education or retirement will find they have earned less. fsoc is charged with identifying emerging threats to our financial stability but refuses to look in the mirror. in its latest report, it omits any references to specific government policies or agencies as helping caused the systemic risk it identifies. greater risk taking across the
financial system is encouraged by low yield environment the council reports. yet they refuse to identify the fed's loose monetary policy. they never acknowledge that dodd-frank's rule has reduced liquidity. it fails to mention that dodd-frank amplifies the threat by empowering the council to designate certain firms as too big to fail. it typifies not only the regulatory system but the unfair washington system that americans have come to fear and loath, powerful government administrators, secretive government meetings, arbitrary rules and unchecked power to punish are rewarded. oversight is paramount. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, the
chairman of our capital markets committee, mr. garrett. >> i thank all of our witnesses here today. i guess all of our witnesses -- you have gotten to know each other pretty well, because you meet regularly in closed door sessions where the public is not allowed to basically discuss to fundamentally change the u.s. economy. i thought i would take this minute to introduce ourselves to you. we're the u.s. congress. we were created by article one of the u.s. constitution. we're the ones who are actually elected representatives of the american public. and we're the ones who send you all those pesky letters that you all routinely ignore. i know you are probably confused by this setting that the public is here, that there's tv cameras here, so this is probably unusual for you. but this is what we do. we're open to the american public. we are transparent. and we are before the american public. so if there's one thing that you take away today, and that's the way you run your hearings, and
that's the way you conduct yourselves, you need to become more like us, more transparent, more open to the american public, more showing what your agencies are doing and adopt these policies so you are no longer working behind closed doors and in secret. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the distinguished members of the council for joining us for this hearing. we gather today to examine the activities of the financial stability oversight council which since the passage of the dodd-frank act has fulfilled its mandate to monitor and respond to the types of systemic risk that nearly brought our economy to its knees in 2008. this important work cuts across every corner of our banking, capital markets, housing and insurance sectors.
which is why congress specifically designed the council to draw up on all of the expertise of the witnesses here before us today. unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to have caught a case of amnesia about this important mandate. indeed, it was only seven short years ago that our economy lost nearly $16 trillion in household wealth, $13 trillion in economic growth and 9 million jobs. in large part, this was because our regulators were too often caught in silos not communicating with one another and not considering gaps between their agencies our interconnectedness within the financial sector. even worse, we saw too many cases where regulators were captured by the very entities they were meant to police. many of these lessons appear to be forgotten, as we have seen with recent markups as well as
attempts to lay den government bills with poison pill riders, some opponents of dodd-frank are focused on dismantling wall street reform by attacking core elements like the consumer financial protection bureau. these attempts to roll back dodd-frank started the minute this reform was signed into law and make no mistake, these attempts continue today even as our economy has experienced a remarkable rebound with six to nine straight months of positive job numbers, gdp growth and a housing market where sustainable access to credit continues to expand. all of which are signs pointing to the sort of stability and growth that the law was designed to promote. fsoc has contributed to this growth and stability by convening the ten component
regulatory agencies for periodic information sharing about emerging risk and reporting on those risks to the public. further, the council has now designated four institutions for enhanced supervision by the federal reserve. this designation will ensure that companies like aig never again are able to engage in risky, unregulated activity that could threaten the entire global economy. and far from the talking points of some members on the opposite side of the aisle, this enhanced oversight is now causing some large non-bank financial companies to consider whether simplifying their structures and breaking themselves up might provide better value to their shareholders. i'm also encouraged that the money market fund industry is now less susceptible to bank lack runs as a result of the
pressure fsoc it brought to overcome gridlock at the securities and exchange commission. finally, i appreciate that the council has made an effort to conduct this work in a manner that is responsive to feedback from congress and outside stakeholders. for example, with this announcement in february, they took the step of voluntarily agreeing to certain due process and transparency measures that will further serve to improve their operations. this type of dialogue and openness to feedback should be applauded. as we hear from the voting members of the council today, i will be interested to learn more about their interagency collaboration and their work to address emerging threats again. this work is central to preventing the types of contagion and risk that nearly crashed wall street. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. luke meyer, chairman of the
housing and insurance subcommittee for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a secretive structure that does not reflect the reality of the u.s. financial system can have consequences for businesses and the american people. this is particularly true of the banks that have been deemed purely on asset size. on the non-bank side it's with the over enforcement. it should alarm all americans, judging by what we know of the staff hours spent on non-bank analysis, which we will get into in the question and answer period that i have, it's clear to me that these designations and the lack of a clear path for de-designation is a federal reserve driven effort to expand government's power and influence. it's time to force more transparency, to require pragmatic regulation and to curb the scene crippling our institutions and their customers. i yield back.
>> the gentleman yields back. today we welcome the testimony of the honorable mary jo white, chair of the securities and exchange commission. timothy massid, chairman of the commodities futures trading commission, roy woodall, debbie matz, national credit union administration and especially warm welcome to our former colleague mel watt, director of the federal housing finance agency, martin gruenberg, richard cordray and last but not least, thomas curry, controller of the currency. since all of our witnesses have previously testified before congress, i believe they need no further introduction. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record by agreement with the ranking member. each of you will be recognized for three minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony.
chair white, you are now recognized. >> thank you. chairman hensarling, thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the fchbl stability oversight council. as you know, the dodd-frank act established the council to provide comprehensive monitoring of the stability of our nation's financial system. it also provides a formal forum for coordination among the various financial regulators, assisting in bringing about the kind of collaborative, sharing of information and concerns that in my view is very important to safeguarding the u.s. financial system. as one of two capital market regulators on the council, the perspective that i and the sec staff bring to the council is important in particular the sec's historical mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, ordinarily and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation necessarily gives the sec unique insight into many areas in which the council is focused, such as the potential financial stability risks of asset management activities and products, the ongoing changes to market structund