Latest Breaking News On - Erik barnett - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Malta Bankers' Association announces upcoming conference on financial crime compliance

Embracing Generative AI in health: focus on adoption, execution, outcomes and the human side

Moi's Murky Legacy | Politico SL

By Abdul Tejan-Cole Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, the second and longest-serving President of Kenya, died on February 4 2020. After a period of national mourning during which the national flag was flown at half-mast throughout Kenya and its embassies abroad and his body laid in state at the parliament building in Nairobi for three days, he was given a state funeral with all

Generative AI as healthcare's co-pilot

The potential is enormous, but like any other technology, we need to identify how to leverage it for the greatest value – and how to organize our thoughts around artificial intelligence, says Erik Barnett of Avanade.

Hollywood Astroturf Group Releases Ad Saying It Needs SOPA To Shut Down Megaupload... Five Days After Megaupload Is Shut Down

CreativeAmerica, the astroturfing group that pretends it's a "grassroots" operation -- but which is funded by the major...

Transcripts For CSPAN C-SPAN Weekend 20100816

husband's seat, but could not rule it out. guest: there are a lot of democrats that wish that she was running and not martha copely. it would be interesting to see what she decides to do. if she ran, should be the democrats' beschance. but scott brown is very popular. in 2012, that will be during a presidential year. massachusetts is a democratic- leaning state, but it voted for scott brown. it will be tougher for him, and he will weigh that in. he has taken some moderate positions on key senate votes right now. the political junkie in the hopes she runs, because that will be a fantastic race. host: we conclude by asking about the survey. the polling to place between august 5 and august 9. what is the margin of error? guest: 200 were conducted by cell phones we were able to contact the proper universe. >> now, a discussion on the process of becoming a u.s. citizen. this is about 40 minutes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome sonal verma, the d.c. chapter chair of american immigration lawyers assocation. we want to go to the process of how those a become american citizens. what are the requirements for nationalization? guest: you have to be 18 years or older. you had to offend a legal resident for three years or far years.-- or five years. you have to provide continuous physical presence. you have to have continuous of physical presence. you have to have permanent residence for the five years preceding the time you file for citizenship. you cannot have committed crimes or done certain things against laws of the united states. host: as you look at the process, how has it changed in the last 50 or 100 years? is it more complicated or easier to become a u.s. citizen? guest: it is more complicated. it is more complicated to become of legal permanent resident of the united states. people travel worn out. the world has become global. so when people travel and they are a legal permanent resident, they are spending more time outside the united states and it is difficult to show the permanent residence prior for applying for the naturalization process. host: these questions are available from the web site of the department of homeland security. what is the rule of law? what does the judicial branch do it? why do some states have more representatives than other states? what is freedom of religion? what is one right or freedom and the first amendment? some of those born in this country could not answer those questions. guest: the immigration and naturalization service has a terrific website. anyone planning on filing their application can go to the united states citizenship and immigration service website, www.uscis.gov, and there are study guides. there is a list of 100 questions asked on the civics exams. there is a lot of preparatory material available so they can prepare and be confident going into their citizenship interview and taking their civics and english exam, which is another part of what is required in order to become a citizen of the united states. host: we have on line for those of you going to the process of applying for citizenship. that is 202-628-0184. otherwise, we have a dedicated phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. in talking about this segment, we discussed about what happened when folks came through ellis island from europe a century ago. what did happen to those immigrants here? how long was the process? guest: the process to travel here was several months on a vote. when they came to ellis island, they were herded into a large room, basically, a large area, and individually they would have to show where they were from, who were, what their profession was, and provide health screening. they would get screening there on the premises. now that is not part of the naturalization process. the four met at that time was a very primitive compared to what is now -- the four met at that time was very primitive compared to what is now. as we have now, it is a more organized process. we have the law available to allow for naturalization. back then, you were a chinese citizen. you are from china. you were not allowed to be a citizen. there were other rules at play that now are not available. host: i want to go back to one requirement, the ability to read, write, and speak english. we are a bilingual country. many people speak spanish. if you go to an atm, it is in english or spanish. in a recording, it is english or spanish, and many are critical of that. guest: i think the criticism is unfounded. to allow people to participate in united states, to make certain concessions to allow them to bank oor to move forward is fine, but i think, also, to have the english requirements in the civic requirements are necessary to show that they do want to become progressive members of our society, to participate. one of the the freedoms you get when becoming a citizen is to vote. to understand what the issues are, to vote, it is necessary to know english. host: sonal verma is with the american immigration lawyers assocation. harris arkansas, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i do not have a problem with people who want to come here legally. it is people who come here illegally to jump over the fence and create a burden for our society. if they do the necessary progress to become a citizen, i do not have a problem with that. it is the people who come over here illegally, take the jobs, use up our health care, cause all the financial crises that california is experiencing right now. you know, we can be realistic about the problem, but government wants to get too involved in it and they do not want to do the right thing. that is my comment. host: thank you. guest: in order to become a citizen, you have to be a legal permanent resident and have a green card. that is not an issue that would affect the citizenship process, because you have to go through a number of steps in order to become of legal permanent resident prior to applying for citizenship. host: next is marked from miami, someone going to the process right now. mark, good morning to you. caller: yes, i am going to the process now. host: where are you from? caller: canada. i have been a resident alien for several decades. i love the united states and i want to star participating in the political process. my question is, when you are applying as a resident alien, you have to relinquish your resident alien card and its status. is it true that if you do not pass your naturalization test, that you have it then therefore lost your resident alien status, too? guest: no, that is not correct. you can only lose your resident alien status by appearing some of -- by committing some crime or fraud. you will not lose it by relinquishing your car. by not passing the sixth exam or retaining u.s. citizenship, you will not lose your legal permanent residents -- by not passing the civic exam. host: bonnie joins us from oklahoma on the democrats' line. are you with us? good morning. caller: i am 61 years old, and after googling the best place in the world, i find united states is not the best any more. host: were is the best? caller: norway. host: to you want to move? caller: yes. after living in 10 different states and the things i've seen in the people i've met, i am sad for our country know. guest: let me use your call to ask you about the reverse. if you have u.s. citizens who want to move to our land or norway, what is your process? guest: it depends on each individual country, just as the united states has a set parameter of laws to apply for citizenship. each, individual country outside the united states will have their own at method by which to determine who can be a citizen. in europe, the vast majority of countries have a points system which allows you to become a legal resident. then they have a certain period of time within which you have to file for citizenship of that country. but each country has its own laws and they are very different from the united states laws appeare. host: sonal verma is from the american immigration lawyers assocation. nina joins us from villanova, pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: good morning. if one is applying and their parents are citizens of -- from india or pakistan -- what is the weight once -- the wait once the child, the citizen, has applied for their parents to come? immigrant lawyers that are not charging hundreds of thousands of dollars, do you know of any? i heard in some cases where the poor people are trying to get their elderly parents legally into the united states and they are having trouble with the process because these lawyers are extending these cases on and on it just to get hundreds of thousands of dollars sometimes. i would appreciate that. one more question. there is a business be said that is offered to individuals wanting to invest in the united states and then they are offered a green card, i believe. i wish the obama administration would look into this policy, because they are asking for $1 million or more for some of these investors. if they could lower the borrower, invest in real a state, $100,000 investment, that would increase our economic situation and bring these immigrants, who are going through missouri. some of these developing countries, they want to come in legally, yet they cannot because of these economic issues. if they lower the borrower, and say you can invest in r, country you will get a green card. that will make it easier on everyone. host: thank you. guest: let me address your first question with respect to how long it takes a u.s. citizen to bring their parents from abroad. it takes less than a year to bring your parents from abroad. they come in as legal permanent residents and once they established their residency with physical presence, they can file for their citizenship within four years and nine months of having entered the united states. it is a quick and easy process, actually. your second question, with respect to the list of good attorneys available, you can contact the american immigration lawyers association and to do research. you want to look online for attorneys and see if they are members of the american immigration lawyers assocation. i would like to encourage everyone to steer clear of people holding themselves out to offer immigration advice or legal advice. they are not licensed attorneys. we have seen significant issues with respect to these individuals providing erroneous advice to people and causing more problems than they are helping with. so you do want to seek a good, licensed attorney. it should not cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring apparent from abroad. it is a very reasonable thing that most immigration attorneys do. with respect to the investor visa, there is a tiered structure. it is a very complex situation. there is information available on line with respect to the base amount of investments needed and the requirements and which countries can participate in the process. there is actually some conversation happening right now as to whether or not they are going to try to introduce changes or introduce bills that will enable investment in the united states to be a better avenue by which people can enter and become legal permanent residents of the united states of america, and that is something i am looking forward to seeing more of. host: for more information, log on to alia.org. we also have all linked available through our web site at c-span.org. our producer is from trinidad. can he have dual citizenship? guest: the united states does not have dual citizenship, but if trinidad recognizes it, he can maintain his citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go along with trinidadian citizenship. whenever he enters the united states, he has to use a u.s. passport in order to maintain it citizenship here. host: as part of the process, you get fingerprinted. once that is completed, how long do you wait for the exam? guest: that is a million-dollar question right there. sometimes you can wait two months. sometimes you may be waiting six months after you did your fingerprints taken. it depends on where you are in the united states. each district office has its own processing time, but you are looking at a general period of 10-12 months from the time of filing for application to the time you are sitting for your oath ceremony. in the grand scheme of things, for everything else you apply for immigration, he is not as lengthy process. host: brian has this question -- true or false? our legal residents required to carry their green cards at all time? guest: the law states they are required to carry evidence of their legal permanent status. host: augusta, georgia. tell us your story. caller: yes, i just filed. i was going to the oath ceremony, but between the test i took, they told me i had a citation, a citation for disorderly conduct, and they told me i could not go through the oath ceremony unless is show good moral character. they dropped my citation and probation. and i am still waiting for that. host: where are you from? caller: i am from tunisia, north africa. i lived here since 1998 with a green card. i got a wife. i went through this process, and i was there until they told me i cannot go through because of that citation. guest: you have to establish a good moral character for five years. if the citation occurred during that five-year period of time, you have to start the clock over again from the time the citation occurred until the time you filed your application. it is not going to permanently bar you. and depending on what the citation is 4, it will not permanently bar you, but you may have to wait a little longer. host: our people from friendly nations given more priority? if you are from somalia versus someone from canada or great britain, are friendly nations given preference? guest: in the citizenship process, no. everyone is treated the same way in filing their application. caller: hi. i keep having to remind people that ronald reagan gave a huge amnesty when he was in there and i think it is too hypocritical for conservative folks to forget that and to act like the liberals today are being so soft on immigration and wanting to be so soft. if we are going to move forward, and reagan did not put down any more effort at the border, we will have to do that. we will have to crack down at the border and have to have a good idea requirement. but we will also have the re-do what he did with immigration. i write about that on my blog. paul brown, my congressman, things the civil war should not .have been fought have now in thewe united states is due to several factors. we have seen an increase in the number of people coming to the united states, but we have also seen an increase of the number of people staying here. in 1996, there was a law that was passed that said if you are in the united states for six months or longer, you are ba rred from returning for three years if you leave. if you are out of status for over 12 months and you leave, you are barred for 10 years from returning. what this law created was a hostage situation, where people who spend time out of status in the united states, and do not feel they can return to their home country because then it will not be allowed to return to the united states. you have to go through a waiver process and it is a very complex situation to qualify. so we have a lot of people here right now who without the 3 and 10 year bars, would be able to return to their home countries. we have not addressed that as a country. we just see the increase in number is compiling simply because we are keeping these people here. we are keeping people from returning to their home countries. no one wants to stay here and not be welcome, but we are not allowing them to return. host: dana joins us -- dan joins us from tulsa. caller: good morning. my fiancee is from mexico. it has spent 13 years. since then, she has been a model citizen, a single mother that has raised her child care. the child was not born here, a homeowner. owned her home for eight years as a single mother. and she had filed for citizenship. i am afraid she has lost in the system. you know, her english, she may not have worked on it like she should have come up -- it seems money is the key to everything, as in being able to acquire an attorney to represent her. i know you talked about it, but it seems, if you have money, you can get things taken care of. but just being a good citizen and working at all low-wage, the attorney fees are too much. guest: ok. i don't know if she has already filed for naturalization or she was a legal permanent resident. it sounds like she is going to the process and perhaps has not heard back. i do not know how long it has been since the time of filing. you can call the customer service line. you can call it. if you have received, you can ask them for the status of your case -- with a receipt. you can go to the website and plugged in at the receipt number and see where it is in the process. host: let me bring up the 14th amendment. some republicans call for repealing the amendment set in place after the civil war to make sure that slaves could be u.s. citizens. is that the right alternative? guest: i do not think it is the right alternative. amending the 14th amendment to appease a certain political goal is not what we do in the united states. the 14th amendment achieves citizenship for everyone in the united states who was born in united states. it did not discriminate against who you work. there is a small line of supreme court cases that upheld the 14th amendment in various situations. it provides equal protection to people within our borders. and to use the 14th amendment as a pawn for political purposes is, frankly, disturbing. host: sonal verma is with the american immigration lawyers assocation. yusef joins us. good morning. caller: i think we should let all the mexicans, all the haitians, all the jamaicans, we should let all of them into the country because this is god's land. this land belongs to god. if we allow them to come in, we can fight with these jews, who divide people with immigration. host: wait. why do you say that? caller: man, look at the history of the jews? anytime you thought anything jewish, you cut people off. you do not hear people. host: i would say the same for any ethnic or religious group. caller: if you look at the history of them, they have always divided people by race, by color, by finances. it is the jews behind all of this stuff. there is no such thing as immigration which should allow everybody into this country. this is back to the original land. we're with the jews be at? host: did you want to respond? guest: no. host: where are you from, dom? caller: i am originally from mauritania. host: how long have you been in the united states? caller: june, 2002. host: why did you come here? caller: political problems in my country. i feared for my life. after so many prosecutions in mauritania, i felled my country and applied for asylum. . . host. host. blah blah blah. caller: bra blah blah (202)737-0002 (202)737-0001 (202)628-0205 (202)628-0184 sonal verma.org cspan.org.org julia angwin (202)737-0002 (202)737-0001 (202)628-0205 (202)628-0184 (202)737-0002 (202)737-0001 (202)628-0205. (2. guest: anyone says anything from 12 to 18 million. host: host: it's red herring. it's not the economic or political issue that people make it. i think that's very true to a certain degree. i think the arguments that are made for the economic problems that are created by people who are here without documentation have been blown out of proportion. you have a lot of people in the united states who are hard working, paying taxes, who will never get tax refunds, never obtain any money back in social security, they are paying into the system. when people come here, whether they're undocumented or here on proper visa, or whether they're legal permanent residents, they send money. they go to the grocery stores, restaurants and malls. the sales taxes, revenue generated for small businesses by people in the united states are helping our economy, rather than hindering our economy. it goes back to why do we have these undocumented people in the united states? they are here, that increase in numbers has been seen in the past 14, 15 years simply because of the situation i'm going back to. people are not discusses it that often. without it, you would see more back and forth migration, what was happening pre1996 where people returned back and had more opportunity to go through borders, rather than staying here. without the preentenure bars, we had fewer undocumented people, and more people who could in some capacity file for a visa, or to obtain some sort of normal status in the united states in some way. that was a whole line of method that people do not have anymore. host: you are encouraged to join this conversation on line. how about the parents can be legal residents, but never citizens after having children here. guest: i don't know that that's a very good suggestion. i think that would cause a lot more, you know, with all the argument about the fourteenth amendment right now, i don't think that's something that's going to go very far. the conversation, the reason that the fourteenth amendment has been brought up, we're talking about people who would come here, have their children in the united states, automatically by their birth in the united states become citizens. the conflict has arisen by saying that they're somehow affording their undocumented parents a path to citizenship. the background is these babies have to grow up, attain 21 years of age, and they have to petition for their parents to become legal permanent residents, after which time, five years later, their parents can attain citizenship. in order to be petitioned for legal residents, those bars are going to kick in, and those warrants are going to have a 10 year, wait the process and come back. the problem that everyone is raising with respect to people being born in the united states, and that horrible term anchor babies is really what's really happening out there, what can happen, because you're talking about waiting at least 31 years before a foreign national can become a legal resident in the united states. host: a few more of your phone calls, sonal verma, welcome to the washington journal. are you with us? host: no. host: where are you with us from. caller: nigeria. caller: host: how long? caller: 40 years. i'm a two-time veteran of the armed forces, navy and army, and i have tried to get my citizenship when i was in the military, and they told me i have to pay $500, and i was wondering after serving in the military for about 10 years, why do i have to pay to become a u.s. citizen? guest: that's a good question. currently, there are certain expedited procedures by which people serving in the military can attain u.s. citizenship, but you've, of course, he should already, and it seems are not currently serving, so you would have to go through the application process, and that's a fee that's paid to the u.s. immigration and citizenship service, a fee based agency, that's how they operate. the current fee for filing is $595 plus a biometrics fee. that's how they look at your background to determine whether you have any criminal acts in your past. host: bennett is joining us from danville, kentucky from the republican line. caller: good morning. i'd like to ask your guest there, given that back in 2000, there were reports that the gore-lieberman folks were registering voters in florida that were non-citizens, other penalties whether legal or illegal aliens, if they were to register or vote in an election, are there penalties for those who encourage this or if a as i will taillight any illegal vote for a non-citizen. guest: that's a terrific question. yes, there are penalties for fraudulently carrying yourself as a u.s. citizen when you are not, and there are penalties for having someone sign up to become for assisting and aiding in such fraud. the distinction that you made that i want to make clear is sometimes people don't know that they can or whether they can or cannot register to vote. in those circumstances, it is very important to insure that you're rights are represented by a very competent professional to help you sift through the morass, because if you have a fraud, someone believes you have committed fraud, you will be barred permanently from achieving citizenship, and if you're a resident, may have it taken away from you depending on the level of fraud. you really would want to seek counsel to try to assist you to get out of that. like i said, there's people out there that are going to do things like the notarios, do things that are going to cause more harm than good. host: jason cooper says thank you. it's wonderful to see someone express concern over the term "anchor babies. guest: that's a terrible term. i'm a farmized u.s. citizen born in the united states and been able to attain e.u. citizenship. while a person coming from the united states must announce citizenship, how is it i'm able to hold dual citizenship. guest: the united states does not recognize dual citizenship, but the country you're going to may. depending on where you are in the european union, they may recognize dual citizenship. when you return to the united states, you won't be able to return using the european passport, your entry would have to take place with your u.s. passport. host: the debate continues, 30 million illegals are in this country. guest: it's difficult to pin down the number of people in the united states. the census is not taking into account who is here illegally and legally. not everyone is raising their hand to be counted like that. it is difficult to assess the number of people in the united states and who are undocumented. host: steve says please ask if expatriation is growing. guest: i think it is by degrees. it's some people going back to their home countries. many people are in line waiting for their status. legal aliens working here have been just waiting and waiting and waiting before they can get permanent residence, and now they are tired of it and are going back home. host: next we have a caller from the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: please go ahead, rick. caller: i brought my wife here on a fiancee visa. we have been married for 3.5 years. she got her temporary residency card in january. guest: ok. caller: now we have to go, there's some kind of interview. if we don't go to it, they said they'd revoke her status. host: where is she from, rick? from ukraine. guest: she attained her green card. you said that she attained a 10 year green card or two year green card. caller: right now she has her 10 year green card. guest: had she been married to you for two years or longer when she attained it? caller: our anniversary was april 27, so three years. guest: who told you that you needed to have another interview? caller: the uscis. guest: generally speaking, when a citizen marries a foreign national and they attain permanent legal residence, they get a conditional green card, a two-year conditional green card. at the two year anniversary of attaining that, you file to remove the conditions of the green card, and then ultimately attain the 10 year green card. in your situation, i'm a little confused in that you've been married for over two years, she has a 10 year green card. i would suggest that you seek counsel to try to get that sorted out, because that doesn't sound like a normal situation. host: caller joins us from philadelphia, also in the process of becoming a u.s. citizen. go ahead, please. caller: i am in the united states fourth time as family-based green card. i returned to my home country after six months, because i wanted to finish off my education there. i filed my return permit, where i can return to the united states within two years, so i returned to united states after 1.5 years in 2006, july. now, according to the uscs, i can file my citizenship after four years and one day, because i applied for my return permit, and i, so that counts towards my five years, is that correct? guest: i think you would need to sit down with the dates, sit down with someone and count out each and every day. generally speaking, you have four years and nine months from the time of obtaining your permanent legal residence before filing for your application for citizenship. at the five year mark, you are eligible for that citizenship. the reentry permit gives you that one year towards meeting the permanent residency requirements if filed correctly. you also have to look into the continuous physical presence requirements and make sure you have had 30 months in the preceding five year period of physical presence in the united states. host: if ultimately, you are denied, what is the process. guest: it depends on the reason for the denial. if it's an eligibility factor, meaning you applied at three years and not five years, you apply when you are eligible. if it is for a mistake, somehow, you are confused with someone else, which occurs occasionally, or because they have determined that your eligibility factors, that you don't warrant the eligibility, or if there's-it depends on the reason for the denial. you can appeal the denial of the n400 directly to the district office. ask for a motion to reopen or reconsider and present evidence as to why you believe that you are eligible. if for some reason it is an eligibility factor, you are allowed to reapply for citizenship. you >> thank you for having me. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal," lawrence yun and update on the housing market and foreclosure rates. also, a discussion with michael weisman, executive director for the safe and secure gambling initiative. he talks about a pending house bill that would legalize in the net -- internet gambling. then bloomberg reporter phil mattingly. he talks about the expansion of government powers. our week-long series continues on tuesday with a look at the impact on banks, on wednesday, we will look at how it affects consumers. then on friday, we wrap up the series with a conversation on which provisions were created to prevent a future financial crisis. washington journal, live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> monday, secretary of state hillary clinton delivers a speech on the global health initiative. a centerpiece on the obama administration's foreign policy. secretary clinton will describe the global health initiative or principles, and calls on governments, organizations and individuals to join the united states in pursuing a sustainable approach for delivering essential health services for more people in more places through the live coverage, monday at 11:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the committee analyze and technical causes of the deep water horizon or real explosion held a meeting for it is about 2 hours 10 minutes. we are delighted to be able to give you our perspective on this. i want to mainly thank you on behalf of secretary cells are for convening this group and for participating in this very important activity. as you know, we reached out very early to the national academy because we are most interested in getting a completely independent and highly credible technical analysis of the probable causes of the deep water horizon disaster. it that is really what we are looking for. on what likely but ron, here. or the probable causes -- what likely went wrong here. what were the probable causes? our assumption is that that will help us confirm that we are on the right path in terms of addressing the root causes and systemically coming up with recommendations on how to ensure again our understanding -- we appreciate much your willingness to with an interim report by the end of october because we are anxious to ensure that we're on the right path. we also understand that that would focus on the root causes as opposed to the broader set of recommendations that we hope you will be able to come up with in your final report. is being useful to you in any way that we can. obviously, there is an ongoing joint investigation by the coast guard. i understand that there already have been discussions to help insure that you have access to the information that is needed for your technical analysis to the extent that you need any of our help to make sure that that access is effectuated and you can call on us to make sure. that is all that i wanted to say. there are a number of folks interested and involved in looking at this problem. we look to you and the national academy for your particular insight, given the depth of your experience. we are particularly interested in in what you will have to say about this. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate the charge. i appreciate of for free access to all the information obtained through the board of inquiry. i think that that will assist us, in particular, in terms of providing a timely input into the process in october and also assist us in terms of assuring a fine report -- a final report is as complete as possible. i think you very much. i trust that we will be able to achieve the objectives that you laid out for us. >> is a daily challenge in that regard. thank you very much. again, if you -- you'll be talking with mike and david and others. if any is any need to talk to the secretary or me at any time, please do not hesitate. we will be delighted to talk to you all. thank you. >> thank you very much. michael? >> are these microphones live? >> those microphones should be useful, yes. there is also a microphone on the podium if you would prefer to use that. do that.i couldn't let me know when you are ready. >> please. but we very much appreciate your convening this committee for the purpose of helping us understand that -- the technical causes of the deepwater horizon explosion. this is obviously a tragedy of national proportions beginning with the tragic deaths of 11 people on the rig and i think that the nation has closely followed this in the past few days. it has riveted the nation's attention as few things have in recent years. what i wanted to do very briefly was to frame the foreign official -- bring the organizational aspect -- frame the organizational aspect. we will do the best to address this in the time that we have. let me talk about the organization. i have been the head of the bureau of management organization. much of what i have been doing has been to deal with the aftermath of the deep water horizon explosion. i found myself testifying before congress. i took over responsibility for a large group of 1700 employers and an organization with multiple missions. i inherited a reorganization plan that is designed to create three separate entities. this would deal with the leasing and permanent sign -- permitting side. members of my agency have been in the midst of the response to do for horizon. they have been an integral part of unified command in new orleans and the houston location. my colleagues that are here will do the bulk of the presentation and they have been at the center of the joint coast guard and boem this edition. as you know, when i first met you at one of those events, there was a public hearing in which witnesses have been called to give to the bottom -- to get to the bottom of the technical issues that we will be exploring and what happened in the well bore and what happened aboard the deepwater horizon. i understand that you do not want us to address the specifics of that situation, but we are happy to take questions on that as well. on some of the other things that our agency has been doing that i have been doing as well, we are in the middle of discussions about the current moratorium on deepwater drilling. i just got back into town last night after conducting the third of what will be eight public forums designed to gather information so that sells art can make decisions on whether there are ways to cut short the moratorium before its current november expiration date. i have been focusing on drilling safety and many of the issues that will touch on today bear on drilling safety issues. the second issue is containment. as we have seen over the past few days, there were difficulties in containing this bill. we saw the horrible videos of the oil spewing out of the well. thankfully, that is no longer being seen because the well has been capped. that is the second issue. the third issue is the spill response. secretary salazar and i, god forbid if there had been another spill, virtually all of our national resources dealing with the spill were dealing with the deep water response. since those resources are no longer deployed, and we are focusing on this. we are gathering information that we think will be relevant to the secretary's decision on monday. those are some of the things that we have been occupied by over the last 52 days that i have been with the agency. the agency has come under a substantial amount of criticism and we have been dealing with those criticisms as they come. one of the things that we have done is to create a new review unit that will do a number of things. it will serve as an internal affairs arm of our organization to deal with allegations of misconduct. it is designed to enable us to have an aggressive enforcement effort in our agency. that is a way that we have not had full before. those are some of the things we have been working on. i will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. let me introduce the two men that will be with me here today and will present the bulk of the material that you have asked for. sitting to my immediate left is david dikes to he has been with the agency for 11 years for. he came to the agency with approximately 15 years of experience in the oil and gas industry both onshore and offshore. since joining the agency in 1999, he has served as we call a civil relief officer which is why he is the co-chair of the committee. he has also been heavily involved in safety and environmental management. he is currently chief of the office of safety and management. sitting to his left is john. he is the lake jackson district manager. he has been with the agency for 14 years. he was previously a technical assessment person. he came to the agency with 20 years of industry experience. the majority of that [unintelligible] operations. john, like david, is currently assigned to the deepwater horizon joint investigation and both of them have been spending the bulk of their time doing that. those are the two people that will be responding to the technical questions. why don't i turn it over to david. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate you coming down here this morning. good morning. we. uh, got a list of questions earlier this week and we attempted to try to answer most of those questions in this presentation. . . . [captions copyright [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] e up to the mike to ask your question, but don't touch the mike. mike ande up to use the migh was the people in line, and try to keep it down to four people in line at a time. if there are more than four people, wait, and we will try to get your question as soon as the next person is done. you have evaluation forms on your chairs. we would like to fill these evaluation forms out and would really appreciate it. if you are not a member of iie, take the opportunity to join when you turn your evaluation form in. we would love to have to be able to join us for more of these kinds of events and speakers. with that, i would also ask that you please remember to turn off your cellphone, if you have not done it. now is a great moment to make sure we do not interrupt. i think with that, i am going to, once again, say good evening, and welcome, on behalf of the institute of international education, to our speaker series this evening. as i said, i am a board member of the institute of international education, and am delighted to be able to welcome to denver qubad talabani, who is represented of the kurdistan regional government to the united states. he works closely with the u.s. government, with media, research groups. we call them think tanks in washington, but he has provided critical analysis and up-to-date information on iraq and kurdistan and the region, and we are really looking forward to hearing him this evening. mr. talabani is the son of the rocky president, -- the iraqi president, and in his own right has been working on political issues from this political family for many years. after the start of operation iraqi freedom in 2003, he served as senior foreign relations officer for the patriotic union of kurdistan. it is one of the leading kurdish political parties in iraq. he has worked closely with the u.s.-led coalition office of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance and also with -- afterwards when it became the coalition provisional authority in iraq, and was a key negotiator in the drafting of the transitional administrative law, which was the first post- saddam constitution in iraq. with that, i will take very little of your time and say he has appeared on many different television news shows. he has been a commentator and has provided incredibly up today and informed opinions on what is going on in iraq. we look forward to hearing his insights this evening. thank you again, and we will have a question and answerperiod afterward, and we hope you will stay and ask your questions at that time. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, kim. nothing makes the speaker more nervous than hearing that the crowd all has evaluation sheets on their chair. [laughter] please, give me good marks. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to start off by thanking the iie for bringing me here and for the world affairs council of denver, for bringing the outer to denver. i had to smile when one of my staff suggested i fly out here a day early to try to acclimate to the high elevation of your mountains. i quickly reminded that person that k areurds. -- we are kurds and we live in a mountainous area. the mountains distinguish us in a way that the people who live in colorado can appreciate. mike todd tonight is who are the kurds, and why you will like what you hear it -- my talk tonight. we have the mountains and we would appreciate some assistance in building some of the ski resorts that you have here in denver. if you help us with that, i guarantee we will be friends for very long time. for a long time, the kurds used to say we have no friends but the mountains. they but, that is less the case today. our greatest friends have long been here in the united states, but in the past few years we have made good friends in some likely -- unlikely places. they are the product of our emerging democracy, that we owe so much to the united states for their efforts bridget for their efforts in liberating as. who are the kurds, and what will happen next in iraq and kurdistan? i am happy to talk about that today. the answer is that today we are the strongest brand an ally that the united states has in our part of eurasia. the place with the highest percentage of women in our legislature than most of the nations around the world. the place where not one american more foreigner has been killed in hostile action. the plays were christians and others fleeing religious persecution from elsewhere in iraq have come to find sanctuary and a future. where the place for those seeking to invest from some of our new friends like the koreans to those who were once -- who we once had stressful and tense relationships with like turkey, are finding a school of opportunity. we are not too far away from denver, just a few minutes ago, flight 447 departed in international airport, bound for frankfurt, germany. tomorrow morning when you land in germany, you can have a coffee, a patient, more likely of beer, and you can board a second flight nonstop to the capital of the kurdistan region. tomorrow night you will be in my homeland, enjoying an delicious y alicia'skabob kabob. in kurdistan, against the backdrop of the snowcapped mountains, a frenetic frontier economy is being driven by the promise of petrodollars from the region's estimated 25 billion barrels of our oil reserves. development is intense. new hotels, shopping malls are springing up to meet the surging population of more than 1 .illion gillo there is a heady mixture of oilman, contractors, journalists, aid workers and increasingly, tourists. kurdistan seems a world apart from the rest of iraq. situated in the northern part of the country, it has a distinct history and to poverty. we are really neat ethnic group, different from arabs, persians, and turks. about 6 million kurds live in iraq has become our own language, kurdish, which is now one of the two official languages in iraq. parts of kurdistan are lush, but the series of mound's has defined our region and has provided sheltered areas in the days of our persecution and genocide from saddam hussein. it is from our country and said the three wise men set forth to jerusalem. one of ancient languages of civilization, aramaic, is still spoken and taught in parts of kurdistan. atop a prominent hill lies the citadel, one of the oldest continuously inhabited places on earth. it is in kurdistan where archaeologists found some of the oldest human fossil ever. these bolts or now the centerpiece of an attraction in the smithsonian's national -- natural history museum in washington d.c.. it is for the headwaters of the tigris and euphrates our townare found. the shape of kurdish territory in power had shifted over the century, reaching imperial knights during medieval times, sharing and contesting power in the modern era, and experiencing ization, andrginal as asia at times come out right genocide. in 1946, kurds in iran, backed by powerful tribes declared a short-lived republic inside iran. in these and other instances, many kurds felt that western powers ultimately sold them out in the name of greater power politics. this sense of betrayal still lingers during the kurdish western relations. that is where came from. now we look to where we are today, and crucially, where we are heading to in the future. thanks to the intervention of the united states and others in the 1991 gulf war and the final liberation in 2003, kurds have a region of iraq that is safe. many of us feel we are living a dream. while not an end up in the country, where part of a nation that is learning how to be a democracy. where are experiences are helping shape a new iraq. i realize the strong feeling and differences of opinion in the united states regarding the war in iraq. i know what the steep cost has been to america, and your sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. to your national treasure and a sharp politics it has created within this great nation. as occurred, however, i am thankful for what the u.s. did. perhaps one of the lines from steven spielberg's film "saving private ryan" is appropriate. he explains a mission and sacrifices made to save him. he says to the younger ryan, we realize the sacrifice you have made for us. we intend to honor them and to earn them. i think we have already begun, and that is one of the reasons why i was eager to meet with you all today. the of the as is called"know kurdistan." and no one to learn about us, you will find ways to invest in us, not just economic investments, but moral investment, investing in our democracy and are emerging democracy. a democracy that is fashioned after yours, and we need that investment to help us hammer away the frustrations of our past, to lead to a more benevolent and engaging future. fulfilling our democratic aspirations is the key. i am quite proud of how democracy is funding a welcome home in the kurdistan region of iraq. none of us have experience in building democracies. before the opportunity prevented itself -- presented itself, we had governance issues. we did not have a way of administering our own affairs. from the moment the political dynamics changed, we have been taking steps to ensure that our opportunity is not wasted. just over a year ago, we held regional elections. this was the son of the maturing of our society. it was the emphasis on the notes and bolts, domestic issues that impact of everyone's daily lives. turnout was more than 80%. on key national issues, there's not much depends between the competing slates. instead, it was perspectives on government's performance, roads, education, concerns on -- delivery of water and electricity that shake the debates and decisions that led up to that vote. it was a clear marker in the ship from where kurdish leaders for once hailed for the revolutionary skills and now where they are chosen on their visions of government and the ability to make each likes person -- is -- to make each person's life better. that was an important moment in our history, and i believe that if you have an important moment in history, with an election year. good luck on that. we know a thing or two about elections in iraq. we have had several recently. all fleer government will form a little quicker than ours -- hopefully your government will form a little quicker than ours. we must remember that we are still part of iraq. this month will see the largest departure of u.s. forces from iraq since the liberation. how the u.s. leaves and remains in iraq is crucial to the stability of the nation and the region. we hope that as the u.s. leaves militarily, it will increase its diplomatic effort. we are thrilled that the u.s. plans to open up a diplomatic , following the lead of many other countries that have done the same period increased u.s. diplomatic engagement in the kurdistan region, working alongside your embassy in baghdad, will cement the gains we have all made working together. equally important will be how iraqi leaders deal with their new-found freedom country has had handed to us. it is close to five months since the federal elections in march, and we have yet to form our government. there also remains top domestic issues that we iraqis must worked out -- work out, such as revenue sharing, hydrocarbons law, the future of disputed territories. these issues will not go away by themselves. solving them is a great priority with our friends in the united states. we look to whatever guidance and support the u.s. can give us. solving these issues is a greater priority to us. while all iraqis from all walks of life have stood up to overcome the greatest of challenges, including terrorism, sectarian violence, political stalemates and regional interference, we remain well aware that in order for the u.s. to leave, to stand down and four iraqis to stand up in a sustainable, federal democracy, continued u.s. engagement and continued u.s. infringement is paramount. a stable, relatively democratic iraq, one that manages her vast natural resources responsibly and utilizes the monumental in come the country will receive from them, one that plays a productive and moderated role in an ever radicalizing region must be in the interest of the united states. ironically, it is weak, the kurds, who for years while fighting to gain our basic human rights were always trying to bring down a government in iraq. today we are playing a leading role in building a new government. we are trying to build a new rack based on the principles. kurds have been oppressed for most of the last century. we are to wary of power centralized in the hands of a federal government. we see the iraqi constitution, which mandates federalism, and the devolution of power to the regions and to local government. as the best way to ensure that all iraqis feel safe as well as feel empowered. importantly, the constitution is a lot of the land. we will follow it, but we expect others to do so as well. kurdish political demands are limited but are fair, deserts, and reasonable. regional and western policymakers need to appreciate the role of the kurds in iraq, our sacrifices and our contributions. kurdistan does the commitment to being part of iraq is unshakable. all we ask for is to be treated fairly and be treated as equal citizens, and to be able to work collectively. here is how we are at the regional government burning your sacrifices. we know that corruption and its allies are dangers in greek -- enemies of democracy. that makes the public cautious about believing in democracy. corruption and its allies can be an asset, and we -- we have made good governance and issue at top priority. we have teamed up with world- renowned consultants price waterhouse coopers to review current conditions, to weigh how government works and all government related issues. to address the crucial issues of good government, antique corruption and transparency. good government is a major pillar for securing our hope of democracy. we are confident the strategy outlined our government will help us tackle this issue. we have made our region safe and secure an have overcome many internal conflicts. we have established a system to provide improved services and are moving to guarantee that all this progress is maintained and build upon. the benefits of the strategy are clear and vital for our future. it will help us ensure that public funds are used properly. it will help us make our government more efficient and effective. it will improve the delivery of services of the people of the kurdistan region and help improve international and domestic confidence and increased investment and job development, while helping to raise the standard of life for our citizens. we understand that democracy is an evolutionary process, but in iraq and elsewhere. it is more than just a philosophy. a key to securing our people's trust will be how we deliver the services. for example, large-scale power generation cannot just be bought off the shelf. we have been working for several years to implement effective power and water distribution projects. in 2008, our region was dealing with to failing hydroelectric dams. the result was the government generated electricity for only three hours a day. we found that unacceptable. today our projects are nearing completion and we will have close to 20 hours of major power in major cities in our region. that is more than the rest of the country. we know there are 24 hours a day and we are working towards that. what we have now is much better than what we had three years ago. it is a journey. likewise, the recent completion of large-scale water projects in our two largest cities will combine with existing systems to provide clean water to much of our region. these are significant accomplishments that have been achieved by our governments and the region's developing private sector. they are final, critical issues that need to be addressed to the people living in our region so they can have hope and freedom from want. providing such central services is only part of good governance. all that is going on, we have also taken determine steps to strengthen the judiciary and the rule all. in 2008, the judiciary was separated from the rest of the government to create an independent judiciary. the judiciary is now learning how to stand on its own feet, be objective, and uphold the rule of law. we did this on our own. we knew it was the right thing to do. we took these initiatives because this is what being a democracy is all about. i am the first to admit that we have a ways to go. that is what we need to continue u.s. engagement. we are not a perfect democracy, but we are democratizing. we have a vibrant, civil society. we have a free press, an emerging market oriented private sector. i must say clearly and bluntly that i am not making excuses about the challenges that we face in the kurdistan region. i am not justifying are rationalizing a less than perfect system. i am not pretending that problems do not exist. i know we have stumbled, made mistakes, and misread circumstances, but democracy is hard work. but the destination is working. -- the destination is worth it. we are still moving forward. this is not a sprint, and it should not be. this is the foundation of our future, for children, grandchildren, for the kurdistan region, and for iraq. we would like the u.s. to stand with us and iraq as we continue on this journey. thank you very much for having me here. i look forward to answering your questions. [applause] >> good evening. i am david french, and i wanted to tell you what serendipity tonight that through iie and our state department, we have an exchange department with six beautiful high school student from iraq. they are in the back, and with their host families and all are iraq students, please stand and wait. -- please dan andwave. [applause] one of the things we know is that young people will change the world. we have asked one of our bright young iraqis from kurdistan to come up here to the mike just for a moment and share what they have learned in the last two weeks. becomes. -- here she comes. [applause] i am from baghdad, and i am from the exchange program between iraqi students and american students. in the program we learn about each culture, from america and from iraq also. it is a great program. we have learned so many things about leadership, and of course we had a nice experiment in the usa. there is a group of my friends in here, americans and iraqis. we have been in the u.s. for one week in vermont, and in denver also for one week, and will stay for another week. we will also go to washington d.c. for a week. it is an amazing program. i think it is i think everyone who works in this program and all the staff. it is a very lovely program, the americans -- all they see on media and tv is war and horrible things, so i am glad to be part of this program. [applause] >> i am a part-time teacher at metro state college. i am wondering what the possibilities are for immigration between kurds and turkey. >> we have seen a lot of movement of populations as the kurdistan region is stabilizing and has progressed. the standard of living has improved and made it far more attractive to many kurds in syria and iran and even in parts of turkey. we have a pretty open door policy, as long as people abide by the law, they are welcome there. immigration is a federal issue, and the federal government has jurisdiction. hopefully kurds in syria, iran, and turkey are proud of what they see, the freedoms there, a government that is functioning there. the flag is flying alongside the iraqi black, and it is something that a lot of people are looking at. -- alongside the iraqi flag. >> and amazon.com cochran. i am a member of -- my name is don cochrane. i am a member of iie. i am curious as to whether a member of the kurdistan region is in any danger whatsoever of suffering an onslaught, for example, from al qaeda or something in that order. >> we live in a freaky neighborhood, to say the least. that in and of itself presents a danger to our existence. the fact that we are open about our pro-american attitude, that we've bankamerica publicly and not privately, also does not make us properly -- that we thank america publicly and not privately, also does not make as popular in that part of the world. it obviously raises extreme groups in the region that target us. if you recall in 2002 or 2001 before operation in iraq and freedom, the crew -- one group formed on the border of the kurdistan region with iran. with the help of your special forces from colorado springs, we were able to eradicate this group from our region and we have not let the men since. we have a very tolerant society of people who tolerate differing views and different opinions, but they do draw the line when those differing views turn into acts of terrorism. we are constantly on alert and constantly vigilant. we are proud that no foreigner has been killed in hostile action in that region. we want to keep it that way, and our security services are doing a good job of keeping it that way. [applause] >> of maritime article in yesterday's "washington post" which i bet you have read before i did. it had very positive things to say about the kurdish government and the progress that has been made. it said the kurds have also worked out a peaceful mode as vivenda with their iranian neighbors and could be of help if president obama is pursuit of dialogue if it gets on track. can you comment, please? >> living where we live, we have to have good relations with all our neighbors. we are flanked by iran on one side and turkey on the other, syria having to the domestic angle to deal with. iran is a powerful neighbor, and it has a very long border with us. it is a neighbor that has played but a constructive and a negative role " in iraq and also in the kurdistan region. we have to deal with the reality and the fact that neither of us are going anywhere anytime soon. we have to find ways of working together and living together. we are watching closely the tensions brewing between the united states and iran, and between other players in the region. we are concerned because we do live there, and obviously anything that happens, any increase in tensions will likely have an effect on the confidence and the situation in our region. we have also been a very moderating factor in iraq, and we believe we can play a moderating factor beyond our borders. we do have a sizeable kurdish communities in turkey, syria, and iran as well that can play a positive role, should that be necessary. but we welcome dialogue and increased efforts to try to diminish the tension, because at the end of the day, we have all had to much tension and conflict over two long period of time, and it is time to get on with dark like and build a better life for our citizens and the region. >> my name is dave butler. i am a retired lawyer here in denver. one of the areas where some conflict or disagreement has arisen related to kirkuk, and who should control it and who should get the money for the fields and so forth. i am just curious, how do you think that is going to work itself out? >> i am glad you asked that question, because it is really critical to how iraq develops harmony between the different communities. kirkuk is a city that is oil- rich, multi-ethnic, that has had a very miserable history. a city that was once predominantly kurdish has been ethnically cleansed by successive iraqi governments, not just the saddam government, but prior to that. a city that has had almost half a million people displaced from it, several hundred thousand kurds killed from it, surely because of their kurdish identity, purely because of the fact that they would not subscribe to the former government's believes and ways of governing. the reality is, it is a multi- ethnic city and a multi sectarian city. it is considered disputed territory. the iraqi constitution has a swath of territory that is being administered by the kurdistan regional government, despite -- defined as disputed territory. it is one of the most complicated issues plaguing iraq today. meet its plan is an abundance of oil and natural gas -- beneath its land. if thrown into the mix extremist elements, remnants of al qaeda as network, and you have a very volatile mix. the constitution of iraq outlines a road map on how to resolve the issue of disputed territory, how to make sure that the people that were forcibly evicted from their homes have a legal way to return back to their homes. more to the point, the constitution outlines a process where a census be held, nationally, to determine the national population, but specifically for the disputed territories. what these -- once the steps are outlined and have been accomplished, the constitution states that a referendum be held in the province of kirkuk to determine who administers this area. it is the federal government role, or will there be other alternatives presented for the people who live in these disputed territories? up until now, post-saddam governments have not made good on their promises to implement those articles of the constitution. the issue has been left festering for too long. the longer the issue remains, the more frustrated the people of kirkuk will remain frustrated and will lose out. ultimately, in my opinion, the situation in iraq will never be completely stable, politically or security was, unless we address the issue of disputed territories and bring to close the issue of kirkuk. there is a political road map that outlines what needs to happen. we are just asking our partners and colleagues in the country to fulfill the obligations of that constitution, and lament the articles, give it to the people. that the people of kirkuk make that determination. that is the democratic process, and that is all we are supporting. the issue of oil frequently comes up when we talk ki kirkuk and disputed territories. it is not because of the oil that the kurds of wantkirkuk to come back to the kurdistan region. we have discovered oil all over the kurdistan region. if we resolve the national oil policy, if we come up and define a national oil policy, figure out a way to manage the vast resources that iraq has, boost national production, not just in the north but elsewhere, start to develop the many untapped and undeveloped fields that iraq has, and more importantly, execute the initiatives proposed by the kurdistan government to share the revenue from the sale of oil, regardless of where the oil comes from, but the revenue toward the national treasury and then distribute it out to the region and the provinces, then it does not matter if kirkuk has oil or not. we have been pushing for this and will continue pushing for this. we are confident that if we have a government -- if we get a government in baghdad that we can make this one of the first major agenda items and address this issue, start to genuinely build trust between communities and rectify the genocide and injustice that befell my people for many many decades of until the liberation of iraq. >> to follow-up on some of the other questions, kurds are not just in iraq but in syria, iran, and turkey, and what is your view on a greater kurdistan proposed by these other kurds? >> there are kurds in those countries. we are the largest community of people in the world that do not have their own country. some estimates say we are close to 40 million people now. it does not matter where you are from, whether from iraqi, syrian, kurdistan, or a turkey. -- or turkey. it becomes tough sometimes, but political reality has a way of putting us in check, making us realize what is attainable and what is not, what is in the best interest of our people and what is not. i can say that each kurdish community and each country has its own issues, has its own set of problems, its own set of things going for it and against it. there are very few calls right now to combine greater kurdistan. turkey is aspiring to become a european country. kurds in turkey where to get their full rights, other democratic, cultural, political, educational, cultural rights, then maybe the lure of the greater kurdistan may diminish. the same with syria. kurds in syria get their rights, are treated as citizens and given citizenship, because many are not even given syrian citizenship. if they get treated as equal citizens, you will find the unrest diminishes. this is what happened in iraqi kurdistan. we did not fight for the sake of fighting. we fought for our basic rights. we ultimately secure our goal with a little bit of help from our friends in the united states through political and diplomatic means. we passed the constitution that was drafted and ratified by 11 million people across the country. that is what we are hoping for, that ultimately people will be treated with equal rights, regardless of what religion you support. we are a long way from that, unfortunately. we have to keep struggling for it. >> i wonder what you can tell us about conditions and rules for women in kurdistan? >> this is one of the success stories of the region. historically, it has been the role of women in our society -- it is all too often in negative stereotypes of the middle eastern women, and in particular the kurdish woman. when the men were out fighting, when the work out at war, of being arrested or killed by the former regime, it was the women in our society that had to raise the families. there were the breadwinners. there were the ones raising their homes and building society. kurdish women are very strong. there are strong-willed. they are opinionated. that makes them very effective. i think we need to do more as a culture, as a society, to allow women to integrate more into politics. we have now 30% of our parliament made up of women. but i would like to see a day where the woman does not get a seat in parliament because of quotas, that they get there based on their own courage, their own competence, their own ability. i am confident in many kurdish women i know who are in politics and civil society. they are making their voices heard. that is not to say there are not issues. we have many cultural issues that are not acceptable to the modern woman in kurdistan. i think the strength of our civil society and the women's organizations gives me hope there will be able to keep breaking down those barriers, he modernizing our society and our culture, and truly become a critical fabric of our society and of our democracy. >> i am a member of iie. help me understand the history and ethnicity going back 500 or 1000 years of how the kurds are different from the other people in the middle east. i need that. it will help me understand a lot. >> how much time do you have? [laughter] we can grab a coffee afterwards. we could do a whole 12 steps dedicated on the history of the tribe. we are an indo-european people. we are arian. -- aryan. it is not clear where our origin came from. some say thousands of years ago people migrated from what is today parts of eastern europe. but over the years we were a major [unintelligible] before boats were built, most people travel the silk road from east to west. most troubled in, through, or close to kurdistan. that is probably where we got our persians and farsi from. we occasionally smuggled. that has kind of routed us into this area. there are many famous kurds throughout history. one very famous one is a law had been -- is salahadin, somewhat of a controversial character in kurdistan today. many see him as a hero. others say he fought for islam, not his ethnic ideologies. i stay clear of such debates. we are kurds. that is our ethnicity. our language is kurdish. we are predominantly muslim, predominately suny, but we have shiite muslims to. we have questions. we have an ancient christian religion who live in the kurdistan region, whose ethnicity is kurdish but their religion is different. we have had many kurdish jews as well. unfortunately, very few are living in the region right now. but there are many in the united states, in california. there are many kurds in israel who remember fondly their time living in the kurdistan region. we have historically been home to many different cultures and religions. that kind of tolerance that exists today stems from that culture of tolerance. the fact that we have always been persecuted, we have always been attacked, is why we are so strongly tied to our kurdish identity. it is why our kurdish identity is, for most kurds, more important than their religious identity, their sectarian identity. when we were being massacred, leaders did not come out to cry foul. it was not these are muslims being killed. our kurdish identity kept a strong in that time. i think it will continue to keep a strong as we develop our society. >> i am a retired latin and greek teacher. following up on some of the cultural questions that preceded me, i think we would all be pleased if you would recite your favorite poem or a short story or something in the native language so we get just the flavor of it. i think we would all be pleased if you would do so. [applause] >> i will close with that one. let us get a few more questions. >> i am a international politics student at columbia university. i am curious. you mentioned that you support an american presence in iraq. what the think will happen with the impending removal of troops? >> u.s. troops? >> yes. >> i think the u.s. -- the withdrawal of u.s. forces from iraq makes us very nervous. i am going to be very honest with you. even though you do not have many troops up in kurdistan, we know you are not far away. we have come a long way from the fifties, seventies, eighties, and '90s, to give you a sense of our history. in '88, subgum launched a genocide against our people. he destroyed 4500 of our villages, killed over 200,000 people, used chemical and biological weapons in more than two under 50 instances. in 1991, the gulf war. president bush senior at the end of the war called the iraqi people to take matters into their own hands. we did take matters into our own hands. we liberated our towns and cities only for the government at the time to strike an agreement with the u.s. government and to use their helicopters to crush the uprising. millions of our people fled to the borders of turkey and iran it was only after no-fly zones were established we were able to rebuild our infrastructure and society. we have done a pretty good job, i can say. we have come a long way. we rebuilt most of those villages. we are starting to rebuild our society and overcome the many insecurities we have. but we always have this fear of being let down again, being betrayed again, of being left alone again in a part of the world where we are not very popular because return not arab, persian, do not have a neighboring country to run to, to ask their support. that is not an enviable position. our friends are a thousand miles away from us. the president of your forces right now in iraq -- the presence of air forces in iraq is reassuring. we know this government in iraq, which we are a part of, is not going to hurt our region. but what can happen 15 years from now? we do not expect any of our neighbors to invade tomorrow or the day after your troops pull out. but there is nothing guaranteeing this will not happen five, 10, or 15 years from now pure we do not have a navy. we are landlocked. we do not have an air force. we have good infantry and we have great guerrilla fighters, but that is not enough. your presence, even if it is one soldier, means a lot to us. it is more than your military that we respect, honor, and welcome. it is your political and cultural engagement. it is events like this where americans get to meet kurds, and vice versa. it was a young lady from iraq coming with a group of students and teachers and parents, coming to create these kinds of interactions that teach us more about each other. if we can develop a relationship where the united states is proud of where we have come, because we are proud of where we have gotten to, we can hopefully work toward our relationship that will prevent another atrocity, that will hopefully prevent another genocide eradicating our lands and our livestock. we will always be insecure. we will always feel that any minute we are going to get the trade. that sometimes plays out in our politics. it plays out in our decision making. sometimes when we consider that we are demanding too much or overreaching, or some of the other aspects we get labeled, it is not because we work to be difficult. we have had a lousy history and doing everything we can to prevent that from happening again. we know deep down in being friends and allies with united states will go a long way to prevent that from happening to us again, but on the condition that the u.s. is a permanent allies. thanks again for having me. [applause] >> once again i want to say thank you. we greatly appreciate everything -- your time in coming to denver and your insight. it has been incredibly interesting. thank you very much. from the institute of international education and the denver water affairs council, we look forward to seeing you. we have a number of programs coming up in the fall. rather than hold on to you here and go to the list, i hope you will look online if you have not got -- have not seen the program. take a look. come back and visit us again. thank you very much for being >> tomorrow, >> today, at 7:45 a.m., lalawrence yun. at 8:30, michael waxma flfment. at 9:15, phil mattingly talks about the expansion of government powers. our week-loaning series continues tuesday with the impact on banks. on wednesday we look at how it affectss consumers. thursday, we talk about changes for investors. friday we talk about preventing a future financial crisis. "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> the american institute of certified public accountants held their annual accounting conference. funding is important in war and in times of economic stress. our live coverage begins today at 8 sm 30 a.m. eastern time on c-span2. >> i think what we're trying to do is take away profits. profit is what drives crime. >> tonight, intellectual property theft. assistant deputy director erik barnett on "the communicateors" on c-span2. >> u.s. senate historian, don ritchie, why did you decide to write a small book called "the u.s. congress"? >> i had -- have a series of educated books but not in their field, so they call it science for philosophers and philosophy for scientists. they asked me to write about the congress for people that don't study congress but are interested in what congress does. the series has a tight format, like 35,000 words. i couldn't include everything there is to know about the congress. so my job was to try to take this very complicated institution, which is really two separate institutions, and explain how it developed over time to an audience that are curious, including people that live outside the united states that live in parliamentary government and wonder why we don't have a parliamentary government. >> i'm going to jump into the middle and read back to you what you wrote. in the first congress, senators wanted president washington to come to their chamber when making nomnages and requesting the treaty be ratified to seek their advice as well as their consent. washington demurred, reasoning that the abundance of nominations would make this impractical. he would send nominations to the senate but agreed to the protocol of carrying treaties to their chamber in person. >> we wonder why they don't have big treaties. the fact of the platter is, it didn't work for judge washington. when washington arrived in the chamber in august of 1789 with a series of questions to ask the advice of the senate as well as to get its consent, the senators didn't want to debate this in front of washington. he was quite an imposing figure. it was also summertime, the windows were open, it was hard to hear what was going on. they suggested deferring the questions to a committee. washington said that defeats my purpose of being here. he went back a few days to get a response. after that, he decided he didn't want to go in person. ever since there has been a question, the senate's role is to advise and consent, well, we know what the consent is, two-thirds vote, but what is the advisory role of the legislative branch? that has been a difficult issue ever since 1789, so in this case i was trying to talk about the historical origins of what our current situation is. >> this may sound like a crazy question, but if george washington were to come back today and he saw this picture taken outside of the house,

Transcripts For CSPAN U 20100816

Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20100816

enough to handle bottom line questions very delicately. u always say you're a realist. are we winning losing here? >> we're making progress and progress is winning if you will. but it takes the accumulation of a lot of progress ultimately needless to say to win overall and that's going . . >> after getting into operations and traveling into far reaches of the country. host: more now as he talks about that draw down. >> how stife eling is the concept of this deadline and debate to what you are trying to do here? >> i don't find it that stiffling. the president has been very clear, this is a date when a process begins. it's conditions based. we transition tasks to our counterparts and security forces and various institutions enabling a, quote, responsibly draw down of our forces. next call is afghanistan winnable. thank you for waiting. good morning. i do not think this war is winnable. caller: this war should come to an end as soon as possible. i think us fighting over this is no prize. there is no winner there. no winner in any of these wars. what is the prize. we should stop and try to live in peace. it's about peace, not about war. give thanks. good day. >> top u.s. and nato commander insisted, his job was not to lead a, quote, graceful exit. we'll be taking calls on this topic until about 7:45. where are you calling from? caller: st. louis. the war is unwinnable because the st. louis people had nothing to do with 9/11. go to israel. they were the ones behind 9/11. host: perhaps more interviews coming in the days ahead. san francisco. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i'm thrilled you are having this discussion and thrilled to hear people say this war is unwinnable and should never have happened. the utes is in a quest for empire and oil. we are not there to bring freedom to anybody. it is just i sane how anybody would attack afghanistan. we need to get out now and take care of the people at home losing their jobs. thank you for taking my call and let's get the heck out. host: good morning on the democrat line. caller: i agreed. the war in afghanistan is unwinnable. the taliban is deeply involved. they are smothering the people, especially the women. we are not going to change the mind of the people that's how they are. when we went there after 9/11, we worked with some of the farmers to get rid of some of the poppy they grow, but it has all gone back to poppies which is turned into drugs. we are just spinning our wheels. host: one more short clip of the general on meet press yesterday about winning and possibly losing in afghanistan. >> after what wok a bloody civil war in which different countries in the region would take sides. the prospect is pretty frightening. if we succeed on the other hand. we are succeeding in a region that has linching -- links. it could become the new sill being road, think about the implications to that. >> baltimore sun leads gates with training transitioning some responsibilities as early as spring. likely those forces could assume those responsibilities suren in less violent periods of the country in the barlt son, is the afghanistan war winnable? caller: absolutely not winnable. in the cia report, they have reported that after $300 billion spent by the united states since 2001, we are quoting the "q" ia, worst off than in 2001. others have failed. we need to cut our losses and get out. caller: i 100% agree. now they are fighting us. this is just a big money pit. how many billions are we going to be down. it was announced that china will be the number two economic country behind the united states. they are not spending their money on wars but kicking our buts and we are throwing our money in a pit. it is totally unpredictable. how could you even ask a question are we winning? it's been nine years. this going on for nine years. we spent $2 trillion chasing a bunch of people that can't blowup a pair of shoes. little rock, is the war winning in afghanistan? caller: no. we should never have been there either. the war is no winnable. the republic cans don't care about anybody but themselves and corporations. they voted against the 9/11 survivors. host: the afghan star war a winnable they say. one of their headlines -- >> we also found this piece in the wall street journal today by a professor of economics at nyu >> i un survey say 8-10 organizations are corrupt. caller: no war in the history of mankind have been able to continue without support. the average guy in afghanistan. this war has been going on for nine years. if only took 4.5 years to defeat germany here it is nine years later. describe what exactly winning the war would be and how would he know when we have won it? i want to know when we'll see the flag draped coffins from coming into the united states. the spokesman said this will come later today. thank you for waiting. hello, oregon. you are on the line. caller: i don't thit war is winnable. along with what 98% of the people calling here today. we were told the general would address this on the sunday shows making the round. everybody is doing after snow after they showed us what exactly was going on in the war. how about veterans against the war. thank you so much. >> what do you say, brent? >> good morning. thank you for c-span and for taking my call. i'm readly getting fired of this defeatist attitude. i'll remind each caller that harry reid declared defeat. the first aim a senator doe claired defeat. we have our heads in the sand and caller: we done already had 1,000 wars over here on these soils and we need to get rid of the government. the government that's not listening to the people. we are talking about getting out of debt, this is the debt. asked whether he was certain the counter insurgence wasesquive in a coifpblet where are many regard this as relevant. although he is not tackling afghanistan as he is iraq. he is seeking to duplicate some of the messages that serve well. meets with afghan president about once a day. far more often is the war winnable? caller: i don't believe so. i look back to general, then president eisenhower. i don't see we have ever let up sints in a date since world war ii. it seems there is a lot of mem that make for opportunities off of it. we need to strengthen our borders and our constitutional rights. any military personnel is going to give you that answer. this was necessary. these people were living in the 16th century. women over there were suffering. pakistan was unstable. nuclear threats. the government and pakistan. whether it is wonderful or not, i couldn't say. the idea was necessary to go over there it needed to be cleaned up. i hope it is winnable for the benefit of the people of afghanistan and for the world's security. >> we would not be in afghanistan if the gop and bush did not invade for shel oil. host: arizona now republican. caller: good morning. i have a solution. i was thinking you take all the money we are spending send everybody over there with their sand rails, dirt bikes and quads. it's just big land out there. have dirt biking out there. host: going to the phone caller: when there was a school in every village. the people of afghanistan, i lf them. the question is can they win? it's not a matter of winning at the expense of others. success is a better word. i put the fact that we are there for almost nine years. by the way, we were in vietnam for more than 10 years. this is not longer than veetplanch it's one thing about the money we are spending. i am rooting for afghanistan. the people there are wonderful, except the key countries surrounding it. pakistan, iran. china. the former soviet union countries. this is a critical spot. people need to think about it as though the war just started when obama came in. the way the republicans were conducting it, it was self serving. it was the same as whether his father abandon obbed after zpwan stan. host: wuven headline we found. host: back to the phones. vancouver, washington. is the war winnable? caller: i spent some time in iraq. what i noticed that's why we are not winning and why we are still there. i'm still really amazed there too because we are trying to hand the war off to those nationals. when i was over there, we were getting shot at left and this country is in political danger. we are playing a game scalled the war on tror. host: that was jim there from vancouver. new york city on the line now, republican. caller: of course it is winnable. we have to expand and go into pakistan and iran. host: lots of comments this morning about iraq as well. here is the front page of the christian science monitor. what now, they right. host: wall street journal reports they are weighing a new solution. what they are saying is that senior politicians were weighing a creation of a new commission that would break the 6-month log jame was failed to secure the formation needed. that's from the wall street journal. host: texas, democrats. caller: i think the taxpayers and military lost nine years ago. i think they are winning big. there's been an extra winner in iran from all of the devastation from iran and afghanistan. i think it is already over. host: utah, is the war winnable? caller: it has to be unless we want to all be converting to is rahm there's no other option. christians keep radical christians in check. we have to take extreme measures. host: rhode island on the republican line. your thoughts caller: i think any war we engage in is winnable we need to take the politics out of were. the rules of n gaugement for troops of two weeks if we win it more heavy handed, we could have achieved. the war would be this for years and years and years. china reports to be reloted >> the soft power approach to world affairs. looking for more of that to come out. host: writing out of jerusalem that israel plans to buy 20, u.s. built, radar evading fighter jets built by lockheed martin. attacking after the u.s. military pulls out at the end of 2011. jim in west virginia standing by. good morning. caller: if iraq or afghanistan attacked the united states, would you fight with everything you have to get rid of the outsiders. for all the people who are anti-war now, where were you the last eight years, you hypocrites. host: thank you. caller: i do not think the afghan war is winnable. it's time to bring troops hope and protect our own borders. host: today, the preds will head to mississippi and ill. he will head west to l.a. tuesday, off to seattle, washington and talk more about the economy. on wednesday, ohio. later on wednesday, he'll go to florida as well. thursday, the preds travels to martha's vineyard to start a vacation there. the lead item on the mosque story. flush here says the american people will render their verdict. host: new york city. jim. caller: i think we should pull our trips out a couple more quick stories. the front page of the $862 billion stimulus mplet talking infa structure. they break it down by different programs. commerce, energy in what has been spent and not. it says the white house is under fire for unspent cash. you might want to check it out. "washington post," bp and the u.s. government may decide to move ahead with a process to permanently plug the source through a bottom kill thf well in the gulf. the post reports today, judicial campaign funding. they make the point that while washington argues, a growing number of states are starting to grapple with their own challenge. spending has more than doubled. the surge for other kinds of political races during this same period. this is released by a number of non-partisan groups. >> i don't think either war, we'll be out of there any time soon. it might not be as soon as 2011. even if you look around, you see it surrounds perfectly. we have good reason to be over. if you make it hard to off shore drill. >> you are the last call for this segment. caller: thank you very much. good comments. i don't think we should win in terms of winning a war. we should have an exit host: in the mine time, i knews update from c-span radio. >> 7:45 a.m. eastern. an al qaeda operative has been killed in an air strike. a taliban subcommander was reportedly housing four toe pen shal sue i had bombers. u.s. military said his patrol had been killed. adding that muslims have to build everywhere so follows can pray just like christians and jews co-founder of hamas. new york senator says the comments don't carry any weight he has not yet taken a stand on the building. south korean and u.s. troops launched with a mercyless counter blow. the drills dubbed and label the >> campaign 2010, the debate, rallies, victory and concession all freon your computer any time. host: joining us now, the chief economist of the national association of realtors. how would you describe the market conditions right now? the tax credit we have has really brought buyers into the market. we have bought home values. in that sense, the housing market has stabilized. we have seen the buyers pull significantly. we are seeing slow activity. that was expected. it needs to begin to push and pull. host: we will dig into all of that. remind us the connection between the housing market and whole u.s. economy. guest: simple. people need to have a job and education people save money, make a down payment and buy a home within their budget. over time, they trade up. that was the old fashioned american way. the phone number is on the bottom of the screen. chore you'res is up. some of the details here. that 6% figure, what does it all mean? guest: wreff to go through past bad lending mistakes. there was too much lending going on. we have to flush flew through the system. it appears to have peeked. it set a high level. it is not ricing in significant way. we need to bring that down. he may take an additional six months. due to the past lending mistakes, the key is whether buyers come into the markets. we have seen that right now. it remains to be seen what happens after this year. on the screen, updated housing figures. pending home sales down 2.6%. how about those figures? >> pending contracts, usually takes 2-3 months before people can can close on a home. after a large plung in may. the decline in subsequent months was modest. host: immediate yoon sales prices rose. that's were second quarter figures. the actual price was 177,000. anything there? guest: a large variation of the local prices. in california, median it is $35,000. there's a question about whether there's a possible that prices could fall further. before we get to calls, administration tomorrow. what should we expect there. we understand that. mainly participating in the boom. we know that part led to mark purd evens for the taxpayers. >> tampa, florida. caller: i put down 20% on my first house. bill clinton signed the fair housing act to give financially challenged people the right to buy a house. that was a recipe for disaster. this is crazy. 80% of black children are born out of wedlock. i will never be a democrat again. guest: spinning it around and talking it a triple a rating. with this money, they started lending it to many people. americans reign of homeownership, this is a positive thing for many years. you cannot have this over extension host: let's hear from baltimore. go ahead and turn your sound down on your set. caller: yes. i am calling from baltimore. host: go right ahead. caller: i'm at the age where i would like to sell my existing home. there are many of us in this baby boomer phase. we find out we can no longer sell our home and mover to an's nted assisted living facility. this is going to increase the market going into the years the cost is fairly high. guest: one thing we hear is that some of the homeowners are realistic in determines of their homes are. hard to do for the homeowners. in the current situation. many are siceable homeowners. you say you sell a home but don't have money to pay back in the amount. we will forgive you in the defish yen si. it is a trade off. host: as we look at the action, what is most effective so far? caller: two things, tax credit without a doubt has done a job on relying on the stimulus method. the federal reserve has really driven mort rates down to the lowest level where mortgage rates today are 4 maunt 5 perts. if ever it is a great opportunity for people financially qualified with jobs to look at the market. i don't know all the specifics. the housing and urban development are trying to clarify all of the rules. the principal says in some states. people are losing jobs. some ways they can't make zero loans. good morning. . . . guest: there is the fair housing act. they need to speak to the local officials. they are looking at the income, credit history, and trying to adjust the risk and the rates that matched the characteristics. if it is the case where minority groups are being additionally charged, then you can report to the local housing officials to investigate the situation. host: we have been reading about las vegas being one of the hardest-hit areas. what is like out there? caller: the real estate market, we have been hard hit and things are bad. unemployment is high. i have the questions about -- during the bubble, what was your group doing about any red flags regarding how the underwriting standards were? they were inadequate, and it was obvious -- i attended task force meetings during the growth here questioning the growth rate and the measure to income. none of it made sense. host: let me stop you on the underwriting question. she pointed to your group. guest: back in 2005, at the height of the bubble years, we sent a letter to the housing of urban development and the regulator of fannie and freddie indicating that the standards are lax and to take caution. we indicated that many people are not qualified entering the market. from the organization and also, people need to purchase homes with in their financial budgets. during those years, some realty members, somehow they thought buy, buy, buy is a good thing. people should only buy if they stayed within their budget. hard-earned way to realize american home ownership. host: did you have another point? caller: beyond the poor underwriting standards, there was a lot of fraud that went on. i also -- that was another question for your group. there were fraudulent brokers and buyers working together, putting together fraudulent deals. what is your group -- what has your group the done to provide oversight regarding the fraud? guest: any fraud needs to be looked into. any fraud into the system is unhealthy for the long term health of the housing market. it needs to be prosecuted. our association is not involving the legal matters. if there is a fraud, it needs to be exposed. host: charlotte, north carolina. dan, republican. good morning. caller: the oldest baby boomers will turn 65 next year. we will be older as a country than florida. what will be the effect -- will boomers be able to buy houses? what is the boomer effect on home sales tax guest: about 20 years ago, there was a paper that indicated that as baby boomers retire, the u.s. home that used maybe on the verge of a large decline. that was based on static population. you have baby boomers retiring. in the u.s., we have a healthy respectable population growth. it will show that in 2010, there are roughly 30 million additional people than 10 years ago. so we have this population growth. there is support for housing demand. in japan, they are experiencing population decline. it is all about demographic. the housing start activity has been suppressed the last three years. our analysis indicates that if this continues, we may encounter a housing shortage situation two situation two years -- in about two years. builders are not building. we may encounter the cross. of a housing shortage. host: this"usa today -- this from "usa today." lowest mortgage rates in decades. how long do you think low rates will be around? guest: i am surprised how low the rates have been. 4.5%. one of the reason is the fed has been aggressive in buying mortgage-backed securities. the second reason is the consumer price inflation has been very weak. there has been concerned about deflation. because of low consumer price inflation, lenders can lend knowing the money would have the purchasing power as interest rates are low. i am surprised but i do anticipate it will be inching up as we move towards the end of the year. host: 1 viewer wants more detail about the 6% figure we have been putting out there. guest: last year we have roughly two million foreclosures in the u.s. unexpectedly high. this year could be higher. we're looking at possibly 2.2 million. the worst part of foreclosure is not yet over. we are finding that some of the three modified loans are quickly defaulting. the past lending mistakes -- many of the bad lending aspects would have been through the system. we do anticipate foreclosure rates to climb steadily. as a distressed property comes onto the market, it is helping to stabilize the market. we have seen these trends all current. >> take it deeper. opinion piece inlly the paper. "obama promised the program would spend $75 billion, last month the administration reported it in roles 1.2 for homeowners." guest: homeowners need to take initiative. they have lost their jobs and therefore they cannot make cheap mortgage payment. the government is there to supply some support. many of the foreclosures are occurring with second home owners. people bought a second home and were looking to flip. the rental income did not support the home values. people are throwing in the keys. we are seeing a rise in foreclosures with second home owners. is it a success or failure on the mortgage program? 60% default rate. 60% would the fall. that means it is a 40% successful program. is it the case that the program needs to be readjusted to make sure we get a more meaningful success rate. host: democrat, ill.. caller: my father lived through the depression in chicago. he had a mortgage with a bank. there were 95% of the people were out of work. he went to the bank in chicago and he was going to turn the house over. they said, you might as well stay in there. when you cannot begin to pay us back, begin to pay as back -- when you can begin to pay us back, begin to pay us back. guest: if you will modify the loan, that is much better for the lending institution. perfectlyit preferab reasonable to say yes. acceptwilling to exces less. we went through -- in our society, we go through some tough economic times. over the past 100 years, the u.s. economy has been more prosperous than any in the world. we're in a great recession. we are coming out of it. hopefully we're strengthening the job creation. host: a lot of negative news in a segment like this. there are some bright spots. what regions are doing poor and well right now? ,uest: the region's doing well prices accelerating, are places like washington, d.c., houston market, boston. one commonality is that they have more jobs today than one year ago. that is a test for job creation. there is a high unemployment along the coast. that brought some strengthening in prices for people looking for bargain prices. in places like las vegas, there is still oversupply of the market. too much supply. one of the hardest hit market is that buyers are returning. they are seeing exceptional bargains. holmes selling for $250,000 a few years ago are now selling for $80,000. host: david on the independent line. caller: in 2002, there was an order unsupported by congress our user reefd fees, user it lost -- our usury fees and usury laws, the most a bank could charge was a 5%. if you had $100 credit card charge, the late fee was $5. my father, when he bought his house in 1960, he was making 7 $5 a week. he had no credit at all. -- he was making $75 a week. the recession was caused by bankers who tried to make a low- ipple. job in to giant reptil and giant fees and late charges being rolled into the loan has caused a lot of people not to be able to pay back the loans. guest: i sympathize with the caller's comments. we have to let the market determine if there is a certain amount were the banks cannot charge, it will be caught up in the credit. having said that, one of the reasons for the late charge a fee, higher than normal interest rate fees is that there is a lack of competition. there is a huge bank consolidation. we have few banks. we need more competition in the marketplace. then there would be bankers eagerly looking for clients. it is through the competitive process. host: a couple of stories. house price roller-coaster ride continues. looking at a global perspective. how things doing in other parts of the world? guest: the british market is surprising. britain had a bigger bubble then the u.s. they have seen their prices rise in a double digit fashion. in china, the market is booming the government wants to restrict some of the availability to hold back demand. the u.s., the bubble was not as high as in the british market. we're undergoing a longer downturn. it is difficult to creating jobs and that is holding back consumer confidence. we still have a long way to go in terms of regaining consumer confidence. all real estate is local. it cannot be picked up and sold abroad. it is the movable product. host: there is a call for careful overhaul of u.s. lending. the u.s. does not tend to completely wind down fannie and freddie, given the housing state of the housing market. guest: the housing market is more important for the larger recovery. there could be a double dip recession. we have to get the housing market on firm footing. the mortgage rate is key to that process. in a normal time, it would be functioning fine. these are not normal times. interest rates are exceptionally high. seven %, 8%. much higher than 4%. there is support for fannie and freddie as we try to recover in the housing market. the fannie and freddie situation, that cannot continue. that is the reason for the conference. host: housing bills cloud debate. flint, michigan, is now on the line. caller: the time all real estate is local wings so sure. a trend that started -- b rings to true. a husband and a wife together, the husband bought the first mortgage many years ago before the crash. and now what they are doing is, since the price of all the other homes has fallen, they are walking -- they go out and purchase a new were home that maybe worth $300,000 and they are still in force $150,000, and the turn around and walk away from their original mortgage. the wife goes on the second home. the get the new home ownership tax credit, $9,000. you will never see the market come back until people received a 1099 where they have to pay the tax on the home that they basically dropped onto the community. the turn around and sell it for a short sale. we have seen them in flint. a girlfriend of mine bought a home for 60,000 $25 years ago. now the house sold for $10,000. host: how prevalent is that situation? caller: the husband had the house first in an area that is not so great. they bought a beautiful home and they are happy. they have the $9,000 tax credit. if they could not maintain that other home, eventually this will all get caught up. host: does that happen a lot? guest: it is hard to grasp how prevalent that happens. the banks are realizing it is zero currying. we have seen a rise in foreclosure among second home owners just turning in their keys. if there are two homes, foreclosed on the second home. another aspect is the 1099. if the banks give you the gap between the price you sell for and the mortgage balance, in the past, that has been considered a taxable income. the law has been changed to make sure it is not a taxable income. this will be in additional financial burden because of the economic circumstances. 1099 do go out to people who own second homes. people who are playing this game, they may be surprised to get a 1099. the second home is a possibility. it remains to be seen how this will pan out. they try to be very restrictive in trying to provide loans for second homes. host: oklahoma city, louis. caller: if they do away with the compound interest, go back to simple interest, they could sell a lot more homes. thank you. guest: maybe there would be some banks out there who come out and say it is to complicated and we will come out with simple interest. it depends upon the market forces. right now there is too much consolidation in the financial industry. we need to help facilitate more competition. then you get more innovative ideas and different market products. host: what has changed for the typical home buyer. you said it has gone harder. guest: 2004 and 2005 were bubble years. people did not have to show a pay check to get a loan. it was and unsustainable system. we're going back to the old fashion way of saying, okay shall meet your income if you want to borrow money to show you can repay the loan. i would say rather than being back to normal, it is somewhat overly stringent with underwriting standards. one of the reasons is bank consolidation, lack of competition in the lending arena which is restraining competition that could provide more credit into the market. a down payment for people who want to take out a fha mortgage, the down payment requirement is 3.5%. for fannie and freddie, it could be anywhere from 5% to 10%. for jumbo mortgages, it would be higher down payment requirements. we do not have the situation where people can get a zero down. host: conn. caller: this is a question about private mortgage insurance. why these companies are still in business when the precipitation of the financial crisis was these loans were sold for under water and what role the relationship with the banks pmi have kept banks from restructuring loans. is it true that banks refuse to modify loans because of their contractual relationship with pmi insurers? they have taken huge financial losses. they have to cover those losses. they have taken the huge financial cuts. the caller makes a good point. it is not a simple loan modification program. the lender should just modify the loan. they need to get an approval because many borrowers have taken out a second mortgage. they did not have the 20% down payment. and then there's the private mortgage insurance. they need a release from many players. the original mortgage holder said we are willing to read modified the loan. the other players are taking a leave here process. host: what about sellers? guest: it varies by mortgage. it can be less than two months. in some markets, the jumbo mortgage market cannot take up to six months. the pace on the market has been falling and it is indicating the low rate and people are now getting jobs. host: how about for closures? how has that process changed in the past couple of years? guest: contact your local lender. contact a person from the department of housing and urban development. there are so many programs to help distressed home owners. not everyone can be helped. but the first contact point should be the lender. then contact the local official from the department housing and urban development. they can provide some guidance of how to go through the system. caller: good morning. i have heard other economists say housing prices will eventually be so low that it will go back to an economy where people will be buying houses with cash. people taking get huge loans to pay for a house, a devaluate asset, d.c. that as an imbalance in our current system? as an you see that' imbalance in our current system? guest: people who are not able to get a mortgage, investors who now seeking great value in places like las vegas. they are coming in with all cash and purchasing properties. it is about 20%, so it is much higher than the historic norm. it is rational for consumers to say homes are overvalued. even though they have the financial capacity to enter the market, it would be rational to hold back if the prices fall further. we are not at 2005 values. we're at 2002 levels. it could be even 15 or lower levels. we are seeing buyers taking advantage of the bargain of prices. the bubble has been removed. the price to income ratio is are back in line. the mortgage payments in relation to income implies some under evaluation of home values. there is more likely to a chance at the prices modestly increase. that is not to say it will not decrease. i would think it would be a modest decline if any. all the bubble has been removed. right now is an over correction. host: we have been talking with lawrence yun, vice president of the national association of realtors. we will have a look at internet gambling, some moves of food in congress. plenty more time for your phone calls. but first this campaign 2010 update. >> the president hits the campaign trail today. joining us this morning is nia- malika henderson from "the washington post." guest: the president is going to wisconsin. he will end the day in california. there are competitive governor's races. he will be focusing near los angeles and on the house democrats. nancy pelosi has been putting out messages saying, have a chance to meet barack obama. they are hoping he will be able to raise millions and millions of dollars for the party. host: this fundraiser is for candidates across the country? guest: there was a little dustup between house democrat leader nancy pelosi and robert gibbs. they said the democrats might lose the house. policy will be on stage with barack obama saying -- pelosi will be on stage with barack obama. this was scheduled a long time ago. the dustup happened the two about weeks ago. -- happened about two weeks ago. there are 37 seats that are up. whoever controls these governors sees will control congressional districting and will be in a real power position. tuesday is primary day in washington state. guest: the president is not popular there. his ratings are about 40%. you will not see any big time rallies there. the real intimate setting their and he will have speeches talking about the economy. he can defray the cost of these and make the taxpayers pay for them. host: how is she doing in this race? guest: she is doing ok money- wise. the big problem for her is that 18-year incumbent. governors will be able to distance themselves from the president. they may not have a voting record that ties them to some of the more controversial aspects of the president's agenda so far. but look at the language. how he will frame the democratic agenda and his tenure so far and how does he framed the republicans and how we ties them to president bush. host: she is having him come out to her state. guest: that is because he is not that unpopular in washington. barack obama is still the candidate who tracks voters -- who attracts surrogate voters. they are pivotal -- they were pivotal in electing him in 2008. money is the motivator. mojo.will be gagt he will try to give the candidates a boost. host: where will they be on wednesday? guest: he will be in florida. there is another competitive race for governor. you have some senate races, a primary there involving jeff green. one of the things that will be interesting with these races is how much he campaigns for kendrick meek. the real focus is alex sink. host: heat will go to columbus, ohio. guest: all of these governors races are hyper local races. whether it is health care, double digit unemployment. the unemployment rate in ohio is something like 11.6%. the stimulus package is being debated there. whether or not strickland has been good. these are pivotal states on 2012 as you saw them in the previous campaign. that is why obama is devoting so much time in these next days. he will be in five states over the next three days. host: you have written about whether or not michelle obama will be hitting the campaign trail. a lot of candidates want her to come to her state. guest: she is the most popular democrat in the country. her numbers stand at about 66%. there is some concern about her recent spain trip. things they can roll her out in close races. she can be a counter on to sarah palin, focusing -- we know that sarah palin is focusing on our mama grizzlies. her issues kind of dovetailed nicely with health care. she will talk about her pet issue which is childhood obesity. she can be comfortable talking about that and also campaigning for democratic candidates. in the way we have seen her so far. host: what is the downside of michelle obama getting out in campaign 2010? guest: the downside is that being out on the stump will politicize the first lady. this 66% approval rating, her being seen could eat into that. in 2012, she may not have the same kind of popularity among independents and she may not be able to boost her husband's reelection campaign. they are also afraid she might say or do something that republicans or opponents will ceasseize on. host: how much in dollars could she bring in? guest: michelle obama could bring in 20 million dollars for the party. that is roughly half. the dnc wants those voters back out there. that is roughly half of what michelle obama could do. she retains that of the 2012 campaign. she will be able to bring out the surge in voter, independence, and she will be able to connect with voters as well. host: thank you. for more information, go to our website, c-span.org. host: our guests now is michael waxman. he runs the safe and secure internet gambling initiative. as with look at internet gambling, explain what is going on right now. what are people gambling on? guest: thank you for having me on your show. our focus is really looking at federal policy and doing what makes the most sense to protect consumers. " we have in place is a federal law -- what we have in place is a federal law. it is hypocritical. it has failed. there are millions of american'' gambling on line. they are doing it with offshore operators. they are not licensed or regulated. this underground marketplace is leaving american consumers vulnerable. " we believe it makes sense is to take some -- what we believe make sense is to regulate the industry. there is pending legislation introduced by barney frank which is looking to bring practical standards for making sure that consumers are protected and protected against fraud and underage gambling. this is an approach that i think is common sense. the other benefit of online gambling regulation is the economic benefits. i hope it is something we get to talk about host:. we will put the phone numbers on the screen. if you are for internet .ambling, call this number if you're against internet gambling, call the second number. our guest suggested there might not be enough information for you one way or another. guest: there is a lot to important policy issues. the american public has a chance to understand the issue. internet gambling is not completely under the radar. the media has picked up on it. for the people who understand the issue, they will have a clear sense. tens of millions of americans gamble online. these are people who have a perspective. others are not thinking about it. this is a chance to get a better -- to get better acquainted with the issue. host: give us a sense of what is out there. guest: there are thousands of sites located offshore. they are gambling on poker, sports, casino games. gambling is something that is part of our culture. you can go to las vegas and gamble. you can go to the corner store and buy a lottery ticket. americans enjoy gambling as a leisure activity. they are going online and taking their money and using it how they choose. it is just something that is common. the government takes a look at this and the approach has been, we just need to stop this. when you look get online activity, it doesn't make sense to assume that you can try to stop it. chairman frank is coming at this and he is looking at government intervention and he believes that is inappropriate for the government to be involved. his approach is, let's regulate the industry. let's make sure there are licenses that will be granted to operators. if an operator will receive a license, they have to put in place safeguards to combat underage gambling, a compulsive gambler, fraud. he is making sure this industry is transparent, that there are government watchdogs that are monitoring this industry, and this is a total flip from what we have now, operators that are completely unregulated. it does not mean that there aren't regulated that are not looking to protect consumers. right now there are no assurances. host: i want to throw in an opposing viewpoint. this comes from congressman bacchus. we will put the words on the screen. guest: i think he is making a lot of the arguments for why we need regulation. right now consumers are completely unprotected, and that is the central argument and reason for regulation. we need to make sure there is some policies to protect consumers. one of his concerns is really about gambling and he is looking at it from his moral perspective that's gambling is not something that should be allowed. if you look at our culture, gambling is not something that is new. it is an activity that is already legal in 48 states. the question is whether we will allow americans the right to engage in this act in the privacy of their own home. it is whether we are going to look to protect them or leave them high and dry and vulnerable. a lot of opponents will bring up stories about people who have lost money, their children who are finding ways to find gambling online. that is the problem for why regulation is needed. we need operators that will take control of this industry, that will make sure we are doing everything we can to stop these problems from happening. host: to the phones now for michael waxman. richard, you are our first call. caller: i am for this. i think this will be something that can raise money. we hear democrats saying we should legalize drugs. why will this be different? guest: i appreciate your support of the issue. drugs is a bit different. when we talk about gambling, this is an activity that is already legal throughout most of this country. drugs is something that is very different. the federal government will have to look at it for the health impact. but clearly, you look at online gambling, this is an activity that is already regulated around the country and successfully regulated. you can look at the u.k. and many of the other countries, and they have taken this approach. they have regulated the industry. it has provided the best mechanism for protecting consumers. host: what is the financial argument? guest: right now if you regulate the industry, there is a companion bill to chairman frank's bill. the companion bill has been introduced which deals with the tax impacts and the tax that would be collected. there are estimates that have shown that online gambling regulation for the federal government could generate up to $42 billion. there is a significant amount of money, some estimates are a up to $30 billion that could be collected for state governments. this is important to note that this is new revenue. there is not a lot of sources of new revenue. when you put this new revenue on the table, the real opportunity is to figure out how that will be dedicated. so both at the federal and state level, we have deficits, tremendous budget problems, and i think it is valuable to put this money that right now is being lost offshore to good use. host: we have lines for and against this. we are on with michael waxman. caller: i am against internet gambling. it has robbed people who do not have any control of their money. they just blow it away. i had a relative who was murdered because of this. it is a sad situation. he had five girls. it is just awful. that is just one instance. then we had some of these poor people. i think it is a wish to get rich quick. it is not going to work out. you know who makes the money -- that is why the gambling places are so gorgeous. host: what do you make of the argument about blowing money quickly? guest: i am not here to take a stand for against gambling. my real interest is whether we will regulate the industry and protect consumers. i think there is some social toll to gambling, but it is for people who have a problem. there are a lot of very sad stories that we hear. i am sorry to hear about your personal circumstance and the loss you faced. gambling is an activity that should be done responsibly. we all need to take some responsibility for our actions. if anyone is gambling, they hopefully monitoring their activity and setting aside only the amount of money they want to gamble and not go beyond that. people go too far. one issue that we should be talking about is the prevalence of problem gambling. when you look at problem gambling, there is only 1% of our population that the national council of problem gambling would say are problematic gamblers. other people who may have some issues they need to deal with. for that 1% and for everyone else looking to control their activity, we need to give them the resources and make sure they're being held as much as they can. some of that is by utilizing the structure of the internet to help them. help them determine how long they want to gamble on line. there are systems in place. we need to make sure they are put in place. host: tom from miami. caller: the government doesn't care about people. it is just like cigarettes. gambling is bad for people. it is more regulation. a way to get into our pockets. it is all about how we can make more revenue. i am sick and tired of paying more taxes. it is crazy. guest: right now this is an activity that is not regulated. right now it is true if someone is gambling. this is some new taxes that has been proposed. the taxes are license fees that would be paid by the operator. these would not be coming from individual gamblers. if you look at this industry, these operators want to have an opportunity to get into the marketplace any tax needs to be a responsible one. we're not determining the taxes by the individual gamblers. host: explain the reach of this bill. how would it all connect together? guest: there are thousands of operators call opportunity is to set an opportunity where the government would grant these licenses. in order for an operator to be licensed, they would have to meet certain criteria. they would meet the technical criteria, the financial resources, the integrity in order to get these licenses. it is hard to know how many licenses would be granted. if this market was opened up, some of the first would probably be the landing casinos. they understand the industry and they understand gambling. they already have the brand and in some cases the brand loyalty. they are in a great position to be able to expand this market. some of them are getting involved in this debate. this is a whole new source of revenue that we cannot become a part of. they are arguing that these casinos have been hit hard. if you look at nevada, it is a difficult situation. when they are looking at ways to rebound, having this new revenue, it is a benefit. host: we have ed from michigan. caller: good morning. first of all, i have been around gambling for 50 years, connected with horse racing. if you go to the races and enjoy yourself, that is good. but some people become addicted. some people get addicted to alcohol. you go to these indian casinos and cd's little old ladies -- and you see these little old ladies pulling these one-armed bandits. some of the wealthiest people in the world are behind this. horse racing -- the ruler of dubai, saudi arabia, they have horse racing right in this country. but they do not gamble. you cannot win. it is rigged against you. you cannot win. people are selling this idea and advertising whiskey on television. guest: i think he brings up an important point. gambling is something that should be done responsibly. as far as the odds, he is right. we had this tremendous movement on chairman frank's legislation. they overwhelmingly voted in support of chairman frank's bill. what was the start was the fact that there was bipartisan support in such a partisan environment. it was good to see both sides of the aisle coming together in support of this consumer protection approach. one of the amendment that was billd in chairman frank's required that odds be posted for games online select consumers could make an informed decision. this really is the personal responsibility -- we all need to take responsibility for ourselves and we need to take responsibility for the actions of our children and we need to do everything we can to make sure they cannot gamble online. host: separate games of skill and other games. guest: this has been a big part of the debate up on capitol hill. this would regulate online gambling for all gambling activity except for sports. he has a specific exemption in there for sports gambling. there have been other pieces of legislation that have been introduced. there is a pending bill in the senate introduce that would regulate just games of skill. we believe that if you are going to open up this market, but it should be on all games, including sports. . . of skill, that's fine. i just don't think that that's where we should be ending up. i think that just leaves too many people vulnerable. host: back to the calls. providence, north carolina. suzy, thanks for waiting. hi. caller: hi. i live in providence. i understand my own governor has signed a bill that's going through possibly stop the gaming. and i'd just like to say that i do enjoy them. i do take precautions. they take your i.d. and -- host: mr. waxman. guest: i appreciate where she's coming from. gambling is a form of entertainment for many people. and if they do it responsibly i don't believe it's the rule of government to step in and to stop them. host: argument on the other side from twitter. one viewer tweets in this morning. worst thing that ever happened to mississippi was when they started the casino taking advantage of the poor. how about that argument about the poor might suffer most from this? guest: i think if you are going to have any expansion of gambling, including online, you need to put in place a system to educate consumers. you need to make sure that you're reaching them, you're explaining that gambling is only should be done responsibly , and as i've talked about, when we looking at regulating the industry online, the only way that makes sense if we do everything we can to protect the consumers and dealing with problem gambling, we need to give them the information. we need to make sure there are ways that people can protect themselves from going too far. host: more than 10 minutes left in this segment. san diego, you're on with michael waxman. good morning. caller: yes. this issue sort of makes a trio of libry tarian issues -- libertarian issues. and it just seems as if this is -- we got gambling, we got the legalization of gambling, legalization of drugs, legalization of homosexuality. and this is falling -- libertarian and these issues mass can raid at left-wing issues but they are right-wing issues. what i'm concerned about with gambling is a casualty of gambling is sports. i think he just mentioned sports. over in europe there have been numerous scandals that involved gambling in which games are being fixed. england is probably one country we're seeing enormous amounts of gambling especially in international sports there's often a huge pool of patriotic betting for england to win in england. and so, of course, if you have a huge pool of money on one side for england to win the best thing for the gambling companies to do is make them lose. that way they can keep the money. so that -- in fact, we all saw in the world cup a few weeks ago a goal that we scored against england which should have never been a goal and the goal keeper let it in. and this happens all the time. host: your reaction to that point. guest: well, i think it's going a little bit far to say that these gambling operators are involved in match fixing. what i would share is that when you look at countries where this industry is regulated, there are actually examples of how they've been able to track gambling activity as a way to root out corruption and conclusion in sports. there's -- collusion in sports. there's examples of tennis matches where somebody who was playing was down. the odds were against them. there was a surge in gambling activity. because the gambling activity was online you were able to track the activity. the operator that was accepting the bet ended up not paying out because they believed that statistically this just didn't -- this was an anomaly, this didn't make sense and said there was cheating and there was further investigations. but really what this goes to show is that when you have this activity online you're able to do what these land-based casinos can do which is really track the activity, track the betting patterns and look to make sure that the integrity of these games are in place. host: back to sports. has the u.s. professional sports league weighed in on this issue? guest: they have. the sports leagues historically has been opposed to any expansion of gambling. they first got involved in internet gambling issues in 2006, so the law that we have on the books right now that has prohibited online gambling is the internet gambling enforcement act which was passed in 2006. and included in that law is they said the banks, the credit card companies would need to become the online gambling police and they would be responsible for blocking unlawful gambling transactions which they came back and said this is an impossible task for us to do. it's going to be incredibly burdensome and not likely to stop people from gambling online. when that law was passed there was actually an exemption in there for fantasy sports and for online horseracing. so this is incredibly hypocritical. we're going to determine that online sports racing is -- fantasy sports is acceptable but any types of online gambling activity is not acceptable. then when chairman frank pushed this issue forward, the sports leagues were very much out front and center and said we need to protect the integrity of sports and not allow expansion gambling. i don't think it's a strong argument if people can go to nevada to gamble on sports. if they don't go to nevada they're playing online or they're gambling with a bookie which is certainly not protecting consumers. with the latest movement on legislation and in chairman frank's committee when they did the markup, they actually passed an amendment which clarified that sports gambling would not be a part of this. so there was actual low a statement by them saying they would no longer be involved in this issue. i hope that would be the case but let's see. host: let's go to mark from leavenworth, kansas. good morning. caller: and good morning. host: what would you like to say or ask? caller: i'd say that internet gambling, would it be better for this country right now would be a federal lottery with an oversight committee with certain team owners like -- taking an example. nba and football owners where they can oversee it and they can balance the budget, use that money to balance the budget. that money would directly go to the federal -- the feds and, of course, that oversight committee would help. and what we do is that money would -- that lottery money would go directly to balance the budget only. host: another economic argument. trying to balance the budget. guest: i think that he should take his story to congress and make the argument. host: on this house bill, is there a companion in the senate right now? guest: i mentioned senator menendez's bill. certainly, though, most of the movement on this has happened in the house. it's been led by chairman frank. he's not alone in supporting this legislation. there are many other key supporters. we've got george mitchell. we've got -- sorry -- george miller, john conyers. on the republican side we have peter king, john campbell, ron paul. so there really is this growing bipartisan support that the legislation, chairman frank's bill is up to 70 co-sponsors. in the senate there has been some movement beyond menendez's bill. senator ron wyden has actually introduced that says let's regulate the industry, let's tax it and use the revenue to help provide more health coverage to the uninsured. he also introduced another bill with senator gregg which is dealing with tax reform and simplifying the tax codes. and in that legislation is also the provisions to regulate online gambling. clearly for this to be done it needs to go through the house and senate. i think as the house continues to move forward it's going to put pressure on the smat to bring up this issue. host: and remind us, what has the white house said on this issue? guest: well, the white house has not been involved. they have not publicly commented on it. host: let's hear from south carolina now. it's been. good morning, ben. caller: oh, yes. how you doing? host: fine. caller: earlier a caller came and talked about gambling and drugs and said it's totally different. it's not totally different. it's a very thin line between drugs and gambling. drugs is addictive and alcohol is addictive. and what we are doing -- one other caller said we're knocking over moral pillars and our ethics clean out of america. and if we keep this up we're going to destroy this country. this man sits there like he's so authoritative and honest. but people like him are killing this country. host: let's get a reaction from michael waxman. guest: well, and certainly if you look at the issues, they're similar in that if you come from the be libertarian ideology you do believe that government should be involved only to a certain point or not at all in determining what you're allowed to do at home and so i certainly see how people draw the pair less. but i think -- parallels. but i think in comparing gambling to drugs, i would make the distinction because right now gambling is an an tift that is legal and -- activity that is legal. we're talking about americans allowing to engage in this activity and allowing to be protective. host: our last call is roger. hello, roger. caller: hello. thank you for taking the call. host: sure. caller: i am for gambling online, and i don't see a problem with a guy who wants to bet $5 online on his favorite sports team whether it be basketball or football to not be allowed to do that. now, i do have concerns when we come to the word regulation, because i worry about being regulated as well as george bush regulated the banks in the last eight years. and so when it comes to government regulation that kind of scares me off quite a bit. but i would like to say that that guy would make his bet with a best friend, there's no reason that the government can't use some of that money for the deficit. and i see that in the positive. gambling is a dangerous thing to be doing with a person's money and most people realize that, i think. host: final thought from michael waxman. guest: well, i think that the regulation -- i'm sorry if that's a word that scares you, and maybe that's a word that you have a negative connotation to. let me make sure that it's clear. when we talk about regulation here, all we're talking about is creating some realistic, commonsense framework to make sure that operators are licensed, that there is transparency in their operation, that they are required to do all they can to protect consumers and to fight off some of the challenges that we've seen, which is problem gamblers taking advantage of the system, underage gamblers being able to get online, fraud, identity theft. we need to make sure that consumers are protected from those things because what we have in place right now just doesn't work. prohibition is not going to stop people from gambling online. it's legal around the country. people are finding ways around the legislation, around this prohibition, and regulation really is a commonsense policy, and i think that's why we've had so much growing support and growing momentum for the legislative vehicles that are in place now. and my expectation is that as members of congress come to focus on this issue we'll see that momentum continue because not only are they interested in staying current with the times, putting in place realistic policies that are protecting consumers, but i also do think that new revenue that will be generated while may not be the primary focus is motivating them is going to make a difference and is really capturing much-needed revenue that could be going to offset critical unfunded or underfunded programs or just to reduce the deficit which will be fine with me. host: our guest has been michael waxman. executive director of the safe and secure internet gambling commission. coming up in a couple of minutes, our final segment, we'll look at the new financial regulation bill that's just become law. we'll take a look at specifically what's changing here in washington, d.c., as part of that law with the federal government. in the meantime, another update from c-span radio. >> it's 9:15 a.m. eastern time. the former commanding general of the war in afghanistan, stanley mcchrystal, has accepted a new position in connecticut. an announcement later today is expected to say that yale university will welcome the former general as a lecturer, teaching graduate students, of course, on leadership. iran has announced that it lance to begin construction of 10 uranium enrichment centers across the country by next year and that work on one of the centers will be started by march of 20 is 1. over the weekend, iran and russia confirmed that russians will start loading a nuclear reactor with fuel next week. and this from the justice department, former house majority leader tom delay learned last week that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to former lobbyist jack abramoff. it lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. and those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think it's important that every floridian know that i am a person that's stood up for the principles of the people of the state of florida. >> i'm not going to be part of this culture of corruption and special interest. i'm going to fight only for the people of florida. >> it's campaign 2010 and the c-span video library makes it easy to follow the election i cycle, rallies and de-- election cycle, rallies and debates all free on your computer any time. >> i think what we're trying to do is really frankly take away profit. profit is what drives crime. >> tonight, intellectual property theft on the internet and homeland security's role of stopping it with assistant deputy director erik barnett. "the community indicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: well, our summer "washington journal" series continues this week as we take a look at the financial regulations bill that is just becoming law. quick look at the week ahead. tomorrow is a conversation about this law and its impact on banks. wednesday, the focus will be on consumers. thursday, changes for investors. friday we wrap up this series with a look at which provisions will be aimed to prevent a financial crisis. of course, today, financial regulation and the control of the government. joining us is phil mattingly from bloomberg news. why don't you explain of how will the federal government grow as a result of this bill? guest: it's going to expand a lot. for the last decade, two decades, there's really been kind of an era of deregulation in the financial markets and financial regulation. there's been an effort to roll back some of the strictest great depression era regulations. i think on the heels of the financial crisis of 2008. what you're seeing now is a certain boost. federal agencies throughout the area are getting significantly more power. the treasury department, the federal reserve, the fdic, those folks are really getting a significant amount of area now to kind of oversee our financial market to try and prevent what happened in 2008. host: so there's control, there's power. we'll get to that as far as new agencies or new entities that's part of the bowl bill, what's coming? guest: there's one that's been the hot point of the debate. certainly through the time in congress and now as we look into the establishment of the consumer financial protection bureau, it will be housed within the federal reserve. it really doesn't have much to do with the fed. it will be its own independent agency. a $500 billion budget. large budget. it's oin independent director. i think the point there, the goal there is to try to look after the folks that got hit hard during the financial cry significance. and the officer of thrift supervision, the primary regulator for a.i.g., obviously the insurer that kind of went down in flames in 2008, that will be eliminated. and then you'lly -- and then you'll see a bunch of minor agencies to try to address some of the things that people thought we fell at in 2007, 2008. host: there's a lot going for a bill that might take up to two years to implement this financial regulation bill. our guest is phil mattingly who's a reporter for bloomberg news. he's following things for us. here's the phone numbers on the bottom of the clean. republicans is 202-737-0001. and democrats are 202-737-0001. and independents is 202-628-0205. some of the new -- republicans are 202-737-0001. democrats are 202-737-0002. and independents is 202-628-0205. explain financial reform and that concept and how it might work? guest: the ability to wind down , really to resolve firms, nonbank institutions, firms like a.i.g., like lehman brothers, people that did not -- we did not have the tools to resolve them when they started to fail. what this bill, what this law now will do it gives the treasury department to apoint to the fdic to aid any type of depository institution. it kind of gets rid of their assets in a very organized manner. the fdic will now have the power to do the same thing for nonbank institutions like a lehman brothers, like an a.i.g. the hope being that now the government has a way of dealing with these folks as opposed to ad hoc bailouts, the things you saw during the financial crisis. host: it would establish a 10-member oversight council. and we'll put these main provisions on the screen. we saw the first one. here's the second one. the council, what will it do? guest: the hope, the goal of this council is all of your bases will be covered. there's a lot of what people thought things that slipped through the cracks. a lot of issues, especially in terms of the derivatives markets, in terms of who was regulating who, when were they being regulated, supervisory powers. some folks thought someone was doing it when they won't. this council is really a grouping of all the most powerful regulators, all of the regulators really responsible for our financial markets and their job is going to be try and make sure there are no gaps, that firms that causes some risk, that could possibly bring down the financial system with their failure will always be overseen. and they'll know what they're doing at all times. host: and have a one-time audit. what's that about? guest: this is an explosive issue for many. the fed came in 2008 and exercised something they hadn't exercised. they went through institution-by-institution basis. there wasn't a lot of regulation, oversight into how they acted. so what this is going to do is basically anything that happened in the summer of 2007, any emergency lending facility, any emergency loans, there will be a one-time audit where the government accountability office, the g.a.o., will have an opportunity to look into these loans. there a lot of theories, some conspiratorial of what happened, what they did. the hope is to squash that a lilt and really to shine a light. host: and this new bill would give the comptroller of the currency duties handled previously handled by the thrift supervision. why did this have to happen? guest: it was a way to respond to the bank regulators. there's a term that's called regulatory arbitrage. they are trying to establish an entity or a subsidiary to get the weaker regulators to be the primary regulators. that's what a.i.g. did. the office of thrift soup vigse to become the primary regular the -- supervision to become the primary regulator. and, you know, a lot of folks think they messed up royally. and for that they've been relaced that the m.t.s.'s responsibility has been dispersed. the fdic and a little bit to the fed. host: elaine, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. back in 1913 these are the same promises that was made by the federal reserve proponents. they have never kept their promises then. they have never thue the years -- through the years kept inflation out of our lives or to stabilize the money. in fact, we only have debt notes. and they were responsible for the other crashes through our system back in the early 1900's, back in the 1920's, in the 1930's. it just goes all -- on and on. this bureaucracy is totally illegal. guest: you touched on one of the earlier points. when it comes to the federal reserve, there are a lot of people don't know what the central bank has done. it's kind of generally operates in kind of -- a shroud of secrecy, they try and keep a lot of their stuff private. it's been much more transparent in the last couple of years. there's la of skepticism what have the central bank has done. it can really affect where the economy in a way no one else can. when you look back at the early 2008 and middle 2008 and since then, the fed ace ability to really do whatever it wanted wherever it wanted, and there are plenty of people argued it was necessary. the economy would not be around if it hadn't done what it did. it still scares the heck out of people who are fearful that any one entity within america can have that kind of power. host: susan, republican, good morning to you. caller: would you please discuss -- you know, there are so many other insane parts to this bill but one part that was reported in "the wall street journal" was the $1.6 billion that immediately was withdrawn from the market and the securities and exchange commission hasn't come out and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, we are not going to look at that part of the law, we are not going to enact that part of the law for more than six months. guest: this goes back to changes to the credit rating agencies. obviously these are companies really dominated by three primary companies that a lot of folks are put at the center of the cly cis. their ability -- cry -- crisis. investor-grade ratings on some of the worst securities. the most expensive, one of the most difficult parts of the entire crisis. when it came to regulating them, the goal i think from both parties is to try and eliminate the reliance on these two or three agencies to basically stamp these products as good to go. we try to have investors do their own research, especially the mortgage-backed securities to really understand it. what happened was the securities market and the credit agencies, which are extremely relying upon the bond market, so with this bill we would be liable for anything we rate. and they weren't willing to sign off. when it came to companies looking to -- for bond issuance, they basically said, look, if we don't have your signoff, we won't and we can't legally as the things are written, issue new asset-backed securities. when it came down to -- forbes pulled out. this is what the republicans immediately pointed to. it was a problem. as the caller mention, the s.e.c. put a six-month stay on it. this is almost exactly what they wanted. they wanted companies no longer to have to rely on threes two, three, four credit rating agencies that dominated the margaret. -- market. when it does this much to an entire market shes an entire system, there are a lot of things you don't see coming. this is a week or two weeks right after the bill was passed into law you saw folks kind of sit back and say, wow, this has ramifications all over the place. host: our guest educated at ohio university, a fellowship at the wharton school of business and has worked for "congressional reportly" and now a reporter for bloomberg. phil, a democrat, good morning to you. caller: hello. hi, this is chris. yeah, the question i have about this issue is they pour billions of dollars into the system. why couldn't they assume the resolution that started at the time and let the lawsuits come later? save all the money. i think what they were doing is looking out for their ownselves. why couldn't they taken the authority and say, well, we'll trim up the legal entities later? thanks. guest: i think it's an interesting point. it's one that at the time really in september and october of 2008 you have folks looking to every possible solution. it was unprecedented. nobody had done this before. i think in this case people were looking to contractors and they simply won't grateful. lehman brothers, which ended up failing, the federal reserve pointed to the fact they didn't have the power. congress wasn't willing -- or asked to pass a new resolution authority to actually staff up, to implement a new resolution authority would have taken far more time i think than anybody thought they had during the crisis of september. so their choice, their decision, and it was made, obviously, you can debate its merits, it was made at the time that they wanted to really just kind of dump crash in the system and hope to flourish at the moment. and the hope during the crisis was once the system was stabilized we knew there was going to be a large regulatory overhaul even before -- even before the insurance fell, the treasury department, as you mentioned, was considering a large overhaul, trying to streamline the system. this has been in the works for a couple of years. it simply was not ready at the time of the crisis. host: this bill runs over 2,000 pages, might take two years to implement overall. but we mind of the votes in the house and senate, how close were the votes? guest: it was a partisan vote. kind of like what is going on in the 111th congress. i think two or three republicans were off with that. same with the senate, three, four republicans. this was an issue that i think when debate started, if you looked back in early 2009 and thought there would be one issue where everybody would agree upon it would be overhauling the financial regulatory system. if there was one thing that everybody -- everybody saw the effects of that everybody got hit hard and from the lawmakers' perspective, everyone had constituents that had issues for it would be reregulating wall street. it simply didn't happen. there's a lot of ideology when it comes to regulating, overregulating, if you will and certainly the politics at the time. this is the third major legislative issue pursued by the administration. and folks were just so soured at this point. you really had a number of good-faith efforts, especially in the senate, to try to find some bipartisan compromise. the democrats, the obama administration had the votes. host: and in terms of negotiations and actual policy when it came to the reach of the government under this bill, what exactly did it take at the end of the line to get this passed? guest: you know, there were certainly concessions. i think when you look at the consumer protection financial bureau, this was an issue that republicans had a major problem with from the very beginning. certainly turned it into a government overreach. one agency with a tremendous amount of power. and the concern being this agency, while the focus on consumers, the safety and soundness of the banking system, of an individual institution would be kind of cast aside. the ability of a bank to kind of pursue new products, to profit, to be able to -- and in the long run extend more credit would be pushed aside to move towards a more plain vanilla system. this was initially proposed by the administration, the federal reserve had nothing to do it. it wasn't housed anywhere. the banking system had a problem with it. one of the things the ballparks was able to do is -- the ballparks was able to do is -- the obama administration was able to do is give it a few more checks and balances and reach out to a few more moderate republicans, especially in the house and senate, there was an issue where they said it wouldn't be touching the smallest banks or any businesses that weren't large banks. a lot of language added to kind of appease some of the more moderate republican members. host: lots more calls coming in. bruce, independent line. caller: the lady that called in earlier concerning the legality of the federal reserve bank pretty much hit the nail on the head and shows the mainstream reporters and media as yourself as being someone who won't touch that third wheel. you don't want to go there. you don't want to investigate that. you will not look into the illegality of that because in reality the owners of the federal reserve bank, which is not federal, is there's a privately owned institution now own our government. as a matter of fact, they own most of the governments in the world. and consequently we were -- if we followed this thread back we could go to the rothchilds and the bank of london because they pretty much owned the a.p., reuters and everybody else. so you can't report on them. you won't report on them. and what we need to do is get -- what the constitution says is the country to print its own money. host: give us your perspective. guest: it hits on a really kind of a hot button issue. the federal reserve has become -- it's essentially become an institution that is so polarizing. when it comes to the american economy and what's occurred since its creation, you know, few economies in the world can compare to the success and actually to be honest, the stability of the american economy. however, the federal reserve has a tremendous amount of power. the government tried to address it during financial reform. it is run by -- it's staffed up by the banking system itself. it is a bank. it's a central bank. when it comes to any institution, any entity with the ability to more or less dump cash on the system, to loan to whoever, to do a number of different issues that i think folks have never seen before, there's been a lot of skepticism about the fed. certainly the last 10 to 15 years it's come to be an issue where people wonder, what exactly is this institution doing? it's very secret tif. it's not an -- secretive. it's not one that's open. we have something like bernanke was able to kind of use the authority never been seen before. it fires up folks that believe there should be more information out there, that believe that the federal reserve, for anything that it's done, has done much more in the telling tif category of things. i think -- negative category of things. that was touched upon during this debate. host: you may remember senators dodd and shelby, we heard quite a bit of them. here is senator chris dodd from this bill. >> also, we provided can consumer protection bureau, what a radical idea. people that buy mortgages, have a student loan, a credit card, a car loan, they might have some place in this city that watches out for them with their jobs, their homes, their retirement accounts. and so while this bureau is in place in this bill, the idea was that people when they have the problems they've been through or going through someone is watching out for them. we have a consoumer product safety commission. when you buy a faulty product, what happens when someone abuses or takes advantage, that's happened in so many cases in financial areas that people have a chance to have a redress of their grievance or at least in the outset have an opportunity to address that before it becomes a broader problem? host: it's a good idea, phil mattingly, that senator dodd said this agency but he's come out against elizabeth warren, who has been said by the democratic folks as the right person that's run this agency. what's happened there? guest: elizabeth warren, this was her idea. she was the first person to introduce this idea, a journal piece she wrote back in 2007. she's an interesting figure. she kind of leads the oversight panel for the tarp program, a $700 billion bailout program, has been a regular thorn in the side of the current administration. she has a number of folks who really don't like her at all and i don't think she would have any problem with that. i think she works as somebody who is fighting completely for the consumer. she's a bankruptcy expert. she's been working on issues like this for years. and when it came to the financial protection bureau, she was one of the hardest fighters. when senator dodd said he would not pursue an independent agency, she was the one who really rallied the troops, kind of led the troops to fight for this agency. she is considered the -- she is not confirmable. they need 60 votes in the senate should the administration push it forward, she needs 60 votes. she has a lot of allies in the both the house and senate. republicans have a serious problem with her views on banks. and there are moderate democrats who are concerned of perhaps an overreach of this new agency, concern that she will push things. as i said earlier, kind of restrict innovation. there are plenty of people on both sides who say that either side's argument is completely ridiculous. she's extraordinarily intelligent woman. right now there are issues. she's one of the three finalists that the administration is hoping for the job. certainly chris dodd has been one to vocalize it. no one is sure if they can get her confirmed. host: as far as this overall bill goes, are there any other positions that have to be confirmed by the senate? guest: there's one or two more. the interesting thing that will happen in the next couple of months, much like the supreme court, the obama administration is putting themselves in position to really kind of shape this bill after it's gone through congress. they -- one of the biggest concerns since the bill was signed into law, once it got into the rulemaking process and the regulators it would be done in dark, smokey rools where lobbyists have -- rooms where lobbyists can shape the bill. there is 250 rules. this is the first battle. the war is certainly on. the obama administration now has an opportunity to really appoint, if it hasn't already, all the leading financial regulators as this bill goes forward. sheila bared. there will be that replacement. the office. comptroller of the currency left. this do that appointment. obviously the consumer bureau. they've appointed the f.t.c. heads. they have three appointees to that as well as the reappointment of chairman bernanky. they have an ability to -- bernanky. they have an ablity to shape this bill. caller: looks to me like it's an overt criminal problem and a cover-up problem. fortunately c-span aired the financial crisis hearing. it was a complete blackout across the entire nation. not even one news media that calls themselves as fiscally conservatives like fox news, there was bomb shells dropped. when they were interviewing the fannie and freddie regulators had been cooking the books, unquote. not lenged but we're bound to but no -- alleged but we're bound by regulations. the two regulators made it clear that both parties for five years from 2003 to 2008 knew that there was systemic risk. they covered it up. they've locked at legislation. then look at tim geithner, head of the new york fed, as the meltdown occurred, he was legally charged with examining their books. host: let me jump in. any question for our guest this morning. caller: pardon me? host: is there a question? caller: there is a question. so tim geithner was charged with examining their books to keep tens of billions of dollars off the books. another crime that, of course, timmy geithner didn't want to call to the attention of the public. warren buffett was testifying in front of a crisis inquiring commission on june 2. said to the former cftc director that banks like jpmorgan are, quote, a ticking time bomb, because cutting derivative contracts is opaque when determining underlying value. and my last point is august 3 of this year, senate budget committee. former chief economist of the i.m.f., simon johnson, was testifying before the budget committee and pointed out to judd gregg, ranking republican, and senator conrad that they were violating their own c.b.o. scoring rules because there's still a $6 trillion liability represented to the taxpayer by undercapitalized too big to fail banks. they didn't deny the amount. they didn't deny the $6 trillion. they weren't denying their own scoring rules. so my question to your guest will be, why are you pretending like this isn't a criminal enterprise, why aren't you calling for criminal investigations? thank you. guest: a number of different points on that one. moving back to the fannie and freddie issue. certainly one of the things we haven't even touched on today really wasn't touched on much in the federal overhaul bill is the next really focus for the administration coming forward on regulation. even tomorrow the administration will have its first meeting on kind of overhauling fannie and freddie, the mortgage giants that kind of collapsed in 2008, are still kind of sucking down taxpayer money on a quarterly basis. in terms of crooking the books, this wasn't -- as i understand it, the fannie mae and freddie mac got hammered for their accounting fraud in 2004. it wasn't a secret they had been cooking the books. obviously the two agencies -- the two entities were run was kind of a clinic in how you inappropriately run a business. i don't think anybody would argue that. certainly as we see in the coming months and the coming year how that is addressed. in terms of citigroup's s.i.v.'s, there is accounting rules to try and push some of these off balance sheet entities back on to balance sheets so there is a better reason -- this is one of the issues that's in the shadow banking area where regulators that banks-like citi had all these assets that were off book. they couldn't see it on a regular basis and that was a concern. but i think the biggest thing as you're looking at -- this was such a difficult debate. simon johnson, the m.i.t. professor, the administration really had two choices here. you could really go for a complete overhaul, change the banking system, shrink banks, end too big to fail, really take a part the goldman's, the jpmorgan's, the citi, introduce a glass-steagall law or you could try and get regulators more tools. you can try and get the federal government more ability to kind of see inside these institutions to try to head off a crisis. the administration chose that avenue. they chose the avenue of giving more tools, not the breaking up of the banks. this has upset a number of different people on both sides of the spectrum that goldman is as is. i think both politically, in terms of getting the votes, in terms of an overhaul, this is the best way forward. and i think in terms of international competition, they looked at this as an idea of how would we be placing our financial system and ranking in the world if we were moving our banks to do banks in perhaps england or asia can do? host: more of your calls in a moment. more from senator richard shelby, the senator from alabama, major part of this process with some of his thoughts on the bill. >> nearly two years ago the financial crisis exposed massive deficiencies in the structure and the culture of our financial regulatory system. years of technological advances, product development and the advent of global capital markets rendered the system ill-suited to achieve its mission in the mad earn market. madam president, this distracted regulators from focusing on that mission. instead of acting to preserve safe and sound markets, the regulators primarily became focused on the expanding the scope of their bureaucratic reach. and after the crisis which cost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, it was clear that significant reform was necessary. but despite broad agreement on the need for reform, the majority decided it would rather move forward with a partisan bill. the result is a 2300-page monster, i believe, that expands the scope and power of ineffective bureaucracies. it creates vast new bureaucracies with little accountability and seriously, i believe, undermines the competitiveness of the american economy. host: there's that monster comment regarding the bill. we've heard that quite a bit in the last year or so. regulators were distracted, though, he said. that's his take. what do you think? guest: i think accurate. at least if not distracted then certainly unaware. there are not very many people, if anyone, that was serving during 2008 and was working in 2008 that does not bear some responsibility within the regulators, within the administration, within journalism, really, that really escapes the financial crisis scott free. when it came to the regulators it was one of those issues where everything was going well. the economy was doing great. we were on a good run. and not necessarily got lazy but folks at least got a little bit sloppy and all of a sudden some of the issues that should have been concerning every regulator leverage, some type of capital requirements that folks were subscribing to, some those issues were not focused on any more. i think in hindsight you look back and say, how in the world could this have happened? how could folks be this willing to overlook things? but at the time it was just something that people were not considering. host: ohio, earn ernest on the line for democrats. you have been patient. caller: thank you. the w.t.o., as long as are in charge of the world government and we people will not be able to go up against corporations, and the last thing i want to say is that this guy said there's room enough for [inaudible] for the financial crisis that we're in. the fact of the matter is it would be a cold day in hell before poor people in this country calls rich people to lose one penny because of the the decision that poor people make. guest: i think that's accurate. i think a difficult issue. i think everybody's been dealing with right now is obviously the blame issue. but certainly the fact that the largest institutions, the folks that are largely to blame for taking this system to the brink have been the institutions, the people that have gotten the bailouts, that have gotten the money, that have gotten the government support while a lot of homeowners, some of which -- many of which did not have bad intentions, were not speculating, were not doing any of these things, are finding themselves both out of work and out of a home. the difficult issue, and i think the administration's grappling with this on a daley basis, is how do you -- on a daily basis, is how do you deal with what's been going on? in 2007 and 2008 these issues were so core to our economy it is necessary for the economy to survive that we need to bail them out or else there will be no economy any. -- any more with the hope that these institutions would be lending or at least have the power to lend to the people that have been hit the hardest, the main street folks. you have not seen that happen. the largest banks are more concerned of self-preservation. and more concerned with their shareholders than they are the average american who might be getting foreclosured upon. and i think it's an issue from the banks perspective and it is an issue from the main street perspective that makes no sense. host: next call, long beach, california. independent line for phil mattingly. hi, cl. caller: hi. good morning, gentlemen. actually, my question had been answered by one of year viewers was that i remember reading a long time ago that the federal reserve was not -- it was privately owned. and that i think the lady said it was 1913. i can't remember. because i read so much. congress was in recess and a few congressmen passed that bill and it was like a coup, you know. i don't know what's going on with this government. i don't think we're going to recover. i don't think there will be a recovery. people are optimistic. some are. some aren't. i'm not one of them. i see things happening that are just disgraceful. host: let's get an opinion. you're from houston, texas. on the republican line, go ahead, sir. caller: yeah. i have a two-tier question. what is the mission statement of the fed? and with the fed not instituting technicals, do you think you can control resignations of the manufacturers easier to step outside this country than to take our economic effect of their moving out of the united states? host: thanks. can you help us with that? guest: the fed issue statement is maximum monetary policy. the goal is to obviously stabilize. the money flow in the united states as well as to try and maintain the highest employment level they possibly can. the difficult kind of mandate, if you will, i think people struggled with it since its inception. i think to the other part on the tax code. you know, it's an interesting thing. there are any number of views on how the tax code has benefited and hurt the united states. you move in -- if you move steps one way, all the of a sudden the other way, you're getting hammered. and corporations are regularly looking for any way to save money, to help their bottom line. and there are certainly cases where corporations to move work outside the united states. i think that's going to be addressed in a couple of years. there will be an overhaul of the tax code. i think that will be one of the issues, one of the primary issues, some of the most politicized issues going forward. host: one of your recent headlines to your piece, phil mattingly, financial overhaul law. now comes to battle. we have a process up to two years as the rules are being written move this whole thing forward. you hear the growth and the power of the government. what do you see happening, the push and pull of writing the rules here? guest: it's -- i think i said it earlier. what happened in congress was the first battle. and it might have been considered even the smallest of them going forward. you have every major agency now tasked with writing a number of rules. between 240 to 260 different rules from this 2,300-page legislation. over the next couple years, you said, it will be a rule-writing process that people have never seen before where each agency will write a rule on every part of the financial system. the ability to resolve large, nonbank institutions. creating from scratch. and a derivatives market controlling the derivatives market. and you will see a very structured process. they have a way of writing rules that it's really a step-by-step process. you've seen almost every agency, with the exception of the s.e.c., this will be a very open process. you -- they will be releasing for comment everything they're doing. kind of an effort of ensuring this won't be a backroom type issues. this will be a long deal, very detailed issue for awful these agencies. it will be interesting going forward. everybody is looking for a loophole. everybody is looking for an area to exploit, to kind of find the next big profit center. and how these agencies will deal with that, how are they going to be able to write rules that don't really lead or allow for the next financial crisis. host: democrat line goornings. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: good. caller: i want to tell but two documentries that are very good and they deal with the federal reserve. excuse me i stutter. the first one is called "america: freedom to fascism." that was made by the late aaron russo. and the other one is called -- is called "the owners of america," and that was made by a couple of college students here in nashville. and i would like to ask your guest if he has ever written a book -- read a book called "the creature from jekyll island." guest: i have not read the book. host: tell us about the book. caller: it is the history of the federal reserve. and it's a very interesting book. on ron paul's website, he has a book list of books that he wants folks to read. and that book, you know, called it's called "the creature from jekyll island," that's the second book on his list. i also have a book. my name is arnlede joseph white. and -- aaron old joseph white and i've co-authored a book called divine intervention 9/11" and you can get it at

Transcripts For CSPAN Today In Washington 20100816

wednesday we will focus specifically on consumers. thursday, investors. and friday we'll wrap up the series with a talk on which provisions of the bill aim to prevent a future financial crisis. you can watch the rest of the week at this time on "washington journal." thanks a lot for your time this morning and your phone calls. we'll see you back here tomorrow at 7:00 for more "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . . our coverage of secretary clinton's comments starts at about 11:30 eastern. >> i think what we are trying to do is take away a profit. profit is what drives crime. >> if tonight, intellectual property theft on the internet and homeland security. customs enforcement assistant deputy director erik barnett. >> it is important every floridians know that i was a person to stand up for the state of florida. i will not be part of the culture of bribery, corruption, and special-interest. wexford the c-span video library makes it easy to follow the election cycle, the debates, rallies, victories, and if concession speeches, all free. now to the representative to the u.s. for the kurdish regional government of iraq. qubad talabani is also the son of joel talabani, the iraqi president. he speaks on the current u.s. role to the stability of iraq. he spoke at a forum hosted by the denver world affairs council for about an hour. >> good evening. my name is kim. we're going to have a discussion. i am on the boards of iie. i'm taking the place of karen this evening as your hostess. we have c-span with us this evening. they will be taping uninterrupted. during the question and answer time, after the speakers, we would ask that you please come up to the microphone to ask your question, but do not touch the microphone. also, to watch the people in line and tried to keep it down to four people in line at a time. if there are more, kuwait and we will try to get to your question as soon as the next person is done. -- wait. you have evaluation forms on your chairs. please fill them out. we appreciate that. if you're not a member of iie, take the opportunity to join, because we would love to have you be able to join us at more these kinds of events with these kinds of speakers. with that, i would also ask that you please remember to turn off your cell phones. now's a great moment, if you have not done it, to make sure we don't interrupt. less c.e., i think, with that i am going to say good evening. welcome, on behalf of the institute of international education our speaker series. i am a board member of the institute of international education. i am delighted to be able to welcome to denver qubad talabani, representative of the kurdistan regional government of the united states. he works closely with the u.s. government, media, research groups. we call them think-tank in washington. he has provided critical analysis and up-to-date information on iraqi and kurdistan and the region. we are really looking forward to hearing him this evening. he is also the son of iraqi president jalal talabani. he has in his own right, has been working on political issues from a political family for many years. after the start of operation iraqi freedom in 2003, he served as senior foreign relations officer for the patriotic region of kurdistan. it is one of the leading kurdish political parties in iraq's. he has worked closely with the u.s.-led coalition for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance and also afterwards when it became the coalition provisional authority in iraq. he was a key negotiator in the drafting of the transitional administrative law, which was the first post-saddam hussein constitution in iraq. with that i will take very little of your time. he has appeared on many different television news shows. he has been a commentator and has provided incredibly up-to- date and informed opinions on what is going on in iraq. we look forward to hearing his insights this evening. thank you again. we will have a question and answer time afterwards. we hope that you will stay and ask your questions at that time. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, kim. i love hearing the crowd has evaluation sheets, something to make a person nervous. please give me good marks. [laughter] it is a pleasure to be here. i want to start by thanking the iie for bringing me here and the world affairs council of denver for bringing me to denver. i smiled when one of my staff suggested i fly here early to try to acclimate to the mountains. we do live in a mountainous area and we are used to it. [laughter] it is important for people to know the mountains are the backbone of our soul and our history. they give us the strength and distinguished us in ways that colorado people can appreciate. you will like what you hear. [laughter] we have the mountains, but we would appreciate a your assistance in building some ski resorts. [laughter] if you help us, i guarantee we will be friends a long time. the kurds used to say a long time we have nothing but the mountains. that is less the case today. our greatest friend has long been in the united states. the past few years we have made new friends in unlikely places. those friends are the product of our emerging democracy that we owe so much to the united states for their efforts in liberating us. who are the kurds and what will happen next in iraq and kurdistan? i'm happy to talk about that today. today we are the strongest friends and allies of the united states it are part of eurasia. we have the most aggressive laws, the place with the highest percentage of women in the legislature and most other nations around world. not one american or foreigner has been killed there. a place where christians and others fleeing religious persecution from elsewhere have come to find sanctuary and a future. a we are a place where those seeking to invest, from our new friends in korea and others, where we have tense relations like 30, they're finding our economy vibrant and full of opportunity. we are not far away from denver. [laughter] denver international airport bound for frankfurt. tomorrow morning when you land in germany, you can have a coffee and pastry and u.s. border second luton the flight with a new state of the arts terminal at ifillrbil, which is the capital of my region. time magazine wrote last, "foreigners can go freely. crimes and violence against visitors is unheard of. find your way through the town and experience the legendary welcome. there's the promise of oil dollars from the 25 billion barrels of crude oil reserves. there are new hotels, shopping malls springing up and serving a population of more than 1 million. in aqaba, the laid-back christian quarter, has oilmen, contractors, journalists, eight workers, security teams, and increasingly, tourists. kurdistan in many ways seems a world apart from the rest of iraq, situated in the northern part of the country, it has a distinct history and topography. the kurds are unique ethnic group. 6 million kurds live in iraq and to speak our own language, kurdish, which is one of the two official languages in iraq. parts of kurdistan are lush. a series of mountains has defined our region, for supporting and a medical during the past and has provided shelter to areas in the days of our prosecution and denisad from saddam hussein. -- genocide from saddam hussein. one of the ancient languages of saicivilization, and dramatiaras still spoken in kurdistan. archaeologists have found some of the oldest human fossils ever in the caves. these fossils are the centerpiece of an attraction at the smithsonian natural history museum in washington. curtis stam is where the waters of the tigris and euphrates are found, which helped form the breadbaskets that formed ms. adamec, one of the world's first great civilizations. the shape of kurdish territory and power has shifted over the centuries, -- imperial knights during medieval times, sharing power in the modern era, experiencing political modernization, ethnolinguistics oppression, and sometimes genocide. at times we have come close to achieving statehood. in 1920, the treaty of the serbs was later nullified. in 1946 when the kurds in iran declared a short-lived republic inside iran. in these and other instances, many kurds felt western powers ultimately sold them out in the name of politics. this sense of betrail still lingers in kurdish-western relations. that is where we came from. now we look to where we are today and where we are headed in the future. thanks to the intervention of the united states and others in the gulf war and then the final liberation in 2003, the kurds have a region of their own. it is edible. many of us feel we are living a dream. while not an independent country, we are part of a nation that is learning how to be a democracy. we're experiences are helping shape a new direct. i realize the strong feelings and differences of opinion in the united states regarding the iraq war. i know what the steep cost has been to americans, your sons and daughters, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters, to your national treasure and sharp politics it has created in this great nation. i am thankful for what the u.s. did. it was our liberation. perhaps as lines from a stephen spielberg movie "saving private ryan," is appropriate. gadahn squad leader sees private ryan and explains the mission and seized the sacrifices. "we realize the sacrifices you have made for us. we intend to honor them and to earn them." i think we have already begun. that is one of the reasons i meeting with you today. know kurdistan is what i urge you and all others to do. i know that once you learn about us, you'll find ways to invest in us, not just economic investment but moral investment from investing in our emerging democracy, and democracy fashioned after yours. we need that investment to help us take away the horrors and frustrations of the past and lead us to a more benevolent and engaging future. fulfilling our democratic aspirations is the key for us. i am proud of how democracy is finding a western home in the kurdistan region of iraq. before the opportunity presented itself -- presented itself, we had not had good governance. we had not had a way of administering our own affairs. from the moment the political dynamics change in 1991 and again in 2003, we have been taking steps to ensure that our opportunity is not wasted. over a year ago in the kurdistan region we held our regional elections. this is the maturing of our society. the emphasis on the nuts and bolts of domestic issues that affect people's everyday lives. the turnout was more than 80%. on key national issues there was not much distance between the competing parties. it was perspectives on government performance, roadways, education, concern about corruption, economic development, delivery of water and electricity that say to the debate and decisions that led up to the vote. if it was a clear marker in the shift from the kurdish leaders once hailed for their revolutionary skills, now their visions of governance and ability to make each person's life better every day. that was a clear indication we are grasping the concept of democracy. a vocal and vibrant opposition was there as well. it was an important moment in our history. you will have elections here coming up. i hope your government will form a little quicker than ours. while we are reveling in our efforts to democratize and develop, we are still parts of iraq. this month we will be the largest departure of u.s. forces. we hope that as the u.s. leaves militarily, it will increase its diplomatic effort. we are thrilled the u.s. plans to open up a diplomatic consulate in irbil. an increased u.s. diplomatic engagement in the kurdistan region, working alongside your embassy in baghdad, will cement the gains we have all made working together. equally important will be how iraqi leaders deal with the newfound freedom the country has had. close to five months since the federal elections in march. we have yet to form our government. there also remains tough domestic issues that we iraqis must work out such as revenue sharing, the future of disputed territories, ratified constitutions. these issues will not go away by themselves. solving them is a great party to our friends in the united states. we realize that and look to you for guidance and support. solving these issues is a great party to us and to all iraqis from all walks of life that stood up to overcome the greatest of challenges, including terrorism, violence, a political stalemates, and regional instability. we remain aware that in order for the u.s. to leave and for iraqis to stand up, sustainable federal democracy is needed, continued u.s. engagement, and continued u.s. interest is paramount. a stable, relatively democratic iraq, one that manages its vast natural resources responsibly and utilizes the income the country will receive from them, to play a modern role in the region must be in the interest of the united states. it is the kurds who for years, while fighting to gain basic human rights, are playing a leading role in the government of iraq. we're trying to build a new iraq based on these principles. kurds have been oppressed for most of the last century. we are wary of power centralized in the hands of the federal dermott. we see the iraqi constitution which mandates the devolution of power to the region and local governments. it's the best way to assure all iraqis still feel empowered. the constitution is the law of the land. we will follow it and we expect others to do so. kurdish political demands are limited but fair. regional land western policymakers need to appreciate the role of the. kurds in the as well as our sacrifices and contributions. our commitment to the parts of iraq is unshakeable and is not etched. w-- not hedged. here is how we are at the kurdistan regional government, we know that corruption and its allies are enemies of democracy because they eat at what we desire. they make the public cautious about believing in democracy. corruption and its allies can be an asset to disintegrate democratic progress and we will not let that happen. if we have made government initiatives the top priority. we have teamed up with pricewaterhousecoopers to review current conditions, the way our government works, and all governments related issues, to help develop a key alliance, blunt critique, and action plan to address the crucial issues of good governance, anti- corruption, and transparency. good governance is major for securing democracy. we are confident that this will help us tackle the issue. we have made our region safe and secure and have overcome internal conflicts. we of the established a system to provide improved services to our citizens. we are moving to guarantee that for all of its progress is maintained and built upon. if the benefit of the strategy are clear to our future, to help us ensure public funds are used properly and will help us make our government more efficient and effective. it will improve delivery of services to the people of the kurdistan region and help improve for international and domestic confidence and increase investment and job development while helping to raise the standard of life for our citizens. we understand democracy is an evolutionary process, both in iraq and elsewhere. it is more than just philosophy. key to securing our people's trust will be how we deliver the services. for example, large-scale power generation and water delivery, we have been working several years to implement effective power and water distribution projects. in 2008 our region was dealing with two failing hydroelectric dams. the result was the federally generated electricity. it was only a few hours a day. that was unacceptable. we will now have close to 20 hours of power in major cities in the region. that is much more than the rest of the country. there are 24 hours in a day and we are working towards that. what we have now is much better than what we had years ago. likewise, the recent completion of large-scale water project in our two largest cities will combine with existing systems to provide clean water to much of our region. in the significant accomplishments that have been achieved by our government, there are fundamental critical issues that need to be addressed for people living in our region so they can have basic needs and freedom from want. providing such central services is only part of good governance. we are strengthening judiciary and rule of law, another vital element needed to grow democracy. in 2008 to the judiciary was separated from the rest of the government to create an independent judiciary in the kurdistan region. that judiciary is learning how to stand on its own feet, be objective, and double the rule of law. we did this on our own. if we knew it was the right thing. if we took these initiatives because this is what being a democracy is about. we have a ways to go. that is why we need to have continued u.s. engagement. we are not a perfect democracy, but we are democratizing. we have a vibrant civil society, a free press, and emerging markets and private sector. we recognize our faults and are addressing them, including issues that were once taboo. i must say i am not making excuses without challenges. i'm not just a fine or rationalizing. nor do i pretend problems exist. we have on occasions tumbled, made mistakes, and ms. read circumstances. but the destination is worth it. issues remain and the journey faces rough terrain, however we are still moving forward. this is not a sprint. this is the foundation of our future for our children and grandchildren, for the kurdistan region and iraq. we would like the u.s. to stand with us and iraq as we continue on this journey. thanks for having me. i look forward to answering your questions. [applause] >> good evening. i am david french with the corpus institute. iie and our state department we have an exchange department with six beautiful high school students from iraq. they are with host families. would all of them and are iraq students please stand and wave? thank you. one of the things we know is that young people will change the world. so we have asked one of our bright young iraqis, some from kurdistan, to come up to the mike for a moment and share with a of learned in the last week's. here she comes. >> in from baghdad. i'm from the exchange program between iraqi students and the american students. in this program, it's is a great program. we have learned so many things up to now about leadership and we had a nice experiment in the usa. there's a group of my friends in here, americans and iraqis. we have been in the u.s. one week in vermont and in denver for a week and we will stay another week. we'll go to washington, d.c. all week. an amazing program. i thank all the staff and everyone who worked on the program. a very lovely program. the americans asked us a lot of questions that they did not know about us. we gave information for them because all they see on television and in the media is war and terrible things. i'm glad to be part of this program. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am a part-time teacher at metro state college. what are the possibilities for immigration of kurds from turkey into kurdistan? >> you mean immigration of kurds from turkey into iraqi kurdistan? we have seen a lot of movement for the population as the kurdistan region stabilizes and the standard of living has improved. that has made it far more attractive for many kurds in syria and iran and parts of turkey to come. we have a pretty open door policy as long as people abide by the law, they're welcome. immigration is something the federal government has jurisdiction over, not the regional government. the kurds are proud of the freedoms available, the government that is functioning, the flag that is flying. it is something a lot of people are looking at. >> my name is don cockrel garrett i'm a member of iie. i am very curious as to whether the kurdistan region is in any danger whatsoever of suffering an onslaught, for example, of al qaeda or something in that order? >> we live in pretty neighborhoods, to say the least. [laughter] that in an of itself presents a danger to our existence. the fact we are open about are pro-american attitude also it does not make us too popular in that part of the world. we have a secular government that has separation between mosque and state in the kurdistan region. that raises the extreme groups in the region to target us. they have tried to target the region. in 2002 or 2001 before operation iraqi freedom a group was on the border of the kurdistan region between kurdistan and iran, with the help of u.s. special forces we were able to eradicate that group. we have had no trouble with them since. if we have a tolerant society. our people tolerate views, but they can draw the line with differing views turn into violence and acts of terrorism. if we are constantly vigilant. we are proud of the statistics that no foreigner has been killed in postelection in our region. w-- notes honor has been killed in a hostile -- no foreigner has been killed in hostlile action in our region. >> can you hear me? there was an article in yesterday's "washington post"" f someone with positive things to say about the kurdish government, the progress that has been made. he said the kurds have also worked out a peaceful agreement with their iranian neighbors and could be in help if obama's pursuit of dialogue with tehran is to get on track. could you comment, please? >> living where we live, we have to have good relations with all of our membeneighbors. syria, iran, iraq. iran is a powerful neighbor, a neighbor with a long border shared with us. it is a neighbor that is played a constructive role and a negative role in iran and in the kurdistan region. we have to deal with the reality, to deal with the fact that none are going anywhere anytime soon. we have to find ways of working and living together. we are working closely on the tensions brewing between the united states and iran and between other players in the region. we are concerned because we do live-and anything that is happening, increases intentions will have an effect on the situation in our region. we have also been a very moderating factor. we have been moderating factor in iraq and we believe we can play a moderating factor if beyond our borders. we do have a sizeable kurdish community in turkey, in syria, and in iran. we want to play a positive role, that be necessary. we welcome dialogue. we welcome increase efforts to try to diminish the attention because at the end of the day we have all lived in too tension and conflict over too long a time and it's time for us to get on with our lives and develop infrastructure and build a better life for our citizens and for the region. >> my name is dave butler, retired lawyer. one of the areas where some conflict or disagreement has arisen relates to kirkuk. the city and oil field surrounded and who should control it and get the money from the fields. so forth and so on. how do you think that is going to work itself out? >> i am glad you s that question. it is really critical to how iraq develops, how it's harmony between the different communities develops. a trickkirkuk its oil-rich, mul- ethnic. the city was once predominantly kurdish has been ethnically cleansed by successive iraqi governments. the city has had half a million people displaced from it. several hundred thousand kurds killed from its purely because of their kurdish identity, because of the fact they would not subscribe to the former government's believes and ways of governing. but the reality is, it is a multi-ethnic city, multi -sectarian city. with the iraqi constitution, there's a swath of territory that is out of the area that is currently being administered by the kurdistan regional government, defined as disputed territory. it is one of the most complicated issues facing iraq today. on top of its history of ethnic cleansing and genocide, you have an abundance of oil and natural gas. you throw into the mix extremists elements, al qaeda networks, and you have a volatile mix. the constitution of iraq outlines a roadmap with how to make sure people forcibly moved from their homes have legal ways to return back to reclaim their homes. the constitution outlines the process where a census be held nationally to determine the natural population and specifically for the disputed territories. once these steps have been accomplished, the constitution says the referendum be held in the province of kirkuk to determine who administers these areas. is if the federal government or other alternatives that will be presented to people living in disputed areas? the post-saddam hussein's government has not made good on a promise to implement this. the issue has been left festering. the more the people of kirkuk and other disputed territories will lose out the longest last, because they will get left out of the much-needed development in the country. ultimately, in my opinion, the situation in iraq will never be completely stable politically or security-wise, unless we address the issue of disputed territories, unless we close the issue of kirkuk. there was a constitutional article, political road map, but things need to happen. we are asking our colleagues, partners in the country to fulfil the obligation of that constitution, implement the article, give it to the people. it's not enough to say, "is part of kurdistan. -- to say kirkuk is part of kurdistan. give the people a say. kirkuk does have a lot of oil. but it's not because of the oil there that the kurds want it back in our region. since 2006 we discovered oil all over the kurdistan region. near the border with turkey all the way down to the iranian border. if we resolve the national oil policy, if we define a national oil policy, figure out a way to manage the vast resources that iraq has dom opposed national production not just in the north but elsewhere, helped to develop the many untapped oil fields iraq has, most importantly, execute the initiative that was proposed by the kurdistan government to share the revenues of the oil sales regardless of where the oil comes from, to pull the revenues ato the national treasury -- pool the revenues and then distribute the revenues. we have been pushing for this. we will continue pushing for this. we are confident that if we have a government, if we get a government in baghdad, we can make this one of the best major agenda items. start to generally build trust between communities and rectify the genocide and injustice that befell my people many decades until the liberation of iraq. >> university of colorado, hi. james ---. the kurds are in iran, syria, turkey as well. what is your view of a greater kurdistan in regard to the other kurds? >> kurds do live in those countries. we are the largest community of people in the world that don't have their own country. some estimates say we are 40 million people. it does not matter where you are from, whether you are from syria, turkey, iran, when you realize there's a country represented in the united nations and has a population of 18,000, it is something. political reality has a way of making us realize what is attainable and what is not, what is in the best interest of our people and what is not. i can say that each kurdish community in each country has its own issues, has its own set of problems, things going for it and against it. there are very few calls right now to combine the several parts of kurdistaishh groups. getting cultural and educational rights are important. maybe the lure of kurdistan would diminish. if the kurds in syria are treated as citizens, given citizenship actually -- if they could be treated as equal citizens, you would find the unrest diminished. this is what happened in iraqi kurdistan. we did not fight for the sake of fighting spirit we fought for our basic rights. we ultimately secured our goal with a little help from our friends in united states, through political and diplomatic means. we solidified our rights through drafting a constitution that was ratified by 11 million people across the country. that is what we are hoping for, but the people will ultimately be treated as equal citizens regardless of what ethnicity you are or what religious views you have for support. if we are a long way from that in our part of the world, but we have to keep struggling for it. >> thank you. >> my name is eva chapel. what can you tell me about conditions and roles for women? >> one of the success stories is that it's historically been the role of women in our society is a negative stereotype of the middle eastern woman and in particular the kurdish woman. when the men were out fighting at war or being arrested or sometimes when they were being killed by the former regime, it was a woman in our society that had to raise a family and was the breadwinner. they were the ones building society. kurdish women are very strong. very strong-willed and opinionated. that makes them very effective. i think we need to do more as a culture as a society, to allow them to integrate more into politics. we have 30% of our parliament is made up of women. i would like to see a day where women don't get seats in parliament because of a quota given to them. i want them to get it based on their own courage and competence and abilities. i am confident, the many kurdish women that i know in politics or in ngo's or society are capable of making their voices heard. that is not to say we don't have issues. but i think the strength of our civil society, the strength of the women's organizations, gives me hope that they will be able to keep breaking down barriers, keep modernizing our society and our cultures and becoming a critical fabric of our society and our democracy. >> i am a member of iie. what i'm asking you to help in understanding history and ethnicity going back 500-1000 years or two dozen years of how the kurds are different from the other people in the middle east? i need that. that would help to understand a lot. >> , do you have? [laughter] -- how much time do you have? we could do a long show dedicated on that history. we are in indo-european people. we are not necessarily semetic. it is not clear where we originated. some say thousands of years ago people migrated from what is eastern europe today. over the years, we were a major thoroughfare. if forebodpeople used to travelo quoted from east to west and traveled through or close to the kurdistan region, which is probably why we got our merchant ability. that has bruited us into this area. their rre was a famous cukurd, a controversial character today, prettifies of. many people see him as a hero. others say that he fought for is from and not for its ethnic ideology. our language is kurdish. we are predominately muslim. the government is a sunni muslim, but we have shiite muslims as well. we have christians who are kurds. we have an ancient religion as well who live in the kurdistan region whose religion is different. we have many kurdish views as well. very few of them are living in the kurdistan region right now. there are many in the united states, many in california and many in israel who remembered fondly their times living in the kurdistan region. we have been home to many different cultures and religions. the tolerance that exists today stems from that culture of tolerance. the fact we have always been targeted is why we are so strongly tied to our kurdish identity. that is why our kurdish identity, for most kurds, more important than their religious identity. maybe their sectarian identity. when we were being massacred, muslim leaders around the world did not come and crackdown on that. it's was our kurdish identity that kept us going. it will be strong as we continue to develop our society. >> denver city auditor. i'm a retired latin and greek teacher from the university in denver. following up a little on some of the cultural questions that have preceded me, i think we would all be pleased if you decide your favorite poem or short story or something akin the native language so that we get the flavor of it. i think we would be pleased if you would do that. [laughter] [applause] >> i am a political student. i am curious. you mentioned that he supports an american presence in iraq. what do you think will happen with the impending removal of iraqi troops? how will that affect kurdish politics? >> the u.s. troops? the withdrawal of your forces from iraq makes us very nervous. i'm going to be honest with you. even though we don't have troops in kurdistan, we know that you are not far away. we have come a long way from the 1950's, 1970's, 1980's, early 1990's, to give you a sense of our history, in 1988 as a dom hossein launched the genocide against our people, destroyed 10,500 villages, killed 200,000 people, used for chemical and biological weapons into hundred 50 incidents. in 1991 the gulf war, president bush sr., at the end of the war called on the iraqi people to take matters into their own hands. we took matters into our own hands. we liberated our people. we struck an agreement with the u.s. government and they used helicopters to crush the uprising. millions of our people fled to the borders of turkey and iran. it was only after the no-fly zones were established that we were able to rebuild and rebuild our society. we have done a pretty good job. we have come a long way. we have rebuilt most of those villages. we are starting to rebuild our society and overcome the many insecurities we had. we always have this fear of being let down again, being betrayed again, being left alone again in a part of the world where we are not very popular because we are not arabs and persians, because we don't have a neighboring country to run to, to look to to ask their supports. it is not an enviable position to be in. our friends are thousands of miles away from us. the presence of your forces right now in iraq is somewhat of a reassurance. we know that this government of iraq, of which we are part, -- but what's to say what could happen 10 years from now or 16 years from now? we don't expect our neighbors to invade tomorrow or the day after your troops pulled out, but there's nothing guaranteeing this will not happen in 10 or 15 years from now. we don't have a navy. we are landlocked. we don't have an air force. we have good infantry. we have great guerrilla fighters. but that is not enough. even if it's one soldier. more than your military, who week respect and honor your cultural and political engagement. having the exchanges like we saw with the young lady from iraq coming with her group of students and teachers and parents, creating these kinds of interactions that teach us more about each other, if we can develop a relationship, we can hopefully work towards a relationship and prevent another atrocity, hopefully prevent another genocide of our lands and our livestock. we will hope to feel secure thand not that we're going to gt betrayed any minute. it plays out in our politics. sometimes when we consider overreaching -- we are considered sometimes overreaching. it's not because we want to be difficult. it is because we had a lousy history and we are doing everything we can to prevent that history happening again. we know deep down that being friends with the united states will go a long way to prevent that from happening to us again. on the condition that the u.s. would not turn on its allies. hopefully, it will not. thanks again. thanks for having me. [applause] guec-span>> we greatly appreciar time in coming to denver and your insight has been incredibly interesting. thank you all very much again from the institute of international education and from the denver world affairs council. we look forward to seeing you. we have a number of programs coming up in the fall. rather than hold on to all go through the list, hope you'll look online if you have not gotten the program. take a look, come back to visit us again. thank you very much for being with us tonight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> secretary of state clinton sox about the global health initiative as part of foreign- policy to expand health-care around the world. our coverage of her comments will start at about 11:30 eastern on c-span. >> we are trying to take away profits. profit is what drives crime. homeland security policy role in stopping crime. erik barnett. washington journal summer series continues this week with a look at the new financial regulations law, tomorrow, its impact on banks. a new topic everyone is economic club 15 east and on c-span. -- a new topic every morning this week. this is the resignation announcement of former house republican leader tom delay in 2006. his lawyer announced today that the justice the problem has ended its investigation and will not file criminal charges. investigators were looking into the ties between the former texas rep and a former lobbyist john at abramoff -- jack abramoff, released from prison. home foreclosure rates are rising. we looked into the cause of it. >> joining us is senior vice president for the national association of realtors. an update on the housing market and what it means. how would you describe the market conditions right now? guest: the tax credit has really brought buyers into the market. we have seen home values stabilize for the past 18 months. the housing market has stabilized. as for the tax credit, we have seen the buyers pulled diminished significantly. therefore, we are seeing slow activity after the few months of the tax credit is appearance. but that was expected. we have to go back to the old- fashioned way of people saving their money to buy a house well within their budget. that was the old fashioned american wa . the phone number is on the bottom of the screen. chore you'res is up. some of the details here. that 6% figure, what does it all mean? guest: wreff to go through past bad lending mistakes. there was too much lending going on. we have to flush flew through the system. it appears to have peeked. it set a high level. it is not ricing in significant way. we need to bring that down. he may take an additional six months. due to the past lending mistakes, the key is whether buyers come into the markets. we have seen that right now. it remains to be seen what happens after this year. on the screen, updated housing figures. pending home sales down 2.6%. how about those figures? >> pending contracts, usually takes 2-3 months before people can can close on a home. after a large plung in may. the decline in subsequent months was modest. host: immediate yoon sales prices rose. that's were second quarter figures. the actual price was 177,000. anything there? guest: a large variation of the local prices. in california, median it is $35,000. there's a question about whether there's a possible that prices could fall further. host: before we get to calls, there is a housing summit. which we expect? guest: the overall future -- we understand that there was too much lending. fannie and freddie were participating in the boom. we now know the boom led to the crash and the crash led to a large burden for taxpayers. we want to make sure we do not have a system where bad times, taxpayers have to pick up the slack. we are looking -- the government is looking into how to reform. so taxpayers are not on the clock. host: democrat on the line. caller: they verified my income. bill clinton signed the fair housing act. this gave people the right to buy a house. this was a recipe for disaster. this was just like welfare. 25% of black children were born out of wedlock. now it is 80% of black children born at of welfare. i will never be a democrat again. 80% of black children are born out of wedlock. i will never be a democrat again. guest: spinning it around and talking it a triple a rating. with this money, they started lending it to many people. americanseign of homeownership, this is a positive thing for many years. you cannot have this over extension -- host: hello, louis. caller: this is louis randall: from baltimore. host: go right ahead. caller: i would like to sell my existing home. there are many of us and we find because of the size of the home, we can no longer sell our home and move to assisted living facility. i see this as a problem. many of my friends want to sell. i think this will increase and cause a glut in the market. is there any program that would allow the older people to sell their home and maybe to lease back? or is there a deed in lieu? i think we're stuck and it can no longer put our homes on the market. host: a question from the senior. guest: some of the home owners are unrealistic about the value of their home. if they were to market in a proper way, a price cut, that generally attract buyers. many who are under water may need additional price cuts. this means the homeowner needs to get a short sale approval. the banks say, ok, you sell the home but you do not have enough money to pay back the whole mortgage amount. we will forgive you that amount. there are some government programs trying to alleviate that and trying to shorten some of the short sale processes. talk to the lender about that. there are some laws to help homeowners. also helping some distressed homeowners. host: what has been most effective so far regarding housing? things, tax credit without a doubt has done a job on relying on the stimulus guest: the mortgage rate has been dropped to the lowest level. mortgage rates today are 4.5%. it is a great opportunity. people qualify to look into the market. host: we have been reading about a push for the unemployed homeowners. guest: for some states, where unemployment is very high, they are trying to provide some interest loans for homeowners so they can make payments. that program is coming out. i believe that housing and urban development is trying to clarify all of the rules. but the concept is that in some states where there is high employment, people are losing jobs and find some way to get a low-interest loan. host: next call is from michigan. caller: good morning. i would like to say that even though the percentage rate is low, there is still discrimination involved when you go to get loans if you are black. fannie mae and the other one with the calls for this problem. there is still a problem for black people who are poor even if they saved their money. usually the percentage rate is higher for most middle or lower-income black people. guest: for people who think they are discriminated against, they need to talk to local officials. they are looking at all the paper documentation and the credit history and the upper rates that matches the characteristics. if it is the case that certain minority groups are being charged beyond the normal economic factors, one should report to the local housing officials to investigate. host: a caller from las vegas. we have heard that las vegas is one of the hardest-hit areas. theresa is on the line. caller: the real estate market, we have been hard hit and things are bad. unemployment is high. i have questions about -- during the bubble. what was your group doing about doing any red flags regarding how the underwriting standards were extremely inadequate? it was obvious. i attended a task force meetings and things during the exponential growth here, questioning the growth rates and measure to income and all of that. none of that made sense. host: let me stop you there. she pointed to your group. guest: back in 2005, at the height of the bubble years, we sent a letter to the housing of urban development and the regulator of fannie and freddie indicatinghat the standards are lax and to take caution. we indicated that many people are not qualified entering the market. from the organization and also, people need to purchase homes with in their financial budgets. during those years, some realty members, somehow they thought buy, buy, buy is a good thing. people should only buy ifhey stayed within their budget. hard-earned way to realize american home ownership. host: did you have another point? he poor underwriting standards, there was a lot of fraud caller: beyond the poor underwriting standards, there was a lot of fraud that went on. question for your group. there were fraudulent brokers and buyers working together, putting together fraudulent deals. what has your group the done to provide oversight regarding the fraud? guest: any fraud needs to be looked into. any fraud into the system is unhealthy for the long term health of the housing market. it needs to be prosecuted. our association is not involving the legal matters. if there is a fraud, it needs to be exposed. host: charlotte, north carolina. dan, republican. good morning. caller: the oldest baby boomers will turn 65 next year. we will be older as a country than florida. what will be the effect -- will boomers be able to buy houses? what is the effect on home sales ?ax gue guest: the u.s. home values may be on the verge of a decline. large decline. that was based on static population. you have bab boomers retire, the u.s. home that used maybe on the verge of a large decline. respectable population growth. are roughly 30 million ago. so we have this population growth. demand. population decline. it is all about demographic. the housing start activity has years. our analysis indicates that if this continues, we may encounter a housing shortage situation in about two years. builders are not building. we may encounter the cross. of a housing shortage. host: this is from "usa today." lowest mortgage rates in decades. how long do you think low rates will be around? guest: i am surprised how low the rates have been. 4.5%. one of the reason is the fed has been aggressive in buying mortgage-backed securities. the second reason is the consumer price inflation has been very weak. deflation. because of low consumer price inflation, lenders can lend knowing the money would have the purchasing power as interest rates are low. i am surprised but i do anticipate it will be inching up as we move towards the end of the year. host: 1 viewer wants more detail about the 6% figure we have been putting out there. guest: last year we have roughly two million foreclosures in the u.s. unexpectedly high. this year could be higher. we're looking at possibly 2.2 million. the worst part of foreclosure is not yet over. we are finding that some of the three modified loans are quickly defaulting. the past lending mistakes -- many of the bad lending aspects would have been through the system. we do anticipate foreclosure rates to climb steadily. as a distressed property comes onto the market, it is helping to stabilize the market. we have seen these trends all current. >> take it deeper. there is one opinion piece in the paper. "obama promised the program would spend $75 billion, last month the administration reported it in roles 1.2 for homeowners." guest: homeowners need to take initiative. they have lost their jobs and therefore they cannot make cheap mortgage payment. the government is there to supply some support. many of the foreclosures are occurring with second home owners. people bought a second home and were looking to flip. the rental income did not support the home values. people are throwing in the keys. we are seeing a rise in foreclosures with second home owners. is it a success or failure on the mortgage program? 60% default rate. 60% would the fall. that means it is a 40% successful program. is it the case that the program sure we get a more meaningful success rate? host: democrat, illinois. caller: my father lived through the depression in chicago. he had a mortgage with a bank. there were 95% of the people were out of work. he went to the bank in chicago and he was going to turn the house over. they said, you might as well stay in there. when you can begin to pay us back, begin to pay us back. guest: if you will modify the loan, that is much better for the lending institution. he makes it perfectly reasonable to say yes. we're willing to accept less. we went through -- in our society, we go through some tough economic times. over the past 100 years, the u.s. economy has been more prosperous than any in the world. we're in a great recession. we are coming out of it. hopefully we're strengthening the job creation. host: a lot of negative news in a segment like this. there are some bright spots. what regions are doing poor and well right now? guest: the region's doing well, prices accelerating, are places like washington, d.c., houston market, boston. one commonality is that they have more jobs today than one year ago. that is a test for job creation. there is a high unemployment along the coast. that brought some strengthening in prices for people looking for bargain prices. in places like las vegas, there is still oversupply of the market. too much supply. one of the hardest-hit markets that buyers are returning. they are seeing exceptional bargains. holmes selling for $250,000 a few years ago are now selling for $80,000. host: david on the independent line. caller: in 2002, there was an order unsupported by congress that's outlawed our usury fees and usury laws, the most a bank could charge was 5%. if you had $100 credit card charge, the late fee was $5. my father, when he bought his house in 1960, he was making $75 a week. he had no credit at all. the recession was caused by bankers who tried to make a low-paying job in to giant ripple. and giant fees and late charges being rolled into the loan has caused a lot of people not to be able to pay back the loans. guest: i sympathize with the caller's comments. we have to let the market determine if there is a certain amount were the banks cannot charge, it will be caught up in the credit. having said that, one of the reasons for the late charge a fee, higher than normal interest rate fees is that there is a lack of competition. there is a huge bank consolidation. we have few banks. we need more competition in the marketplace. then there would be bankers eagerly looking for clients. it is through the competitive process. host: a couple of stories. house price roller-coaster ride continues. looking at a global perspective. how things doing in other parts of the world? guest: the british market is surprising. britain had a bigger bubble then the u.s. they have seen their prices rise in a double digit fashion. in china, the market is booming the government wants to restrict some of the availability to hold back demand. the u.s., the bubble was not as high as in the british market. we're undergoing a longer downturn. it is difficult to creating jobs and that is holding back consumer confidence. we still have a long way to go in terms of regaining consumer confidence. all real estate is local. it cannot be picked up and sold abroad. it is the movable product. host: there is a call for careful overhaul of u.s. lending. the u.s. does not tend to completely wind down fannie and freddie, given the housing state of the housing market. guest: the housing market is more important for the larger recovery. there could be a double dip recession. we have to get the housing market on firm footing. the mortgage rate is key to that process. in a normal time, it would be functioning fine. these are not normal times. interest rates are exceptionally high. seven %, 8%. much higher than 4%. there is support for fannie and freddie as we try to recover in the housing market. the fannie and freddie situation, that cannot continue. that is the reason for the conference. host: housing bills cloud debate. flint, michigan, is now on the line. caller: the time all real estate is local rings so sure. a husband and a wife together, the husband bought the first mortgage many years ago before the crash. and now what they are doing is, since the price of all the other homes has fallen, they are walking -- they go out and purchase a new were home that maybe worth $300,000 and they are still in force $150,000, and the turn around and walk away from their original mortgage. the wife goes on the second home. the get the new home ownership tax credit, $9,000. you will never see the market come back until people received a 1099 where they have to pay the tax on the home that they basically dropped onto the community. the turn around and sell it for a short sale. we have seen them in flint. a girlfriend of mine bought a home for 60,000 $25 years ago. now the house sold for $10,000. host: how prevalent is that situation? caller: the husband had the house first in an area that is not so great. they bought a beautiful home and they are happy. they have the $9,000 tax credit. if they could not maintain that other home, eventually this will all get caught up. host: does that happen a lot? guest: it is hard to grasp how prevalent that happens. the banks are realizing it is zero currying. we have seen a rise in foreclosure among second home owners just turning in their keys. if there are two homes, foreclosed on the second home. another aspect is the 1099. if the banks give you the gap between the price you sell for and the mortgage balance, in the past, that has been considered a taxable income. the law has been changed to make sure it is not a taxable income. this will be in additional financial burden because of the economic circumstances. 1099 do go out to people who own second homes. people who are playing this game, they may be surprised to get a 1099. the second home is a possibility. it remains to be seen how this will pan out. they try to be very restrictive in trying to provide loans for second homes. >> we are going live now to johns hopkins university where secretary state clinton will deliver remarks on the obama administration's goal of the global health initiative. the plan to expand health care across the globe. live coverage now here on c- span. [applause] [applause] >> i think you know what is in store for you already. welcome, madame secretary, honored guests, community. i'm the dean of science. the school of advanced international studies and a division of the great johns hopkins university. this is a special greeting for me from our first-year students who i have not officially welcomed yet because they are just starting their orientation just next week. students come from more than 70 countries. it is our custom here to highlight the stepping stones in the careers of every speaker at the school. secretary clinton needs no introduction. her fame extends around the world. let me offer two brief comments on why brings me pleasure to welcome her here today. i can think of no university in the united states which offers a more distinguished an appropriate venue for the secretary's speech on the global health initiative. johns hopkins medicine, the bloomberg school of public health, mayor bloomberg is from the same state. and the school of nursing were all preeminent in education, research, and involving people of a nationalist who come to baltimore to study their and institutions with partners all over the world and partners beyond. we are proud to beat trailblazers in health, having established the global health and foreign policy initiative. the professor has been chosen as a white house fellow and will be joining them to go and work in the health field in the coming year. sais is happy to host you, madame secretary, and to welcome the director of u.s. aid because of our lifelong affiliation with the state department. we have an impressive list of the many ambassadors and senior officials who are graduates in sais. we presently have about 300 sais or the in the state department and another 100 and aid. a graduate work in 140 countries. my second comment has to do with our speaker today. speakers come to sais -- students come to sais. they are always on the lookout for role models. what a privilege to welcome the secretary of state to air school. you can imagine how many of our american students would consider that position as grueling and demanding as it is to be the pinnacle of their career ambition. our young men and women, i would stress, that the lessons require looking through the thain to the ingredients of success. secretary clinton has an ending curiosity about the world around her. she has shown passion to improve the lives of others. these traits -- curiosity, passion, diligent -- are the recipe for building a worthwhile career at any age. enriched, then ry are public is well served. the pulliam is yours. [applause] >> -- the podium is yours. >> thank you so much. [applause] thank you. it is such a pleasure to be here again sais. i want to thank you for that warm and thoughtful introduction. but this is such an exceptional educational institution. i had no idea we had 300 of your alumni. i see in action every day the reaction of the work, the research, the study and preparation that goes on s goes onais. -- that goes on here at of you who will be joining our ranks in the years to come. in addition to the contributions johns hopkins has made in the fields of diplomacy and international law, i want to add about the contributions in health. hopkins is of course home to an excellent medical and nursing schools. and home to the bloomberg school of public health. the school's motto -- protecting health, saving lives, millions at a time -- captures the possibility and the responsibility inherent in the pursuit of better health, whether here in our own country or in communities around the world. new breakthroughs and new knowledge about how to fight disease only add to our responsibility as researchers, students, government officials, and as a nation. each of us is called to find ways to bring those solutions to the people who need them wherever they are, and many contributors to global health are here with us, including representatives from several partner and donor countries, the private sector, multilateral institutions, and public-private enterprises. i want to acknowledge your and their outstanding contributions to saving lives around the globe, often millions at a time. that is the mission i would like to discuss with you today. how the obama administration is building on our commitment to global health by bringing life- saving prevention, treatment, and care to more people in more places. this is a signature of american leadership in the world today. it is also an issue close to my own heart. i have been privileged to visit many parts of the world over the last 20 years. i have come to known countless people who are living proof of what successful global health programs can do. i have met a chevy-positive farmers who now have the strength to spend their day in the fields earning a living, children who wake up every morning under bed nets and then head off to school, eager to learn. new mothers in indonesia who proudly show off healthy babies born into the world with the help of trained midwives. men and women who have grown into adulthood resisting diseases because they had childhood immunizations against polio, measles. these are but a few of the faces of global health that i have seen. people who contribute as parents, workers, and citizens. thanks to the governments, organizations, foundations, and universities like johns hopkins who collaborate to bring medical care about healthy behavior to more parts of the world. these are also the faces of america's commitment. no nation in history has done more to improve global health. we have led the way on some of the greatest public health achievements of our time. smallpox played human kind for thousands of years until we helped end -- smallpox plagued humankind for thousands of years. lifesaving vaccines to nearly 80% of the world's children, up from less than 5% when the program began 36 years ago. it has done so in large part thanks to u.s. dollars and supports. the global distribution of micro nutrients has protected the health of many millions of young children and pregnant women. we are the global leader in the fight against neglected tropical diseases, treaty help prevent at malari for more than 50 million people every year. we provide 60% of the world's donor funding for hiv and aids. 40% of the total global funding for development assistance for health comes from the united states. this is clearly not aemocra this is a non-partisan issue that comes from the heart of america. our leadership has been possible thanks to strong support from both sides of the aisle. i commend the bush administration and in particular, the flagship programs. aids relief and the malaria initiative. i would like to a knowledge two of the people who help make these programs possible. the former aide's leader and the current head of pmi. there are extraordinary contributions. the bill and melinda gates organization has discovered new vaccines and other tools to prevent and treat diseases. to the carter center, which has led the global campaign to eradicate the guinea worm parasite. to the clint foundation which is made aids drugs more affordable for millions. and the other organizations that are finding innovative ways to deliver a life-saving and life- improving care to people worldwide. churches have also led the fight to bring treatment to those in need, including by the plight health volunteers who sometimes faced dangers circumstances to where little or no care exist. several countries were -- people in several countries were murdered in afghanistan as they were treating eye conditions and running a dental clinic. it was a terrible loss for the families and for the world's. it was a terrible loss for those people who had been who -- who would have benefited. stories like these remind us that strengthening global health is a strong priority for government. it is an important part of our national story, one that is not told as often as it should be. today on behalf of the obama administration, i would like to share with you the next chapter in help world wide. it is called the global health initiative, ghi, and represents a new approach, informed by new thinking and aimed at a new goal, to say with the greatest number of lives by increasing our existing health programs and by building upon them to help countries develop their own capacity to improve the health of their own people. before i discuss the specifics, let me take a step back. some may ask why is a secretary of state's giving a speech about global health? some might accuse me of taking a break from other crises to talk about global health. what does maternal health or immunizations or the fight against hiv aids have to do with foreign policy? my answer is, everything. we invest in global help to strengthen fragile states. we have seen the impact of aids and countries stripped of their farmers, teachers, health workers, and other professionals, as well as the millions of orphaned children left behind, whose needs far exceed what any government agency can provide. the destabilizing impact of aids the clinton administration to classify this as a threat. the center for strategic and international studies focused on national security and wants the commission and smart global health policy, cochaired by care and william j. fallen to find new strategies because we believe that will help us build a safer, more secure world. we invest in global health and to support the rise of capable partners who can help us solve regional and global problems. we have seen places where people have struggled on many levels. poverty is usually widespread. infrastructure is usually incomplete. food production and school enrollments are usually low. people who would otherwise take the lead in driving progress for their families and nations are instead dragged down by disease and lost opportunities. we invest in global health to protect our nation's security. the threat posed by the spread of disease in our interconnected world in which thousands of people every day step on a plane in one continent and step off in another. we need a comprehensive, global system for tracking health data, monitoring the threats and coordinating responses. the need for such a system was driven home with the threat of stars. it is cheaper to stop an outbreak before it emerges, but that is hard to do in places where public health services are nonexistent. we invest in global health or ce the united states makes possible is their main experience of us as a country. it can be a powerful one. giving people a chance at a long and healthy life conveys as much about our values as any state visit or strategic dialogue ever could. we invest in global health as a clear and direct expression of our compassion. millions die every year, simply because they lack access to very simple interventions like bed nets or vitamin-fortified food. as a nation, we cannot and must not accept those senseless deaths per it is just not in our dna. americans support their tax dollars going to global health programs because of what the money can do for others. few investments are more consistent with our values. global health is a prime example of how investing our resources strategicallythe list of diseast threaten lives across the world is nearly limitless. our resources are not. we must be strategic and make evidence-based decisions in targeting the most dangerous threat to make sure our investments div long-term picture, not only addressing the urgent needs that people have today, but building the foundation for better health tomorrow and for the next generation. this thinking informs every aspect of the global health initiative, which president obama addressed last year. the united states is investing $63 billion to build upon these programs and take their work to the next level. by collaborating with governments and society groups and individuals, the help broaden its the improvements in public health we can expect. we are shifting their focus from solving problems one at a time to serve the people by considering the circumstances of their lives and insuring they can get the care they need the most. consider the life of a woman in one of our partner countries. she lives in a remote village that has been home to her family for generations. her parents went their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. but now, some quality health care is available to her. within walking distance, there is a clinics supported by pep farm, where she first found out she has hiv and now receives the drugs to keep per healthy. if she makes a longer journey, there is another clinic where she can receive prenatal care and where her children can receive immunizations. sometimes health services, write to her door bringing bed nets to protect her family from malaria. for others, she is on her own. crowe local clinic is well stocked with anti-retro virals, but it is empty of antibiotics. if she has trouble giving birth, the nearest facility is hundreds of miles away. she faces the real risk of becoming the one in 22 women who die in childbirth. while her home has been sprayed for mosquitoes, she has no access to clean water. soaker children may escape malaria, -- so her children may escape malaria only to die from diarrhea. the landscape is much improved, but the shortcomings are significant. there is too little coordination among the organizations, including in our own government that deliver health services. critical gaps are left unaddressed. diseases are often treated in isolation rather than bundled together, forcing people to travel to multiple clinics to meet their and their children's basic health needs. there is too little innovation focused on designing technologies and strategies that can work in resource-poor places and help the people who are hardest to reach. another problem comes into view. a lack of in-country capacity. donor countries and out sidengo's have stepped in -- and didide ngo's or countries not have the money to deliver the help themselves. it is a temporary fix, not a long-term solution. in too many places, it has come to serve as a long-term solution. as a result, this woman's current access to care is erratic and her future access to care is uncertain. she is vulnerable to development trends in places far from where she lives. she has little control over the quality of care provided to her and her family. if her elected leaders were more heavily invested, she would have more of a voice in the system. the fundamental purpose of the global health initiative is to address these problems by tying individual health programs together in a coordinated, sustainable system of care with the countries themselves in the lead. we're taking the investments our country has made. the malaria initiative, maternal and child health. family planning and other critical health areas, building on the work of a disease across the federal government such as the centers for disease control, and expanding their reach by improving the overall environment in which health services are delivered. our investments can have a bigger impact and patients can gain access to more and better care. as a result, they can lead healthier lives. to illustrate how this will work, consider how it will impact one of our most successful global health programs. in the past seven years, they have provided millions of people with the prevention services across africa, asia, and the caribbean. it has also changed the conventional wisdom about treatment. many believe treating people with hiv in poor countries was impossible because the drugs were effective only if they were taken according to a precise schedule and with sufficient food. for people living in places with food shortages and without health clinics or health professionals, it seemed like treatment would forever be out of reach. but the united states cannot accept the injustice of allowing millions to die when we did have the drugs to save them. we set up clinics and trained health professionals and improved shipping and storage, so the experiment worked. the number of people in africa on anti retro files was fewer than 50,000. today, more than 5 million peop

Transcripts For CSPAN The Communicators 20100814

who are providers? what are you leveraging? silence. i understand that. players are busy. you have deteriorated housing stock. you have budgets slashed. you have all these challenges. i am saying that if you are not thinking about broadband technology as a way to transform the way you do government your community will not be competitive as ours. this is about a competitive, innovative community. you cannot afford to overlook that infrastructure and that innovation or you lose. you snooze, you lose. we are beginning to see a greater awareness of the fact that for the first time we have a national broadband plan. you can quibble with what is in it. but the fact that we actually have a national plan and have some goals -- ever community should be looking at the same thing. what is our broadband plan? what is our plan that will help our community retain jobs, improve educational attainment, and get access to health care? almost anything you are doing already to make your city better, you can leverage that with the technology of innovation of the future, which is high speed broadband. >> i want to pause and see if we have questions from the audience before i wrap things up. if not -- all right. i think it is really interesting that we wrap things up on the idea of the national broadband plan. not only do i think our conversation reflects -- we basically went through all the national purposes section of the national broadband plan. that is something we talk about a lot on the site. that is something we will continue to talk about and highlight. we hope to have you as a guest contributor on the site. we look forward to going on with our series, broadband connections, where we will have other guests chat with us as you did today, mayor richard. we want to thank you for being here today and look forward to continuing the broadband dialogue. [applause] >> tonight, remarks from president obama on the gulf of mexico oil spill. earlier today, he visited panama city, florida, and gave a statement to the press about where bp and local communities go from here. watch his comments tonight here on c-span. >> this week on "communicators," a discussion on the role of homeland security in stopping intellectual property theft. our guest is dr. erik barnett. erik barnett >> -- >> erik barnett what is your responsibility when it comes to counterfeit and piracy? >> i am the assistant deputy director of i.c.e. we aim to protect american businesses from having their products taken, copied, and sold. imitations. or if it is electronic data like a movie being put on the internet, where responsibility is the second-largest the federal law enforcement agency. we are using our agency to enforce criminal laws that protect american companies. >> it is immigration and customs responsibility. this is an international problem? >> it is an international problem. the united states is not alone in having its products taken and sold as counterfeits. we are fortunate because we have 63 offices in 44 countries. we work with our partners to make sure we can enforce american laws especially, and other countries' laws if they have them. >> we want to 0 in on intellectual property and piracy. what issues are we talking about when we say intellectual property? >> it is the protection of a copyright or trademark. there are criminal laws that specifically allow i.c.e., the fbi, and others to enforce those laws, working with the department of justice. what we are talking about is theft. we are talking about individuals and sometimes criminal organizations that are stealing. they're stealing american ideas, american products, and american innovation. they are taking that and selling it as their own. it is either a shoddy copy -- a camcorder movie or a protest song. they put that out over the internet and charge money for it or accept revenue for it. >> have you estimate how much this is costing american businesses and how much it is costing the american taxpayer? >> there are estimates. those estimates are that the united states has lost 375,000 jobs through counterfeiting and piracy and billions of dollars in lost revenue, lost taxes. a lot of these industries, especially the entertainment industry's -- their products, when they are legitimately sold, fund health insurance for employees, fund pension plans. there are unions that specifically exist for the purpose of helping their members have health insurance and pension plans. that is all from the revenue generated from the legitimate sale of their product. >> the director of immigration and customs enforcement at a press conference in july had this to say about u.s. efforts on a specific project to work on -- "operation in our sites." >> today, we announced a long- term effort to turn the tables on these themes. in coordination with our partners at the property rights center, we are launching "operation in our sites," a sustained effort to combat criminal counterfeiting and piracy over the internet. working with industry, we will systematically target web sites that offer counterfeit or pirated products. we will see is the web sites. we will prosecute the owners. we will forfeit the illegal proceeds. if a site reappears, so will we. it's the criminals move overseas, we will follow. >> erik barnett, what is "operation in our sites"? >> if it is an i.c.e.-led operation designed to attack websites and other operators that are engaged in online piracy. it is websites that specifically are offering, in this instance, free movies. sometimes they even came courted or illegally copied. counterfeit software. music. it also is broader. it will look at counterfeit pharmaceuticals, health and safety items, electronics, and other types of items that are regularly paddled over the internet. isaac wolf is also joining us. he is a reporter with the scripps howard news service. >> for every one of these sites that is removed, others replace it. somebody who regularly use this content said he had noticed movie sites had gone down recently, but with a few clicks had no problems finding the same movies and tv shows he wanted to watch. how is this not a game of welcome all -- of whack a mole? >> we took down 59 domain names recently. there are going to be other criminals out there, and other criminal sites. we want to be effective in taking out the largest sites. we work directly with the motion picture association of america to make sure the sites we were looking at were the sights that offered the most content, the most protected content. when you looked at the ratings, for instance, of these sites -- there is a group called alexa rankings. a lower ranking is better. it is a golf score. one of the sites was 257th most popular internet site in the united states. by taking out those sites, we not only reduced the ability of these counterfeiters and corridors to put content online. we also took away their ability to generate ad revenue. the sites exist to generate profit. that is what all criminal activity is designed to do. these sites take nine to 15 months to build up the type of buzz and traffic they need to generate sufficient ad revenue. by taking their domain names and their ability to exist, we have taken away their ability to get ad traffic and therefore money. >> i understand a lot do not host, but ask as a central -- but act as a central hub in a peer-to-peer system. can you talk about those issues? >> we are seeing not as much peer-to-peer infringement of content sharing. what we are seeing is linking sites. the linking sites, of the nine general sites we took down -- seven of them were linking sites. one was a cyber blocker. there are a lot of sites that are as you say hosting the content, but are not necessarily bringing people there. it is the linking sites springing people there. both are very dangerous because what they allow is parterres and counterfeiters to post product out there for individuals to download. of course, no revenue goes to the industry and the american companies. >> what is a cyber locker? >> think of it as a self storage facility. you take your items and put them there. when you want to, you go get them. there are others storing their own items. it is a little different because you might go look at the other person pep self-storage locker. they exist, basically, as an on- line way of storing especially large files, such as movies and sometimes music. >> there is a 2009 rand corporation study linking piracy of movies and other intellectual property to organized crime. has that been the case with these targets? are we seeing drug cartels or sophisticated organizations? or is this more individuals who want to show the latest episode of "entourage"? >> you will see some international criminal organizations. we have seen that. sometimes, you see the proverbial 25 year-old who lives with their parents and is tech savvy and able to host a site easily. unfortunately, it is fairly easy to set up a site and get content -- protected content -- on that site, and then get ad revenue. >> speaking about this operation, the clip we just saw of the i.c.e. director. he said on monday 37,000 people watched a pirated copy of sex and the city park to on tvshack.net. how much information does i.c.e. have about those 37,000 s?dividual stocks > >> we are looking at the individuals who host these sites, operate these sites, and generate profit from other people's protected content. the 37,000 people are probably all over the world. what they should understand and hopefully understand, and this is not necessarily a law enforcement responsibility -- by downloading the movie, they are taking away jobs. there are individuals who rely on the genuine sale of whichever movie. they rely on those sales for their own health care and their own pensions. >> i understand where you're coming from, but back to the question. how much information does the department of homeland security and other investigative agencies around the world have about those individuals who actually downloaded or streamed content? >> what i can tell you is the individual ip addresses were not a part of our investigation. that is not an area we have, as you said earlier, a lot of space to look at. it is not beneficial to curing the overall problem. >> that is different from what the music industry did, where it would go after some kid who was downloading. >> i think ours is a criminal law enforcement responsibility. the music industry took on a civil responsibility on their own. a lot of industries do. as a criminal law enforcement agencies, we want to look at individuals who are violating federal criminal law. that was violated by putting the material out there for a commercial purpose on the internet. >> where are the sites based? >> of the original nine large sites we see on june 30, seven were hosting in countries we have good working relationships with. some were posted in the united states. the rest were hosted mostly in western european countries. >> it is interesting. you brought up the recording industry. i understand that in 2008 they essentially waved the white flag and gave up prosecuting consumers who are illegally downloading music. to what extent is a criminal prosecution of the individual posting going to have any more of an effect than the entertainment industry has tried to get the last decade, and up to a large degree given up on for consumers? how is this going to be any more effective? >> i think what we are trying to do is take away profit. profit is what drives crime. without commenting on what others have done in the past, what we are doing is seizing the domain name. the domain name is the identity of the site. a very easy analogy is mcdonald's. people go to mcdonald's because they like the food and know what they are getting. the trust it. if you change the name tomorrow and called it box burgers, not as many people are going to go there. that is what we are doing. we are taking away their ability to generate revenue. if enough individuals realize they will not generate revenue from this activity there will not engage in it. in addition, one of the spinoffs we had that was unanticipated was two for large content- driven sites voluntarily shut themselves down on july 1 after our action was announced. we hope that continues. >> you have taken down these sites that were using pirated materials. were there prosecutions? were there arrests? >> these are ongoing criminal investigations. as you know, all law enforcement agencies -- our end goal is to enforce the law. that includes arrests and prosecutions. because that are ongoing, i can i get into tremendous detail. someone on-line had this to say. immigrations and customs enforcement is part of homeland security, and acting as police for private movie studios hardly seems like a homeland security issue. shutting down streaming movie sites, even if you seize their assets, as ice has, is almost a futile pursuit. >> i can understand where he believes his own personal opinions. but what we are talking about here is a criminal law being violated. holland security has several responsibilities. one is the economic security of this country. economic security as part of national security. we are talking about taking individuals' livelihood away from them by stealing their content and put it on the internet. that is not something the united states government can ignore because one individual or a couple of individuals think we are not going to enforce the criminal law. criminal laws were passed by congress. it is the executive branch's responsibility to enforce them. >> our guest is erik barnett, assistant director of immigration and customs enforcement. also joining us is isaac wolf of scripps howard news service. >> , is the demand for these shows based on a failure by the entertainment industry to provide at a cost-competitive or reasonable price this content? i know a lot of people i talk to who still this content. show -- a site that offered 50 cents signed a show and had everything, i would do that. i am not going to subscribe to hbo just to watch our dry. how much of this is simply a failure by the entertainment industry? >> i understand the question, but i am a law enforcement officer. i have been in law enforcement my entire career. the analogy would be that these tv sets are too expensive, and so somebody stealing that tv set is ok. i think we have to look at, again, is that these are crimes for a reason. they actually have a tangible impact on an individual. it is not just the movie industry or the music industry that is suffering. we are seeing counterfeiting and piracy in all areas of american business. it is not luxury handbags anymore. it is every item that has a profit margin that is being counterfeited. from a law-enforcement agency perspective, understanding there are some policy considerations, we look at it as a criminal matter and will enforce the law. >> unfortunately, i am old enough to know what a music store is and having to pay for a cd. there is a generation growing up that expects free movies, free music. is that something you have to fight? >> i am old enough to remember when we paid for lps. i will say that public attitude is really important. we do recognize that there are a lot of sites. there is a lot of opportunity. individuals like my 10 year-old son or a-year-old daughter will learn very quickly how to obtain things for free over the internet. public awareness is a major part of what we are trying to do. i.c.e. is the lead of international preparation -- intellectual property rights. we have posted symposiums on the connection between intellectual property theft and organized crime, because we want to make a statement that simply downloading a song or movie -- the proceeds from that could become part of the criminals profit. >> what evidence you have that the streaming or downloadable, illegally-copied movies are being used by organized crime, as opposed to individuals who see this as their own business model? thought >> again, there is a broad range of individuals engaged in all criminal activity. but whether it is the download of movies or counterfeiting purses and electronics, we do see organized criminal enterprise. that is most specifically in the hard goods area, an area where from our own investigations and anecdotally we know that individuals that used to be engaged in other criminal activity turned to counterfeiting and piracy because the believe is more probable with less penalty. >> hard goods area? can you define that? >> those are mostly what you would think of as luxury goods -- purses and some of the other items. >> that is not what we are talking about today, which is online publishing. but i am getting at is it seems to me more of a jump to connect organized crime to streaming illegal copies of "sex and the city." you are not talking about pharmaceuticals, handbags, or even dvd's, which i understand mexican drug cartels have a hand in. that is something else. what evidence do you have specifically for online a stream or downloaded movies or television shows? >> our organizations are ongoing. the message really needs to be that there is that involved. what did that that is committed by organized criminal enterprises or just a group of individuals that engaged in a conspiracy to commit theft, there is still an element of criminal enterprise in there. it is not because a nostra, but the reality is you are dealing with organized criminal elements. >> the obama administration made this a priority. >> i am not a political appointee, but the vice president has held a summit on this. the president appointed for the first time ever an international -- and intellectual property enforcement coordinator, whose sole job is to coordinate the government's response to counterfeiting and piracy. i.c.e. works very closely with her office and on the joint strategic plan recently announced by vice president biden. >> has congress given you enough tools, in your view, to do your job? >> although i am not a political appointee, i am also not usually allowed to ask for more resources. i.c.e. considers this a high priority for enforcement, for all of the reasons we talked about. we recently were fortunate to receive a $5 million line item in the budget for the center. that will help us greatly in enforcing the law. >> talk about the internet service providers' role in trying to identify illegal restraint or downloaded content. what should comcast and verizon be doing to identify this and stop it? >> there are lots of policy issue involved, i.c.e. is law enforcement. what the i s p is can do is victoria's roles. that is for regulatory agencies. >> you are saying that from your efforts to identify illegal providers or distributors you are not working with the isp's to see how other pipelines and systems are being exploited? >> we work with them during our investigations, but it is a different role to ask how they should either use their own technology -- that is more of a policy function. it is not a law enforcement agency function. >> erik barnett, your boss is on his way to china next month to talk about piracy issues. what role does china play in piracy? >> in piracy and counterfeiting, china plays a very big role and could serve a very large enforcement function. i.c.e. is a sister agency with customs and border protection. together, we seize hundreds of thousands of goods last year from china. these are counterfeit goods, usually in the hard goods categories -- handbags and other counterfeit goods. indeed, about 80% of the counterfeit we see is at u.s. ports of entry are from china. part of the director's mission to china next month is to talk to china, as we have been regularly, about how we can work together to enforce both their laws against counterfeiting and piracy and our own laws. >> i want to turn back to file sharing. we talked about how the breakdown is in terms of how much content -- how tv shows are pirated through streaming are downloadable web sites or peer to peer sites. also, difficulties in gauging the volume. i understand it can be difficulties in understanding the number of files are getting incorrect estimate. i am interested to talk a little bit about that. >> the first round of "operation in our sites" was primarily driven by our meetings with industry. we work very closely with industry. they spend a significant amount of time, money, and effort looking at the problem, and looking at where their products are being offered and parted. none of the sites that were referred to as were peer-to-peer sites. all of them were streaming sites. one of the trends that is occurring, as you probably know, is that because of the bandwidth increases there is now more opportunity for individuals through linking sites and cyber lockers to obtain content, and less reliance on peer-to-peer sharing. >> peer-to-peer is a wide open system. even if you can go after the for-profit websites, you still have these other