tv Today in Washington CSPAN November 25, 2009 7:30am-9:00am EST
necessary so that we can create the space for a political solution in afghanistan that means our streets will be safer. i think it is as clear as that. >> tony lloyd. ? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware of the warning of the top cop of the dangers and the widespread need about the investments in the police commissioners. can the prime minister tell the house whether this labour government will ever allow the police to be politicized as the conservatives propose? >> mr. speaker, the operational independence the chief police officers is of and has been and should continue to be an important constitutional principle. it must be clear that chief officers and chief officers alone are responsible for running their force. and i believe that the leader of the opposition should immediately withdraw his proposal that would mean the politization of the police and has been criticized by the chairman in the last few days. >> dr. evan harris.
>> when the lord chancellor in march talked out my private members bill which would end the discrimination against catholics in the role of secession and women in the line of succession. the government recognized this discrimination should end. can the prime minister confirm that he is as the lord chancellor said is ready to consult the relevant commonwealth heads of government this week and can he say that he's confident that we can then sort this out so that the -- >> prime minister? >> mr. speaker, the act of succession is outdated. i think most people recognize the need for change. change can only be brought about by not just the united kingdom but all realms where her majesty is queen and making the decision to change. that is why it is important to discuss this with all members of the commonwealth with all
countries such as australia and canada and that is the process that will be undertaken in due course. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is my right honorable friend aware of the growing evidence in the north hamton families and the recession. as a result of the recession women are doing more of the bred-winning and men of more of the caring and what further measures will his government take to support the flexible working arrangements that are needed for today's working families? >> mr. speaker, there are about 500,000 more families receiving working tax or child tax credit as a result of the help we're giving in a recession. i think people in this country have got to make a choice. do we want to help families and help children through these difficult times or do we -- or do we want to cut inheritance tax for the wealthiest people in this country? i think i know what choice the people of this country are going to make? >> order. the chancellor of the ex checkter.
>> you can see this again sunday night at 9:00 pm eastern and pacific. for more information, check out our website, c-span.org. on the home page you see the heading international links. click on it for links to british parliament and legislatures around the world. you'll also see links to c-span programs dealing with other international issues. the address again is c-span.org. >> on this vote, theiers are 60, the nays are 59. three fifths voting it's agreed to. of >> translator: senate moves its healthcare bill to the floor live starting monday and through december, follow every minute of debate and how the bill will affect access to medical care, the public option, taxes,
abortion and medicare on the only network that brings you the senate gavel-to-gavel. c-span2. >> now an interview with neil barofsky. he's the inspector general for the troubled relief program or t.a.r.p. he's interviewed by matt winkler. from washington, d.c., this is half hour. >> neil, you know, i'd like to begin really at the -- i think the heart of what concerns most americans at this point. you said almost four weeks ago in a report to congress, and i'm quoting, that u.s. taxpayers are extremely unlikely to earn any return on the $700 billion the government invested to rescue the financial institutions including mostly banks, the biggest banks, from insolvency. does that mean that the $9.5 billion in front interest and
dividend payments that we've already seen and the $2.9 billion the government received from sales of warrants don't represent any kind of promising trend? >> well, no, i think it's certainly good that those things have occurred. but i think there's been an expectation -- some of it fueled about a 17% return and a profit. some think there may be a possibility of a dollar for dollar return or a profit on our t.a.r.p. investment and our observation that's just a very unrealistic expectation. the way this program has currently designed as evolved it includes outright subs disof which there's no expectation of a return. the mortgage modification program, that's $50 billion that by design is not going to come back to the treasury. tens of billions of dollars that will likely going to be lost on the automotive bailout and even within the capital purchase program, sure, we've got 2.9 billion that's come back in the sale of warrants but we've also
in a couple of weeks lost $2.6 billion through two t.a.r.p. recipients that have failed. i think we need to be realistic about our expectations that a dollar for dollar return is unrealistic. >> okay. we're in a new normal now, we're told, and like many of us who are contemplating our 401ks and we made a big investment in the nation's financial system which you are now auditing with great care, so what's the blended return we can expect? what's the best we can hope for, do you think? i mean, is it 5%? is it 2%? is it 8%? >> well, i think it's almost certainly going to be a loss. so i think the ultimate return is going to be a negative one. how big that negative is, it's still too hard to tell just because these programs are still being rolled out. the private/public investment has only now been funded and so much of it depends on so many
things that are uncertain. what does this recovery going to look like? is it going to be sustained. ? what's going to happen with all these different economic factors? all that is going to severely impact the ability of these financial institutions to pay back their t.a.r.p. funds, for the auto industry to survive. this program has become so wide and so broad that there is no easy answer. and it depends on so many different variables. >> so how long does this negative return persist? how long do we live with it? >> well, i think the t.a.r.p. itself -- the t.a.r.p. itself in our office exists as long as we own any of these assets, whether it's a share a stock of gm or citi or aig or the loans are written off or paid back. so i think it's going to be some number of years. >> you also concluded in front an october 5th audit that former
treasury secretary paulson and the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke weren't truthful with the american people when they said the t.a.r.p. was meant for healthy banks especially because they knew citigroup and bank of america were in danger of collapse. has the obama administration done a better job based on what you've observed? how would you rate the secretary of the treasury geithner's handling of the program so far? >> i think our criticism of the prior administration, in particular then-secretary paulson was being less than transparent. in saying that the banks were healthy when he had his own private concerns about individual banks -- in coming out and saying that they were healthy was a lack of transparency. it also created unrealistic expectations. it created the expectation that the financial institutions would return to lending. which we see is not happened. and that was our criticism there. and i think in many ways our criticisms about transparency
continue. secretary geithner have done some good things and they adopted our recommendations of posting all the contracts and agreements involving the t.a.r.p. up on the web with the stress tests and releasing information was positive. but in other areas they've been deficient and i think in particular in requiring t.a.r.p. recipients to report on their use of funds. and in certain other areas it has been disappointing. >> so what are the other areas -- what are the things -- specific things that the treasury should be doing that it's not doing right now? >> well, i think in the area of transparency, one, it needs to require t.a.r.p. recipients to report how they're using the funds. this is a recommendation i made to the last administration. it's one we continue to make today. and the good news we're continuing to engage in dialog. at one point treasury said they considered this closed and they rejected it but we continue to have discussions. we're going to continue to keep plugging away at this because we think it's so important. >> and was when the last time you literally spoke about this deficiency? >> i had a conversation with the
secretary a couple of weeks ago and in email contact today, not with the secretary but with the office of financial stability. we're going to plug away at this. >> what influence do you think the banks and their lobbyists are having on the whole process on t.a.r.p. right now? >> well, i think they have some impact, of course. and the question is -- not to presuppose your question, the question is, of course, they're going to have some impact. these programs as they evolve, as they change is more than a different programs is many cases voluntary. in designing these programs it's important to have impact -- input and dialog with the financial institutions to make sure that treasury is crafting a program that is not only effective but palpable. it can be used by the end user institutions. the question, though, when does that influence become too much. when does the interests of the banks overcome the interest of
the taxpayer and that's a very difficult and delicate balance and it's one that we're always on the lookout for. when i first took office i can't tell you how many times i would be having a sitdown and wondering about potential fraud in a program and a i would hear the response they are bankers and they wouldn't put their reputations at risk by committing of fraud. i coming from a background of securities fraud and that's what people thought about ken ley and bernie ebbers. and i think we've done a good job in sort of installing a greater degree of skepticism that what comes from wall street isn't necessarily the holy grail but that's going to continue to be attention and part of the process. >> and because of your experience and maybe you can help us out to understand, what are the signs that you look for that suggest to you that there's the possibility of fraud in the making? what are you looking for? >> it really depends on the different programs 'cause
each -- each of these t.a.r.p. programs are so different. but the capital purchase program, the investment in banks, there we're really looking at the typical indicia of securities fraud that i worked on for so many years as a prosecute. accounting restatements, you know, information, wild changes in earnings. the typical red flags that, you know, a company of typical securities fraud. we have a hotline we market aggressively on our website and we get tips from insiders who help focus us on some of these issues. we read the newspaper. and look for these types of things that look potentially suspicious. so in there it's really very typical of a securities fraud investigation. on the other hand in the mortgage modification program we look at some of the same similar types of things that would be indicia of mortgage fraud and try to raise up the right trip wires and flags. >> no, no. i was going to say. have there been any tips so far that have been great leads, hot
leads? >> oh, absolutely. we've probably had more than 7,000 hits on our website, of our approximately -- i think it's 65 ongoing criminal investigations. about half have come or have been -- value has been added to the investigation because stuff that's come in from the hotline. whether it's -- you know, we've had insiders of financial institutions call us up, blowing the whistle on internal things. victims who have contacted us. see, we rely to a certain degree on the american people, the taxpayers, to help us ferret out fraud. >> and what does that do for you and your relationship with all the people that you have to audit? i mean, how are you handling your public relations? >> well, i think we have a good working relationship with treasury. and the federal reserve. we do a lot of audit work there as well. i'd like there's a level of mutual respect for the most part or not -- i say the most part.
they are there doing their job. and their job is to try to bring stability and recovery. but we have a job as well. and part of that job is finding out the mistakes. finding out the errors. whether they're intentional or unintentional. and bring transparency to those mistakes. you know, one of the most fundamentally important things that we do as an office is to write a historical record, one that's not influenced by anything other than the cold, hard, facts. so sometimes that can be viewed as being somewhat harsh. obviously, at the time of the bailout last year, lots of things were going on. the house was on fire. and in that rush to put the fires out mistakes were made. and sometimes i think there may be a little bit of resentment that we're not more sensitive in some ways to the fact that this was a very chaotic situation. but we wouldn't be doing our job and wouldn't be for when the next crisis comes if we don't try to draw as much attention as we can to the mistakes and the lessons that we can learn from
those mistakes. >> do you see any historical parallel in what you're doing with what preceded you? is there anything that you think is analogous to your job right now? >> in some ways when you look back to what happened in the great depression and the congressional committees and the investigation, in some way it is. in both instances there's a looking-back on what happened and people will go go to jail tore fraud. and we're a unique organization in a unique crisis because we sit in the treasury department and that give us an access and an ability with every conceivable privilege and i think that give us an advantage even on our predecessors that we sort of have this unvarnished view of what happened. and i think it impacts our ability to do what we do. >> you know, the obama administration hasn't yet
decided to renew t.a.r.p. which is currently due to expire december 31st. should it? >> see, that's an answer i can't give you. you know, part of what we do in order to maintain our independence is that ultimately one day i may very well be auditing that decision. and reviewing whether or not it was properly made, what the consideration were, both political and economical policy and if i came out whether they should or i shouldn't and it would be difficult for me to have that necessary level of independence. so whatever my private views may be, i really can't talk about them in public. >> you mentioned earlier all the tips that you get, how many fraud cases is your office working on right now? >> at the close of last quarter about 65 open investigations. and they really have a broad range from some very, very complex securities fraud cases to some lower level mortgage fraud cases. really anything that you can imagine with so much money being
pushed out of a government program in a short merit inevitably there will be flies to honey. the fraudsters are going to come out and our investigations would track what you would expect. >> so do you ever ask yourself why i took this job? do you have second thoughts? >> sure. i mean, look, this job can be challenging when you're on the receiving end of criticism from some of the most powerful people in the world and, you know, you sort of scratch your head and say, why did i get myself inside. -- in this. i wish i were back prosecuting criminals back in new york for sure. i spent the last nine years of my life in public service i never really imagined that i would have an opportunity to serve on this level and to be able to be part of history and to be part of what stands between the taxpayer and those who are seeking to steal or waste or abuse up to $700 billion of their money.
it's an awesome responsibility but i feel so fortunate that i had an opportunity to serve my country on this. >> and on that note, maybe you can unbundle some of your thinking with some of our colleagues here. if there are any questions. >> mr. barofsky, i'm with the detroit bureau of bloomberg. recently we saw a deal that general motors could serve its european operations and the board decided to keep that part of european operations which means money which would have come from the german government is not coming and general motors is spending its money to restructure european operations and many cases making decisions about european jobs. does this concern you at all? >> we're looking into this issue from the perspective of corporate governance. in other words, what is the role
of the united states as a very significant shareholder in general motors. we're not looking at it from the auto industry but across the institution where we have a significant interest and what role the united states is playing in the management of those companies. the united states is the government the obama administration stated repeatedly that it wants to have the board run the company the way they deem appropriate and that's obviously a policy balance against the concerns raised by you which is taxpayer money being used to fund opal and make sure europeans maintain their jobs. we're going to do an audit product that really takes a look at what the obama administration has said its role is going to be and compare to what's actually happened and see how those match up and come up with some ideas and recommendations going forward. so we're going to take a look from an audit perspective but it's important to remember that when this money was invested, whether it was with general motors or citi or in the capital
purchase program, different level of conditions were put on -- were put into place and in some cases virtually no conditions. so there's very little our office can do, whether we agree or disagree with the particular use of capital, it is, of course, governed by the terms of the united states, an agreement with these different institutions. >> what do you consider an accomplishment then in that context? what would you consider accomplishment? >> i'm sorry. accomplishment for my office? >> yeah. >> number one, transparency. i think that there's a lot of head-scratching and a lot of confusion about what really is going. we sort of hear conflicting things, particularly, with the auto task force and what's going on with general motors and chrysler and i think us getting if and getting behind and looking under the hood and seeing exactly what's going on, i think that alone provides an important tool for the american people and for policymakers to understand what's happening and frequently we do an audit, just
the presence of the audit has an impact. just the fact that my auditors are there reaching around asking the tough questions, that necessarily impacts how things are being done and i think it keeps people more honest when they know that there's going to be a t.a.r.p. report in a couple months detailing exactly what happened. >> yes. i'm a banker in south texas with international bank of commerce. and we're recipients of some t.a.r.p. money. it seems to me that some of the recipients of t.a.r.p. money or -- that there's been a stigma right now, a negative stigma with the banks that have received some of the t.a.r.p. money. when, in fact, a lot of regional banks including us and some of the smaller community banks were really not -- you mentioned the word bailed out per se. there were other reasons why we received some of this t.a.r.p. money. we were and are continuing to be a healthy bank. but what -- what is your office
doing to eliminate the stigma because there are some other banks in our communities advertising to the fact that we're not recipients of t.a.r.p. money in the advertising campaigns? and what is your office doing to eliminate some of this -- the negative aspects of this t.a.r.p. money? >> i think that's an excellent point. and i think part of what we're doing or what we're trying to do -- you know, we sort of have limited arrows in our quiver to address some of these concerns because ultimately these are the concerns that need to be addressed by treasury itself in the office of financial stability that's actually running this program. but i think the one area that we try to do and where did the stigma come from is going back to the basic transparency issue. the problem is -- and it goes back -- to answer your question before, when they rolled this program out and said this is a program for healthy, buyable banks that will use this money to start lending. and, of course, if that was -- if that stayed true, if that
statement was proven by latter events we wouldn't be having this stigma but sure enough within a matter of months additional money to bank of america, additional money to citi, merrill lynch gone and that lack of transparency has fueled a lot of the cynicism that people feel towards this program. and i think that one of the unfortunate byproducts is that some very healthy buyable well managed good banks at that received t.a.r.p. funds because during a time in a crisis it was affordable way to raise capital have been blackened by a bad representation and it is a unfair thing and one of the things that we try to do is by continuing to advocate for greater and greater transparency is to try and make sure that mistake isn't repeated again. >> hi, you mentioned commercial real estate. and certainly there are other loan holdings that the large financial institutions have that might include second mortgages and some other things that there may be some valuation questions on.
how do you see that affecting the ability it off repay the taxpayers? >> i'm certainly not an expert on commercial real estate but i've read a lot about it and it certainly does appear for a lot of the mechanics in the market and particularly the impact of continuing to rise unemployment and the impact that has on the commercial -- commercial real estate being able to collect on rents and lease holders to be able to make their payments and this whole extend and pretend as it's been -- it's explained in the financial press of banks not recognizing losses or marking down holdings of commercial real estate but just reworking the loans and then trying to extend them out in the hopes that a recovery will hopefully bring everything back before the day of reckoning comes. these are obviously huge concerns especially for the regional banks and their ability to repay t.a.r.p. if they
have -- if these losses continue and if this extension doesn't work it could be the next proverbial shoe to drop that includes hundreds of additional bank failures. maybe not the too big to fail banks but for a lot of the regional banks that t.a.r.p. recipients and there's something the other day of a t.a.r.p. recipient out west the fdic has said you have to stop paying your dividend payments on t.a.r.p. and the bank came out and said well, we want to pay it, we don't want to be on the deadbeat list. the fdic said to preserve your capital you have to stop. these impacts and the necessity to maintain capital is going to have a dramatic impact on how we do and the ultimate question of how big the losses are going to be. >> hello? >> i don't remember t.a.r.p. being pitched as a negative return investment proposal. and i believe elizabeth warren had said in other places that
there was testimony by secretary paulson that the investments were 100 cents on the dollar and let's just assume that was -- and then she said off further audit it wasn't 100 cents on the dollar. now, coming from the private sector as i do, making statements like that in proposing and presenting an investment opportunity might have caused concern with the scc and afterwards. is there any accountability of those statements for the government officials? do you believe they were said with simply mistakes that it was 100 cents on the dollar or that we were going to have a return of some sort or how should that be viewed and what sort of accountability should be made in the system for those people who sold us this program? >> i think you have to look at the statements -- and one of the frustrations is this program has changed so many over time. so a program that was -- i
thought you were originally going to say wasn't this supposed to be a program designed to buy toxic assets off books and banks. that's how it was initially sold before it was the capital purchase program and professor warren did her study which showed if the government was acting as a typical market participate making these types of investments at that time it would have gotten better terms and more advantageous terms. and, of course, treasury's response to that is you have to balance that that this wasn't purely a going out to the market and trying to be the same as berkshire hathaway investing in goldman sachs. this is some ways a bailout and the whole idea here was not just to capitalize and get the best returns possible but to stimulate the banks, shore up their capital and put them in a better place for continued lending. the statements themselves can be dissected and trisecretaried. -- trisected.
this is from secretary paulson, these are healthy banks which is not exactly how he felt about it. that is one one form of accountability and i think history will show other forms of accountability in the cost of how history looks at these individuals and the role that they play. as opposed to, i think, what's on the other side of your -- the comparison that you made is are they guilty of securities fraud or pumping up these institutions? i think if you look at the statements, that would be a hard sell. this was not quite the same as some of the statements, i think, that you're alluding to as opposed to maybe optimistic projections on the returns on the actual investments. [inaudible] >> or just wrong. >> we have another question here. >> this morning boone pickens told this group that crude oil could get up to $300 a barrel. what was the highest oil price used in the stress test for the
t.a.r.p. recipients? >> i have no idea. the stress test was done by a federal reserve. we haven't audited them and led by the federal reserve so i don't know. but i think going to your question certainly some of the assumptions in the stress test including in the adverse case scenario we've already blown by so i think part of your question probably is the point that, you know, how stressful were these stress tests and i think the answer is in certain aspects it would seem that at times we've gone past the adverse scenario. >> you're saying the stress tests weren't stressful enough? >> i'm saying some weren't stressful enough given some of the numbers on the adverse scenario seemed to be surpassed. >> i was wondering do you support the breaking up the too big to fail banks? >> i think -- i wouldn't go -- sort of going back to my statement really getting into the details of what the right policy response is.
but i think that there needs to be some significant regulatory reform in dealing too big to fail. if it's pretty generally accepted that the concept of too big to fail and having these large systematically significant institutions, the collapse of any one of which could potentially drag down the entire system and we're going to be addressing this in an audit next week on aig and the federal reserve's payment to its counter-parties of 100 cents on the dollar in particular was a major problem of this crisis. and i think the biggest problem is what have we done since then and what has the t.a.r.p. and the related bailout programs have done and what it's done it's made them even bigger. they're more concentrated. a lot by government urging, government-sponsored mergers and acquisitions, whether it's merrill lynch -- bank of america with merrill lynch. whether it's bear stearns being gobbled w2s by jp morgan and t risk is even larger and i think absent some type of regulatory
reform i think paul volcker's solution of bringing back and putting a wall between the commercial banking and the investment banking is one potential solution. i think there's a lot of very interesting things coming out of legislative proposal, senator dodd's proposal versus congressman frank's proposal. and we'll have to see how those play out but i think the failure to address this situation after we've now made that implicit guarantee of we're not going to let these too big to fail banks fail now that we made it explicit and affirmatively stated that they will not let these fail and failure to address this will create problems with moral hazard and systemic risk that will make where we were last year seem almost pedestrian compared to the risks that we're headed to. ..
>> before the restructuring and the bankruptcy. the administration has stated that it is a low likelihood or very difficult for that money to be recovered. that is the tens of billions that i was referring to. i think that number, it's in our most recent quarterly report. that is the area we think. again, you can see our quarterly report on that.
also if you look at the congressional oversight panel's recent report they also cite two interviews they connected with administration officials would also make reference to that. >> i see that our time is up, and i think i can speak for everyone. if we can't have happy returns may be we can have some returns. >> thank you very much. [applauding] >> we take you live now to an event with education secretary duncan and new york city mayor bloomberg. they will be talking about the obama administration's race to the top program which sets conditional federal education -- sets conditions for federal education dollars. this is the center for american progress. [inaudible conversations]
>> at the center for american progress in washington the education secretary will be here as well as new york mayor michael bloomberg talking about federal education dollars. it should get underway shortly. the associated press is reporting this morning that president obama expects americans to support sending tens of thousands more u.s. troops to afghanistan. he will make his case to the nation next week. military officials expect an infusion of approximately 32,000 last 35,000 trips beginning in february or march. >> remind everyone to please turn off their cell phones and blackberries. we we get to the question and
>> on this day before thanksgiving waiting here at the center for american progress. former white house chief of staff now with the center for american progress waiting for this discussion on federal education dollars. education secretary duncan as will new york city mayor bloomberg. that is joe klein, the head of the new york city school system [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome. i'm the president for the center for american progress. we are very pleased to have back at the center three people who have been at the forefront of the fight to give every kid in our country a quality education and a chance to succeed. secretary of education duncan, mayor of new york city bloomberg, and katie. i think the fact that this wednesday before thanksgiving, 8:00 in the morning. we have a full house and a lot of cameras. it's either a testament to the fact that timeliness and the
quality of this discussion or they are expecting you to announce decisions this morning. but seriously, we are here today to discuss this is a reform and the 21st century, an issue that could not be more timely to keep our global edge and economies try the nation needs to get education ride. many to improve our failing schools and close the persistent achievement caps and prepare all e all students regardless of the family background with the workplace of the 21st century. that is with these great leaders and our team here at cap led by sandra brown have been striving for. the american recovery and reinvestment act targeted for education reform 4.35 billion in the top funds. 2 million for the teacher incentive on, $250 million in a
statewide longitudinal data grants and $3 billion in title one school improvement grants, a total of $8 billion. the race for the top program is special. provides an unprecedented oppression before innovation for reform. the program also requires states and cities to make hard decisions and to commit to change. the focus of the department's requirements for the race to the top fund parallels the priority of the center for american progress. first and foremost focus on improving teacher effectiveness through rigorous evaluation systems test, meaningful to new processes, and support for new teachers and those needing to strengthen the teaching skills, and removal of those who do not improve, all working together with teacher representatives. we at the center also urged rigorous national common standards, strong accountability, expanded
learning time in community schools for our most disadvantaged students, and greater fairness in distribution of financial and human-resources. the issue of innovation has long been important to the center. before we got bogged down in this great recession, before there wasn't race to the top we began a project together with the u.s. chamber of congress. the project culminated in a state-by-state report card of innovation in the states, which released earlier this month with secretary duncan. we help can trigger future state action. what is unprecedented is how the department's discretionary funding is leveraging reform activity among states even before it is awarded. as you know a number of states have made changes to state laws to be eligible for race to the top funding. i am sure many of you noted the change in california's law prohibiting the linking of teacher and student data for
evaluation purposes. and many other states are taking these programs very seriously. indeed there are reports that 30 states plan to apply for race to the top funds. governors are convening working groups and state legislatures in several states including illinois and massachusetts taking action to position their states more competitively to be aboard these grants. these funds are beginning to re-shape policy before they even the the department of education. seriously we encourage more bold efforts by the state can within districts because the magnitude of this federal funding to opportunity is unlikely to rise again any time soon. in many cases the politics of making changes will be tough. the carrot of these funding schemes will be a powerful lever. it is essential to bring all the stakeholders to the table when defining and advocating first
transformative education system changes. just as important as the stimulus dollars for education reform is the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education act, a process we hope begins early next year. almost everyone recognizes that major improvements are necessary, and we must learn from the most successful actions and outcomes of state and local efforts with race to the top dollars, as well as the school improvement innovation and tip programs that are in ara. as the reauthorization moves forward it should include a strong and more thoughtful -- acknowledges different types of degrees and target intervention more specifically to meet his needs. the approach to accountability should also prevent widely airing state standards by assessment and accountability standards. the teacher quality needs to be
improved substantially. in addition we need new programs for middle and high schools to take aggressive steps to prevent dropouts and recapture those who have left school as well as students on a faster track to college, early college and dual enrollment. there also needs to be more substantial programming that links academic learning time and experience, and community support for low-income students. a big task. much remains to be done. that's what this event brings together some of the nation's leading education reformers to talk about how best to improve our education system and prepare students for the future. i am pleased to introduce briefly your tree speakers who have agreed to do with this. of course the secretary of education, a former superintendent of chicago schools. he together with president obama is leading an extraordinary effort to transform america's
public schools. michael bloomberg is the mayor of new york city. in 2002 the new york state legislature awarded him control of the city's school system. he along with chancellor joe klein who is also with us this morning has initiated several major performers that are paying off for new york students. finally kati haycock as president of the education trust, a leading national advocacy organization on behalf of low-income students and students of color, have teamed up on several other strategies for closing the nation's shameful achievement. they will participate in a panel led by our vice president for education policy. let me thank you all again for being here this morning, especially to our speakers were agreeing to get up early and address this important topic. secretary duncan, let me hand it off to you. thank you. [applauding]
>> thank you, john. i'm honored to be here. i want to thank the mayor and katie . it is a huge opportunity to share this panel with them. many politicians run away from education. in there that ran on education. psst they do so much for your courage. kati haycock has spent a lifetime focused on equity and closing the achievement gap. she is a smart woman. the way we close the gap is to get to great teachers and great principals. laser-like focus is exactly right. we are seeing now more than ever not just great classrooms, but schools that are consistently closing achievement gaps, not for one child are one miraculously year, but year after year. continues to spotlight on what is possible in putting the myth
and the lie into any stereotype that children of color can't learn. i think the challenge we face boils down to a conversation the president had recently in interpretation. he met with the president of south korea and asked him what the biggest challenge in education was. the president went on and on. his point was the biggest challenge in south korea is that his parents are too demanding. parents are asking them to do too much too fast. somehow even the poorest of parents expect the best education. he is having to import thousands of teachers into his country because every child in that country is learning english in the second grade. so the question is when the rest of the world is a very serious about this and very committed and working very hard how do we awaken our country to understand how critically important it is for our children to have a chance to compete, for all of
our children, particularly disadvantaged children to have a world-class education? we have to get to the point where this is really being driven from the ground up. communities are demanding better for the children. until we get to that day and awaken from the point of complacency and apathy and acceptance of the status quo we have to continue to push very, very hard for change. what are we trying to do with race to the top? well, it sounds crazy because it is a lot of money. it is really not about the money. we are asking folks to make the kinds of changes. this money will last for two, three, four years. we want the kind of fundamental changes that will last for two, three, four decades. the question we're asking ourselves every day is can we use an unprecedented amount of resources in a time limited time to change public education in this country for the next three or four decades. you want to invest in those places that have that kind of
commitment and long term vision. i see this not so much as the competition between states. i see it up a bit differently. this is really a test of two things. i think the courage and the capacity within states to deliver dramatically better results for children. this is less about states looking over their shoulder and to what other folks are doing, but really doing a gut check and a heart check and looking deep within themselves and seeing that they have the collective the ship ability, the courage, the will power, the staying power to fundamentally do things in dramatically different ways at the local levels. the two challenges in education historically, one is a massive under investment. and while money is never enough, hundred billion dollars coming into education. the other big thing that's lacking is the political will, courage, and what i call at all
this function. part of the reason education is so hard or complicated is you need so many adults stakeholders' on the same page. you need education leaders, political leaders, parents, community support, philanthropic community, the business community, a nonprofit full-service agencies. you need everybody parking on behalf of children. in far too many places the as adults do to their own egos, silos, and agendas, those agendas have been at odds with each other. when adults fight children lose. i see our resources basically venture-capital. we want to invest not just in a great ceo but we want to invest in great management teams. where we see alignment, where basic collective courage, where we see a willingness to challenge the status quo and fundamental different ways those of the kinds of places that we want to invest in. we have been very clear what is important to us, raising the bar dramatically, much higher
standards. secondly, transparency around data. i have talked a lot about the louisiana. please add tracks students' progress. the track teachers. they attract teachers back to their schools of education back to there different alternative certification rounds so that after hundreds of thousands of students and tens of thousands of teachers use the schools of education literally changing their curriculum based upon the results of the students of their alumni. louisiana does not have some technology the rest of the country can figure out. this is not some technological breakthrough. this is simply having the courage to say that great teaching matters and that adults make a great difference in students lives. retract these things over time in a method or philosophy of continuing improvement mprovemen get dramatically better. so i question why when it's not
some miracle technology that has been patented, why is it today we only have one state operating in this matter. third great talent matters. thinking about how we get the best and brightest teachers to the children and the communities that have been historically and research. for all the huge challenges and dropout rate that is devastating. to many of our high school graduates are not ready for college. i have never been more hopeful because we have never had more examples of success. schools and school districts beating the odds. how are they doing it? by getting the most talented adults in front of the children who need the most help. we have to start to do that systemically. and then finally as a country having the courage to fundamentally turn around chronically underperforming schools. we have under 1,000 schools in
our country. only 2,000 high schools, not that many. african-american, latino. that is fundamentally unacceptable. and what is heartbreaking to me is in most of those communities that has been true for ten, 20, 30 years. we just look for incremental change. we have not had the political will and the courage to do things when the mentally different. what we want to do is invest unprecedented resources in states, and districts, and nonprofits and universities there willing to raise the bar for all students and the transparent iran student achievement and think very differently about how you create a real and meaningful incentives to get great talent into underserved communities and people who are willing to chance the status quo.
schools are actually perpetuating poverty and social failure. it is an extraordinary opportunity. a lot of focus on race to the top. look at all of the other discretionary resources, school improvement grants, investment innovation, money for technology. north of $10 billion. we have never had this kind of discretionary resource to read a think of all the challenges the department of education has been part of the problem. within this big compliance driven bureaucracy. we are trying to look in the mirror every day and be very self critical and fundamentally change the business we are in from being about complaints and audits to be about driving innovation so that just as we push everyone's behavior i promise you we challenge ourselves to do things very differently within the building. it is an extraordinary opportunity. juane talk about the tremendous movement without spending a dime. think there is an appetite.
there is the willingness now a sense of urgency that has not existed before. our goal is to capture that and build upon the courage and great at the local level and fundamentally transform education. if we get is that the states to break through and lead the country the rest of the country will follow behind that. i look for to the conversation. it is my honor to introduce the mayor of new york city, mayor bloomberg. [applauding] >> arne, thank you, and good morning, everyone. it's great to see you. kati, thank you for coming. i'm joined by our deputy mayor for education, as well as joe klein, our great chancellor. i am sure everyone here is making about turkey and pumpkin pie. tonight i will be watching balloons being blown up. you can watch it on television. it is an incredible experience. i can't imagine as much hot air in one place, although this is
washington. it is always a pleasure to be here in the nation's capital, particularly since this is the only city his basketball team is jerry as badly as new york's. i feel right at home. i ride the subway every day. the only time anybody has ever yelled at me is one time as a listing of the big hoking garlic to me, glared at me and screamed fix the knicks. there are some things even the mayor can do. president obama took office earlier this year. we are told we should never allow a serious crisis to go a waste. the president is not only working to stabilize the financial community and financial market, the on the industry, he is focused on our long-term economic challenges including the auto industry's public sector equivalent and that is our school system. if you think about it both the
auto industry and our school system were built for another era. neither can compete in the 201st century without a major structural reforms that place consumers at the center of their operations. in the case of our schools the consumers are the children. not the politicians, not the labor unions. schools exist to ensure. >> well, as you can see, we are having a signal problem from this event for the center for american progress. a bit of a rainy day in washington. we are going to leave this now. we can tell you that we are recording the program and will show it to you in its entirety later in our program scandal. we apologize for the signal interruption. the discussion on federal education dollars with mayor bloomberg. federal education secretary arne duncan. again, taping the program and hope to show that to you later in our program schedule on
c-span networks. and we are going to move on with our program schedule. last night president obama posted his first state dinner as president with the indian prime minister at the white house, actually a tent outside the white house. here are the tests from last night's stay tender. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states
>> please be seated. good evening, everyone. on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. many of you were here when i was honored to become the first president to help celebrate the festival of lights. [applause] >> some of you were here for the first white house celebration of the birth of the founder of seekism. [applause] >> tonight, we gather again for the first state dinner of my presidency.
with prime minister manmohan singh as we celebrate the great and growing partnership between the united states and india. as we all know in india, some of life's most treasured moments are often celebrated under the cover of a beautiful tent. and it's a little like tonight. we have incredible food and music. and are surrounded by great friends. for it's been said the beautiful things is the starry heavens above us and, mr. prime minister, we work to bring our countries together than ever before. tonight under the stars we celebrate the spirit that will sustain our partnership, the bonds of friendship between our people. it's a bond that includes more than 2 million indian americans who enrich every corner of our great nation. leaders in government, science and the arts some of us join us
tonight and it's the bond of friendship between a president and a prime minister who are bound by the name unshakeable spirit of possibility and brotherhood that transformed both our nations. a spirit that gave rise to movements led by giants like gandhi and king. and which are the reasons both of us can stand here tonight. and so as we draw upon these ties that bind our common future together, i want to close with the words that your first prime minister spoke at that midnight hour of the eve of indian independence. the achievement we celebrate today is but a step. an opening of opportunity to the great triumphs and achievements that await us. the past is over and it is the future that beckens us now. so i propose a toast to all of you.
does the prime minister get a glass. thank you. just logistically we want to make sure the prime minister has a glass here. [laughter] >> to the future that beckons all of us. let us answer its call and let our two great nations realize all the triumphs and achievements that await us. cheers. >> mr. president, the first
lady, mrs. michelle obama, distinguished guests, i feel privileged to be invited to this first state banquet, mr. president, under your distinguished presidency. you do us and the people of india a great honor by this wonderful gesture. on your part. we are overwhelmed by the warmth of your hospitality. thein courtesy you have extende to us personally and the grace and charm of the first lady. [applause]
>> mr. president, your journey to the white house has captured the imagination of millions and millions of people in india. you are an inspiration to all those who cherish the values of democracy, diversity, and equal opportunity. [applause] >> mr. president, i can do no better than to describe your achievements in the words of abraham lincoln, who said, and i quote, it's not the years in your life that count, it is the
life in your years, unquote. [applause] >> mr. president, we warmly applaud the recognition by the nobel committee after hearing that you have provided and the power of your idealism and your vision. [applause] >> mr. president, your leadership of this great nation of the united states coincides with the time of profound changes taking place in the world at large.
we need to find new partners of international cooperation that respond more effectively to the grave challenges caused by the qq'ce of nations.&qw as two leading democracies, india and the united states must play a leading role in&y buildi a shared destiny for all human kind. mr. president, a strong and sustained engagement between our two countriesb;y is good for ou people and equally it is highly important for the world as a whole. we are embarking on a new phase of our partnership.
we should build on our common values andb)y interests to rea the enormous potential and promise of our partnership. our expanding cooperation in areas of social and human development, science and technology, energy, and other related areas will improve the quality of lives of millions of people in our country. the success of the nearly 2.7 million strong american communities is a tribute to our common goals. they have enriched and deepened
profoundly from the core of my heart. [applause] >> mr. president,h.y i convey m very best wishes to you.' mr. president, as you lead this great nation and look forward to working with you to renew and expand our strategic partnership, i wish you and the people of america a very, very happy thinking. -- happy thanksgiving. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i
invite you to join me in a toast to the health and happiness of president barack obama and the first lady, mrs. obama, the friendly people of the united states of america and stronger and stronger friendship between india and the united states of america. >> cheers. >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you, everybody. enjoy your evening. [applause]
>> a year from now i'll break my leg and my parents will have to sell their house because we couldn't afford healthcare. >> three months from now i'll need surgery. and my parents will go bankrupt because they can't afford healthcare. >> two years from now i'll be dyiiagnosed from leukemia and il die because we couldn't afford healthcare. >> there are 8 million children without healthcare. >> we all deserve healthcare. >> the democratic national committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> saturday night as americans laid down for sleep, moderate
democrats laid down their beliefs, sold out their constituents, rolled by pressure from barack obama and harry reid. they voted to move afford a government-run healthcare bill our nation does not want and can't afford. one member sold her vote to the highest bidder. one member sold out his principles. two more lost what little credibility they had on fiscal responsibility. another put the interests of the left of his party before his own state. and another voted one way after saying she was for another. it's no wonder why democrats voted in the dead of night. >> you can watch more of those ads and read the senate healthcare's bill, the
congressional budget office cost estimate and more online, c-span healthcare's hub and they have hearings and speeches and the health proposal on healthcare all at c-span.org/healthcare. the senate homeland security heard testimony last thursday on the fort hood shooting. none of the military officials investigating the shooting appeared at this public portion of the hearing. witnesses did include retired army weiss chief of staff jacque cane and former bush administration security advisor fran townsend. this is just over two hours. >> the hearing will come to order. this morning our committee begins an investigation as serious and consequential as any it has ever undertaken.
an american soldier nidal hasan has been charged with killing 12 of his fellow soldiers and one civilian on an american military base in texas in what i believe based on available evidence was a terrorist attack. the purpose of this committee's investigation is to determine whether that attack could have been prevented, whether the federal agencies and employees involved missed signals or failed to connect dots in a way that enabled nidal hasan to carry out his deadly attack. if we find such errors or negligence, we will make recommendations as best we can that they never occur again. that's our purpose here. we are conducting this investigation because we believe it is our responsibility to do so according to law and senate rules.
we are both the homeland security committee and over the long term the governmental affairs committee, which under the rules has a special responsibility to conduct oversight of executive branch actions particularly when as in this case there are questions about those actions. we know it will be very difficult to fulfill our committee's responsibility without the cooperation of the executive branch. yesterday, i want to report -- i spoke with secretary of defense gates and attorney general holder and asked their cooperation in allowing the bipartisan staff of this committee to interview relevant individuals in their departments and obtain relevant documents as part of this investigation of the murders at fort hood. secretary gates and attorney general holder both said they respected our authority to conduct such an investigation
and wanted to work out an understanding in which they could cooperate so long as our investigation did not hamper or compromise the criminal investigation and prosecution of the accused murderer nidal hasan. i assured them that our committee understood and respected the difference between their criminal investigation and our congressional investigation. their criminal investigation is to bring an accused to justice. our congressional investigation is to learn whether the federal government or any of its employees could have acted in a way that would have prevented these murders from occurring. their investigation in one sense looks backward and is punitive. ours looks forward and is preventive. i'm optimistic that we will work out a way for both
investigations to proceed without compromising either. our staffs will be meeting with representatives of the department of justice and defense very soon to try to work out ground rules for both investigations without interfering with each other. but i can say that i'm encouraged and appreciative that senator collins and i and our staff have received one classified briefing on the hasan case and will soon receive another. and have been given access to some very relevant classified documents relating to this matter. so we're off to a good cooperative start. and we're going to be insistent about this because it really is our responsibility to do so. at the completion of our investigation, we will issue a report and recommendations. i want to make clear this morning that we intend to carry out this investigation with respect for the thousands of
muslim americans who are serving in the american military with honor. and the millions of other patriotic, law-abiding muslims who live in our country. but we do no favor to all of our fellow americans who are muslim by ignoring real evidence that a small number of their community have, in fact, become violent islamists and extremists. it seems to me here at the outset and based on what we know now, that there are three basic areas of importance in which our committee in this investigation will want to gather facts and draw conclusions. first, if it seems to be the case there were colleagues of nidal hasan in the u.s. army who heard him say things or watched him do things that raised concerns in their minds about
his mental stability and/or his political extremism, the question is were those concerns conveyed up the chain of command and were they recorded anywhere hasan's personnel fines and did the army do anything in response to those concerns? what did the joint terrorism task forces headed by the fbi have about hasan including transcripts of emails which he had with a subject of investigation that the fbi acknowledged publicly it had in its possession. the acknowledgement came last week? what judgments were made about those emails? was any attempt made to investigate hasan further after
his email traffic with the subject of an ongoing joint terrorism task force investigation was intercepted? and third, was the information which the joint terrorism task force had on hasan shared with anyone in the u.s. army, the department of defense or anyone else in our government. those to me are three central questions, though by no means all the questions. we will pursue painstakingly an answer as completely as we can before we reach conclusions and make recommendations. this morning, we are really grateful to have with us -- to help us consider both those questions and others a very experienced and thoughtful panel of witnesses.
with experience in terrorism, counterterrorism, law enforcement and the military. we have asked our witnesses to give us their first reactions to what we know of the murders at fort hood and to what we know of the accused murderer, nidal hasan, based on the publicly available evidence. i also hope that they will offer us their advice about what other questions our investigation should raise regarding the focus of our inquiry, which is the conduct of employees of the department of justice, the department of defense, or any other federal agency or department. i really want to thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to your testimony, which i am confident will get this committee's investigation off to exactly the right start. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. chairman, let me begin this morning saluting you for your leadership and for your courage in proceeding with this investigation and these hearings. i can think of no more important tasks for this committee to undertake. in investigating the september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the commission led by tom kean and lee hamilton discovered vital information scattered throughout the government, confined by agency silos that might have prevented the deaths and destruction of that terrible day. if only the dots had been connected. in the wake of the mass murder at fort hood, we once again must
confront a troubling question. was this another failure to connect the dots? much has been done since 9-11-2001 attacks. we have additional task forces and fusion centers. we revised information-sharing policies and promoted greater cooperation among intelligence agencies and law enforcement. and the results have been significant. terrorist plots, both at home and abroad have been thwarted. the recent arrest of zazi demonstrates the benefits, the tremendous benefits of
information-sharing and joint efforts by the nctc and other intelligence agencies as well as federal, state and local law enforcement. but the shootings at fort hood may indicate that communications failures and poor judgment calls can defeat the systems intended to ensure that vital information shared to protect our country and its citizens. this case also raises questions about whether or not restrictive rules have a chilling effect on the legitimate dissemination of information making it too difficult to connect the dots that would have allowed a clear picture of the threat to emerge. these are the overarching questions that we will explore with our export witnesses today.
our ongoing investigation will also seek answers to questions specific to the fort hood case. for example, how did our intelligence community and law enforcement agencies handle intercepted communications between major hasan and a radical cleric who was a known al-qaeda associate? did they contact anyone in major hasan's chain of command to relay concerns? did they seek to interview major hasan himself? when major hasan reportedly began to openly question the oath that he had taken to support and defend the constitution of the united states, did anyone in his military chain of command intervene? when major hasan, in his
presentation at walter reed, in 2007, recommended that the department of defense allow, quote, muslim soldiers the option of being released as contentious objectors to increase moral, end quote, did his colleagues and superior officers view this statement as a red flag? were numerous warning signs ignored because the army faces a severe shortage of psychiatrists and because the army was concerned as the chief of staff has subsequently put it about a backlash against muslim soldiers? these are all troubling questions that we will seek to answer. for nearly four years, this committee has been investigating the threat of home grown terrorism.
we have explored radicalization in our prisons. the cycle of violent radicalization and how the internet can act as a virtual terrorist training camp. we have warned that individuals within the united states can be inspired by al-qaeda's violent ideology to plan and execute attacks even if they do not receive any direct orders from al-qaeda to do so. and we've learned of the difficulty of detecting lone wolf terrorists. to prevent future home grown terrorist attacks, we must better understand why law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and our military personnel system may have failed in this case.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on